This entire thread is a circular argument and I have never seen/known anyone change their views - they just become more polarised as people post.
I definitely believe the existence of a pelting industry contributes to healthier and higher quality chinchillas through the culling process. It's simple mathematics.
With a pet-only industry, basically every animal is going to live out it's natural life. Of course that's not accounting for the ones that die of neglect or mistreatment, but I'd consider even a malo chin that dies a 2 years to have lived the course of his "natural life" versus a chin that was pelted at 8 months.
You're argument is theoretical and is based on flawed criteria. As previously mentioned in this thread and many others, show 'quality' is based on limited criteria and does not include health and longevity. A GSC (judged on show criteria) which is dead at 2 years old, emaciated, slobbery, malnourished and in pain is not a quality animal. It can't (shouldn't) be bred from and has no use except as a pelt (before it hits end stage) - some people find that acceptable as a practice but some do not and that's one of the biggest differences between chinchilla owners.
With a pet-only industry, every chin produced is going to a home to meet the demands of pet owners. There are no cullings due to poor quality. That means an ethical and professional breeder is not going to produce hundreds of thousands of animals, because there simply aren't that many outlets to sell them.
Pet chinchillas and pet owners do not have to be viewed as inferior, nor should their pets be dismissed out-of-hand as being poor quality.
The definition of quality is lacking. Also, quantity does not necessarily equate to quality. Breeding one healthy, long-lived chinchilla shows more quality than breeding 100 unhealthy, short-lived animals. Pelting does not change that, it simply takes a view which is based on commercialism.
The production of "hundreds of thousands" of animals actually has nothing to do with quality but has everything to do with money.
Does that make breeding thousands of animals wrong? No, not necessarily but it also doesn't make it right either. It's the difference between a commercial and non-commercial mentality. It's not about numbers.
Given the limitation on production, the % of excellent quality chins vs living chins goes down significantly, because the # of living chins isn't kept low due to pelting.
Really? I have a friend who breeds a small number of excellent quality, long-lived chinchillas .......... it is possible to be a small-scale breeder of excellent quality (and, by that I mean in the true sense of the word) with a small herd. Again, quantity does not always mean quality.
Some people with small herds do well on the show bench. Again, it's not about numbers.
Sure, the pet industry has people who want excellent quality chins for their own personal pets. And of course breeders will focus on quality even for the pet market. But when the pet market is saturated, and you can't pump out thousands of babies, the rate of increase in quality is going to be limited versus the ranch who has the option to pelt out his low quality animals.
Again, I disagree because you're basing this on numbers which are excessive.
BTW, why is the desire to "pump out thousands of babies" (kits) seen as a good thing and commendable?
Pumping out large numbers of chinchillas is simply based on commercialism......not everyone wants to take that path.
I've also seen/heard the argument that without shows you can't be breeding to any standards - cobblers! You don't have to show your chins to know whether you're breeding poor quality or not - shows only provide a limited snap-shot anyway. Winning GSC with one chin doesn't prove a breeder has a quality (full sense of the word) herd but some people place huge importance on that.
Anyone who pays attention and knows what is looked for at a show (or has shown in the past) can breed to those show standards. Most of the time the only difference between someone who shows and someone who doesn't is a ribbon. The chins could be of equal quality.
It all depends on the breeder's aims and aspirations.
But this doesn't in any way mean that low quality animals don't deserve to live. It's just a simple logical conclusion that if you kill off the low quality animals, quality is going to increase much faster than if killing them isn't an option.
"Quality" rises by not
breeding poor quality chinchillas, not by killing/pelting them. If lesser quality or unhealthy chinchillas are not used for breeding then the quality of those chinchillas being bred rises.
See? No killing/pelting involved.
I'd rather have a healthy chinchilla which would get thrown off the show bench for not being 'show quality' than a GSC which was dead at 2 due to ill health - some of my oldest/healthiest chins would have been laughed off the show bench and some of my show ribbon-winning chins have been dead at 2-3 years.........
The ideal, of course, is a healthy, long-lived, characterful, stunningly beautiful, ribbon-winning chin which lives into it's teens or beyond.
The biggest problem I see with the entire circular argument of this thread is the (flawed/limited) definition of quality and the assertion that show quality criteria equates to health.
IF we could have a combination of show quality criteria (and, believe me, I am a huge fan of a stunning chinchilla, in prime, on the show bench!) with health and longevity rather than
just the show criteria (big, blocky, blue, clear etc) then I think chinchilla breeding would take a massive leap into what many of us wish for.
Some breeders do aim for that combination - excellent presence on the show bench with health/longevity - so it is possible BUT taking one aspect (either health but no beauty, or beauty but no health) over another simply widens the gap between 'camps' and re-enforces the polarisation (pet vs commercial/show/pelt).
