Customer Reviews

RHODESIAN RIDGEBACK (Pet Owner's Guide)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was becoming a first time Ridgeback owner, so I wanted to do as much research on my dog before I got her. I learned a couple of things, but most of the things is common knowledge to any dog owner. If you are looking for something very specialized on ridgies, I would look somewhere else. Besides that, good overall book.

In his discussion of the Rhodesian Ridgeback's history, the author acknowledges the existence of other dogs with ridges in Asia. In particular, the Thai Ridgeback is an ancient breed out of Eastern Thailand with a ridge and erect ears. Aside from the ridge, it looks nothing like a Rhodesian Ridgeback. It is gaining quite a following worldwide for its unique beauty in its own right and I am admittedly a fan of the Thai Ridgeback. What I find appalling is the author's assertion that the Thai Ridgeback should not be called a Thai Ridgeback but should be instead called a Thai Ridged Dog or a Thai Ridged Spitz. The Thai dog has been known in its native land as "Mah Thai Lang Ahn" or "Thai Ridgeback Dog" long before the author wrote this book. Just because there are more books and more coverage of the Rhodesian Ridgeback in the West doesn't mean there is monopoly to be gained on the term "Ridgeback." One would not change "French Bulldog" to "French Bully Dog," etc. just because the English Bulldog is better known. It gives the connotation that the author is trying to somehow lessen the existence of another ridgeback dog elsewhere to emphasize the Rhodesian Ridgeback's unique history by endeavoring to represent the latter as the only ridgeback when in fact it is not. Rather than attempt to discuss the possible linkage between the two or the possible origins of ridges in two entirely different continents, the author discounts the non-Rhodesian Ridgebacks by discussing them under the topic of "legends." Since he can't deny the existence of other Ridgebacks, he attempts to do so by suggesting that the other Ridgebacks should not be called Ridgebacks; thus, semantically, the Rhodesian would then be the only Ridgebacks by name. Such salient, biased, historical accounts with inclination towards semantics monopoly prevent this book from being "legendary" in its own right. The saving point of this book is that it is very thorough in its coverage of the Rhodesian Ridgeback's African history and its modern status.