Cat Chat (please go to cat chat 2)

[Hime]

What's everyone's opinions on breeding cats for genetic mutations (munchkins for example)? I'm kind of on the fence about it since it can go either way and it does depend on if they're bred for health, looks, pets, work, etc.

They are cute I have to admit that... But I haven't really gotten into the breeds that much. For what I understand the mutations are lethal if it comes from both of the parents. But in those cases the kitten will not be even born, as the embryo doesn't even start to develop. And what I've read they can use any normal cat to breed with a mutation to avoid the lethality issue, but how can you have a breed standard if you can breed the mution to any type of cat you want. I'm not avare if they have any common illnesses or issues caused by the mutations or something that has come up from breeding, other than the 'little' lethality issue I mentioned. As said I'm not overly familiar with the matter, though I did little research while back after I watched a video clip of a munchkin kitten with my friends, but that's all. So if someone knows better please tell me so.
All I know my country's cat organisation doesn't accept munchkins or folds nor does FIFe. So until they are accepted in FIFe(which would lead to our organisation accepting them most likely) I doubt they will be popular around where I live.

[Jazi]

Cat breeds are all bred for mutation. How nearly all of the breeds (barring natural breeds) started was that someone found a street cat they liked and wanted to make more that looked like them, or got a surprise in one of their litters and wanted to make more, etc. Unlike dogs, cats were not really bred for unique jobs except to cuddle and look pretty.

I do not support the breeding of moggies outside of simple farm cats, which aren't really pets to begin with. I don't like people who breed for dangerous mutations such as munchkin or manx.

[Ruruskadoo]

What's everyone's opinions on breeding cats for genetic mutations (munchkins for example)? I'm kind of on the fence about it since it can go either way and it does depend on if they're bred for health, looks, pets, work, etc.

I agree entirely with what Jaz said on the matter. Normal muttcats have no business breeding, as there are already a TON of moggies out there of all ages in need of homes. As with dogs, I think people should ONLY breed cats if there's something truly different about them that they think would make a good breed.

I do want to add though that I think health needs to be bred for as well. If the mutation causes a lot of health issues, I don't think it should be bred for. With Scottish folds I know that because it's caused by a cartilage defect, if you breed two folded eared cats together you can get really unhealthy kittens, so of course I wouldn't approve of that, but assuming breeding them normally (folded eared x normal eared) produces healthy kittens, I'm fine with it. With Munchkins, I was originally not a fan because it seemed cruel to rob cats of their abilities to jump and climbed, but apparently they're still perfectly capable of running, jumping, and climbing, and they don't seem to be particularly unhealthy, (although of course since they're a relatively new breed they need to be watched carefully to make sure health issues don't arise) so I don't see anything wrong with breeding them. Persians on the other hand can have issues due to their shortened snout. Brachycephalic (smooshed faced) animals can have a lot of breathing issues, and I know this is definitely the case with Persians. In addition, the wrinkles on their faces can have bacteria growing in between. I really think they shouldn't sacrifice health just for an extreme cat. The longer faced Persians probably don't have as many issues, just like longer faced dogs don't have as many issues, so if it were up to me, I think I'd probably only breed Persians with good health, including no breathing issues, which would probably end up meaning there would be no more cats like this

and a lot more cats like this

which is the traditional Persian anyway.

[ru.]

What's everyone's opinions on breeding cats for genetic mutations (munchkins for example)? I'm kind of on the fence about it since it can go either way and it does depend on if they're bred for health, looks, pets, work, etc.

I agree entirely with what Jaz said on the matter. Normal muttcats have no business breeding, as there are already a TON of moggies out there of all ages in need of homes. As with dogs, I think people should ONLY breed cats if there's something truly different about them that they think would make a good breed.

I don't know about that. I think that only breeding cats/dogs/etc. that are physically or genetically special is not a good idea. That would essentially eliminate the average domestic cat. It would be like if you took the entire population of foxes and decided that only the ones that had spots could be bred because there was something "truly different" about them. In no time at all there would be no red foxes, silver foxes, etc. left. There would be no foxes left that actually represented the natural species.
I think that its important that the natural species be represented first and foremost.

