I agree, the author of Fugly does a good job regarding educating people about the ugliness that is out there. The problem I have with the blog is that the author is that she should stick to what she (he?) knows. I cringe everytime she puts an Arabian in her blog, touting a pedigree that to my eyes represents something that was outrageously overbred to satisfy the whims of the show ring. The show ring in Arabians produces pretty, lightly-boned, tabletop-backed pasture ornaments (with absurd cartoon faces) that don’t hold up with work.

There are preservationist breeders of Arabians keeping genes available that don’t fit the whims of what’s popular. The genes that create well-conformed, sturdy working animals. Fugly’s author seems to be unaware of the names in those pedigrees, often back far enough that the distance earns scorn — and those are the good using horses she/he says should be put on the ground.

You have a point on the education part but I worry how many people read her, see how much she knows about horses, and therefore believes everything she says. Including her opinion on dogs. She is obviously reaching a pretty large audience after all.

I just said I stopped reading her, not that I think she shouldn’t have the blog. It is a great blog aside from the dog stuff. But I am all about the dog stuff so you see my delemia.

:-)

The same is true for horses.

In any case, I don’t like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. She’s wrong on pibbles, but she knows her horses stuff.

It doesn’t follow that someone who’s wrong on one thing can’t be trusted for advice on another subject. I wouldn’t advise taking my advice on, say, balancing your checkbook or flying a fighter jet. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know pets and pet care here.