Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45
Kai, I don't like starting wars so please don't "attack" me, but I do not agree with mixing wild cats into domestic cats. I feel TICA accepts just about any kind of cat people breed/create. There are many breeds out there now, that I feel should not be encouraged.
Let's leave it at that so we don't start flame wars - who's right/who's wrong. This is my opinion on the subject.
I imagine that given just a little time, this topic could easily become a flame war. However, I feel the need to point out that TICA does not ACCEPT just about any breed of cat people breed/create as you put it. It is, however, required under TICA's own rules that it must REGISTER what is put before it. Registration does not equal acceptance. Many, many breeds of cats will never get out of the registration stage and will eventually disappear. It is an extremely long and involved process to go from registration to the championship stage. Registration merely makes it possible to track parentage. Every association is, first and foremost, a REGISTRY. Let's not forget that CFA bills itself as the "largest registry
of purebred cats in the world".
There are breeds which have been accepted for championship, not just registration, in America since the inception of the cat fancy here (or for at least 50 years) with which I would not agree - namely, Manx and Scottish Folds - both breeds of which display skeletal deformities if bred true; for instance, tailless Manx to tailless Manx or folded Scottish Fold to folded Scottish Fold. Therefore, it is not even safe, nor ethical, for these cats to be bred true.
If you are breeding Rex (Cornish Rex is it?), then you are well aware of what Ellen Weiss thought about pointed Cornish Rex although the Rex is a natural mutation from the domestic populace carrying the Himalayan gene and also although the only cats close in type to breed Cornish to when they were brought to the U.S. were Siamese.
While you might not agree with people creating different breeds of cats, I imagine no one was thrilled about accepting the Rex in the 1950s when that breed was initially imported to the U.S. If new breeds are not allowed to be developed then the cat fancy will become more stagnant than it already is. Certainly everyone has the right to his or her own opinion - that's what makes the world go round. I see no reason for people not to develop new breeds, but my criteria for what should and should not be a breed is not based on whether I like a certain breed or not - it is based on the genetic health of the cats produced from these breedings. Long before a line of cats can even begin to become a breed in TICA or other associations, it must pass the muster of a Genetics Committee. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that a short-legged, tailless, curled-ear breed of cat will ever be produced as a viable breed since at least two of the mutations (short legs and taillessness) have shown lethal or partial lethal problems in some lines. Some lines of Munchkins have shown pectus and the taillessness of the Manx is a form of spina bifida.
Since most breeds of cats are based upon one mutation or another, how do you decide, other than genetic health, what mutation should be perpetuated or not?