From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Organization: ICS Dept., UC Irvine
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:35:19 GMT


I'm pulling together several threads in this article, mostly on
Barnes' [Chris], Miller's [Liza], and Sorsby's [Charlie] articles.

Both Liza and Charlie brought up many good points in their discussion
of breeding labs.  While Chris applauds what they have to say, the
context of their posts and Chris' is quite different.

Chris keeps talking about ALL labs, as in "Don't get a lab unless you
plan to do hunting with it."  This is an extremely arbitrary statement
that will, of course, raise the ire of anyone who is not hunting their
lab.

Liza and Charlie, on the other hand, are saying "If you breed labs,
make sure that lab is balanced: conforms to the standard, has the
correct temperament, and is birdy."  This is a very sensible viewpoint
and should be considered by ALL breeders (well, substitute "birdy" for
other things appropriate to other breeds).

There is a world of difference between those views, and while I found
it amusing that Chris kept applauding points that they were making, I
was still annoyed with his overall attitude.

Chris is outraged any time a lab is not used for hunting.  But let's
examine this scenario a bit more fully.  He says that it "degrades"
the breed if you have labs that do not hunt.  Well, I disagree.  Let's
postulate that we have a litter from the best possible parents in
terms of the balance for labs.  Even with this super litter, you will
have variations: some will be better than others at different things.
You find that you have a non-birdy pup, so you sell that pup as a pet.

Now, this pup is *not* doing anything to degrade the breed.  There is
a normal extent of variation within any litter and this can happen.  A
labrador that does not hunt is not a problem. Even in the ideal
situation, where only "perfect" labs were bred, you'd still have this
occuring.  Genetics are too complex to bring out clone after clone, no
matter your breeding program.  I won't even get into the intricacities
of those dogs that do not display certain characteristics, but
consistently pass them on to their offspring.

Now, suppose that this pup is bred and has a litter of puppies.  *Now*
this is a problem.  But is it a problem because the puppy is
non-birdy?  No, the problem is that it was *bred*.  And now we're in
the world of back-yard breeding and all those associated problems.
But the problem never was that that pup was not birdy.  Back-yard
breeders are a menace to ALL aspects of the balance: looks,
temperament, and abilities.

You are missing the forest for the trees, Chris.  This is what Liza
and Charlie were trying to point out.  Liza made it very clear how she
(and many other breeders she knows) is dealing with this: she (and
they) breed only those dogs she (and they) consider suitable for
breeding.  She listed several criteria: CH, CD, and JH -- there is
your balance.  I'll make it clear what I'm doing to try and prevent
this (though it's not restricted to labs): I distribute lots of
information on why you should neuter your pet, plus information on
just what is involved in putting together a *good* litter.  It was one
of the reasons for making the FAQ's redistributable.

What are you [Chris] doing?  Well, you're lecturing anyone who is
thinking of getting a lab not to do so unless he'll use it for
hunting.  You're telling everyone who has a lab that isn't hunting
that they're ruining the breed.

Guess which set of tactics *I* find more effective and less offensive?

--Cindy
--
Cindy Tittle Moore -- Terrell's Chocolate Deduction (chocolate labrador bitch)

The rec.pets.dogs FAQ -- all eight parts -- is available via ftp to
pit-manager.mit.edu under pub/usenet/news.answers/dogs-faq/*.  There
is a mail server, email me for details.