I do want to add though that I think health needs to be bred for as well. If the mutation causes a lot of health issues, I don't think it should be bred for. With Scottish folds I know that because it's caused by a cartilage defect, if you breed two folded eared cats together you can get really unhealthy kittens, so of course I wouldn't approve of that, but assuming breeding them normally (folded eared x normal eared) produces healthy kittens, I'm fine with it. With Munchkins, I was originally not a fan because it seemed cruel to rob cats of their abilities to jump and climbed, but apparently they're still perfectly capable of running, jumping, and climbing, and they don't seem to be particularly unhealthy, (although of course since they're a relatively new breed they need to be watched carefully to make sure health issues don't arise) so I don't see anything wrong with breeding them. Persians on the other hand can have issues due to their shortened snout. Brachycephalic (smooshed faced) animals can have a lot of breathing issues, and I know this is definitely the case with Persians. In addition, the wrinkles on their faces can have bacteria growing in between. I really think they shouldn't sacrifice health just for an extreme cat. The longer faced Persians probably don't have as many issues, just like longer faced dogs don't have as many issues, so if it were up to me, I think I'd probably only breed Persians with good health, including no breathing issues, which would probably end up meaning there would be no more cats like this

and a lot more cats like this

which is the traditional Persian anyway.

I just don't like the idea of breeding for dwarfism in animals. Similar to with Corgis and Daschunds. It produces a really cute animal, but I just can't believe that it's the healthiest way of being. I know that feline spines are more flexible than canine spines, but it still can't be good for their spine.
I also agree and don't really like the idea of breeding for such harsh brachyephalic traits. My family loves all of those "smooshed faced" animals, but I don't really think that its fair to them. They all have such trouble breathing that they can't exercise as excessively as a normal animal would. My mother had two persian cats both with severely short snouts. My mother had to clean there faces multiple times a day, because their eyes were always watering. They're breathing always sounded like they had a cold, and it seems to take them a long time to eat their meals. Not to mention; their faces kind of stunk if you got very close.

[blazesong]

i saw persian kittens once and i hated the look of them they where flat faced and looked like they ran into a wall (its true unforutentley) i dont know how the breed standard became so bad but i feel bad for them

i own a part persian but she dosnt look it but she gets eye issues (aka-gunk in her eyes) wich i have to clean ,i bet its harder for pure persians

[Ruruskadoo]

What's everyone's opinions on breeding cats for genetic mutations (munchkins for example)? I'm kind of on the fence about it since it can go either way and it does depend on if they're bred for health, looks, pets, work, etc.

I agree entirely with what Jaz said on the matter. Normal muttcats have no business breeding, as there are already a TON of moggies out there of all ages in need of homes. As with dogs, I think people should ONLY breed cats if there's something truly different about them that they think would make a good breed.

I don't know about that. I think that only breeding cats/dogs/etc. that are physically or genetically special is not a good idea. That would essentially eliminate the average domestic cat. It would be like if you took the entire population of foxes and decided that only the ones that had spots could be bred because there was something "truly different" about them. In no time at all there would be no red foxes, silver foxes, etc. left. There would be no foxes left that actually represented the natural species.
I think that its important that the natural species be represented first and foremost.

Well, my statement was meant to include already established breeds. There are plenty of "normal" breeds, like American Shorthairs. It doesn't have to be some freakish mutation. The Ragdoll counts. But moggies have absolutely no reason to breed. We are at no risk whatsoever of even conceivably being short on them. They're all over the place, and there are so many of them that countless healthy cats and kittens are killed every single day simply because there's no place for them. With feral cats breeding and people not bothering to spay and neuter their cats, there's absolutely no risk of "normal" cats going extinct.

But I stand by my statement. Unless your cat (even if it's purebred) is somehow truly special in some way (and not just to you personally), I don't think it should be bred. Maybe your American Curl is an outstanding example of its breed. Maybe you've found something new and you're making a new breed out of it. Either way, cats that are simply average should not be bred, because they do nothing but add to the overpopulation problem and if they're purebred, they dilute the quality of their breed's gene pool. This is the case for dogs, and it goes for cats as well.

[ru.]

I agree entirely with what Jaz said on the matter. Normal muttcats have no business breeding, as there are already a TON of moggies out there of all ages in need of homes. As with dogs, I think people should ONLY breed cats if there's something truly different about them that they think would make a good breed.

I don't know about that. I think that only breeding cats/dogs/etc. that are physically or genetically special is not a good idea. That would essentially eliminate the average domestic cat. It would be like if you took the entire population of foxes and decided that only the ones that had spots could be bred because there was something "truly different" about them. In no time at all there would be no red foxes, silver foxes, etc. left. There would be no foxes left that actually represented the natural species.
I think that its important that the natural species be represented first and foremost.

Well, my statement was meant to include already established breeds. There are plenty of "normal" breeds, like American Shorthairs. It doesn't have to be some freakish mutation. The Ragdoll counts. But moggies have absolutely no reason to breed. We are at no risk whatsoever of even conceivably being short on them. They're all over the place, and there are so many of them that countless healthy cats and kittens are killed every single day simply because there's no place for them. With feral cats breeding and people not bothering to spay and neuter their cats, there's absolutely no risk of "normal" cats going extinct.

But I stand by my statement. Unless your cat (even if it's purebred) is somehow truly special in some way (and not just to you personally), I don't think it should be bred. Maybe your American Curl is an outstanding example of its breed. Maybe you've found something new and you're making a new breed out of it. Either way, cats that are simply average should not be bred, because they do nothing but add to the overpopulation problem and if they're purebred, they dilute the quality of their breed's gene pool. This is the case for dogs, and it goes for cats as well.

It is true that there is no risk of them becoming extinct anywhere in the near future, but it could be possible if people were very strict about spaying/neutering and only breeding "special" cats for generation after generation.
No, I don't think that feral, or otherwise "moggies" should be bred either. But, I don't think that it must be a case of a cat or dog being greatly above standard to be bred. I think that even if an average pet owner acquires a cat that is essentially of excellent show quality; that does not make them qualified to breed it.
I think that only responsible breeders should breed pets. It should never be just somebody who happens to have two excellent "quality" animals on their hands. It should always be somebody who understands the breed, understands the health of breed, has their pets health tested and knows the health history of the ancestors of the pets as well, is financially able to not just care for the pets but be able to afford anything that could possibly go wrong, questionnaires the new owners , and is prepared to take back any pets if their new homes don't work out.
In short; that is not your average pet owner.

[awesomecatgirl]

I agree because people may think that animals are just a disposable object, but they don't relize that cats have feeling and are probaly very scared.

[Ruruskadoo]

It is true that there is no risk of them becoming extinct anywhere in the near future, but it could be possible if people were very strict about spaying/neutering and only breeding "special" cats for generation after generation.
No, I don't think that feral, or otherwise "moggies" should be bred either. But, I don't think that it must be a case of a cat or dog being greatly above standard to be bred. I think that even if an average pet owner acquires a cat that is essentially of excellent show quality; that does not make them qualified to breed it.
I think that only responsible breeders should breed pets. It should never be just somebody who happens to have two excellent "quality" animals on their hands. It should always be somebody who understands the breed, understands the health of breed, has their pets health tested and knows the health history of the ancestors of the pets as well, is financially able to not just care for the pets but be able to afford anything that could possibly go wrong, questionnaires the new owners , and is prepared to take back any pets if their new homes don't work out.
In short; that is not your average pet owner.

XD Well obviously. I kind of thought that that went without saying. Of COURSE only decent breeders who really know what they're doing and have all the time and resources to be able to do it should breed. That's the first rule of breeding ethics. I was just talking about which cats should be bred, not who does the breeding.

[Hime]

Any tips how to introduce cats to each other? We are kinda trying to socilise our cat with my friends kittens, since if I move out I would want another cat. Though I'm not sure would I be taking our with me, since she likes my mom more...