From: CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: Labrador Retriever puppies (*very good ones*)
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:34:52 GMT

Note:  I don't read these groups, so I didn't know there was a flame
       war going on until I was told that there was by a friend.
 
In article <1992Nov12.173718.619@bagend.uucp>
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>
>long winded discourse about breeding ethics and twit flamming follows:
                                                 ----
At least you recognized it for what it is (flaming by a twit).
 
 
>CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu peddles puppies in an inapropriate forum:
>[ irrelevant claims of quality breeding stock deleted ]
 
Not so irrelevant to those looking for quality hunting dogs.  And
the claims can be proved quite easily, thank-you.
 
 
>seg@cbncp1.ATT.COM (Scott Gordon) properly gives him hell for it:
>>The pedigree may be good but the breeding practice is outrageous.
>>
>>Most reputable breeders will have their customers lined up before the
>>breeding takes place.  I suppose posting this note on misc.pets.dogs
>>would have drawn too many flames.
 
 
Scott doesn't live in the real world, nor is statement factual.
There is almost NEVER more than a couple of puppies sold/placed in
a home before the litter is born.  Why?  Because the buyer would be
a damn fool to do it.  What is the breeder to do if he sells/places
4 puppies, but only 1 is born (happens more frequently than you would
believe).  Or none at all?  For that matter, what is the buyer to
do - this person has waited at least 2 months on a puppy that they
already shelled out money for before they find out that the pup
isn't available.
 
No, what seperates responsable breeders from from the people that
breed trash is the reasons behind why the litter was produced.  If the
pups are an improvement to the breed as a whole, then there was good
reason for the breeding.  Otherwise, breed trash was produced.  The
only requirement that the breeder has to worry about for placing the
pups in homes is to answer this question:  Is there enough demand
for these pups to justify the breeding.  In my case, the answer is
a resounding YES.  It also means that the breeder stands behind
the pups.  I qualify there too since the pups come with a genetic
health garantee.  You won't find that in backyard breeders.
 
 
>I would go further.  A pedigree is just a piece of paper that more
>often than not, has little bearing on the quality of the animal or
>its ability to perform its intended job in life, whatever that may be.
 
You almost got it right here.  The mere presence of a pedigree is
meaningless.  All a pedigree means is that you know the ancestry of
the pups.  If that ancestry is a list of worthless, do-nothing dogs,
then the pups will (more than likely) be a worthless, do-nothing
dog.  But if the ancestry is full of quality dogs, then the odds
are that the pup will also be a quality dog.  And *that* is directly
related to its ability to perform its intende job in life.
 
 
>All, not most, but all reputable breeders have thoroughly investigated
>homes waiting for puppies *before* a breeding is done.  This is part
>of the definition of a reputable breeder.
 
Wrong again.  A responsable breeder will investigate the potiental home,
but it is almost never done before the breeding takes place (see above).
 
 
>debbie@sierra.ICUS.COM (Debbie Keyes) writes:
>>Actually, Chris is a well regarded poster to rec.pets.dogs and, while
>>                                             =============
>>everyone may not always agree on all the issues, his postings have
>>reflected his views on breeding for quite some time.  Chris is *not*
>>an indiscriminate backyard breeder and is opposed to the practice.
 
Debbie, thank you for those kind words.  I would be willing to bet $$
that had Scott or Jan posted their respected messages to rec.pets.dogs,
they would have been thoughly net-thrashed.
 
 
>Rubbish.  Check what before you flame?  Check another newsgroup to
>see if someone *talks* a good line there and so may be excused of
>bogus behavior somewhere else?  Are you serious?
 
Agreed, the walk better match the talk.  And if you would pay even
a little attention, you would have seen that it does.  Or perhaps
you ignored the OFA, CERF listings I put in the ad.  Or perhaps
you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about because
you don't know what they mean!
 
 
>I don't care if he is Mother Theresa or a New Skete Monk, anyone who
>peddles puppies like this deserves a lot more than a good flaming...
>and *is* an indescriminate breeder, backyard or otherwise.  Good
>intentions, feigned or true, do not integrity make.  Try the cliche,
>If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
 
Are you trying to say that a breeder that advertises *anywhere* is an
indescriminate breeder?   Or are you saying that the Usenet **.forsale
groups are only read by people that are somehow less intellegant than
those that would read an ad in (for example), Gun Dog magaizine.
In either case, you look pretty damn foolish.
 
 
>Yes, it does.  Posting puppies for sale in a world-wide computer
>forum is no better than a "free kittens" sign on the roadside.
 
Oh, so you are saying that Usenet readers are ignorant!
 
 
>A posting seeking a dialog with people interested in your breed
>with the ultimate goal of finding prospective *future* homes well
>before a breeding is done may be a good idea.  I have considered
>it myself.  A posting that offers 10 puppies for sale that are now
>getting big enough to be a lot of trouble for the owner is about
>a year too late and is a desperate act of an irresponsible person.
 
Tell me, how old are my puppies?  Guess what, you don't know!  How
many are sold?  You don't know!  To whom?  You don't know!  Did
you know that this is a repeat of a breeding that produced a litter
of pups so good that the Guide Dog Association wanted 3 of them (they
only got 2 because 1 was already sold)?  Nope.  It appears you don't
know a damn thing!
 
 
(debbie again)
>>I asked Chris why he didn't post this to r.p.d as I'm sure lots of us
>>(who read his informed posts regularly) would want to know.  So far
>>I haven't seen this posted there, or any followups to it (and my
>>news is current thru 3.5 hours ago).  But I'm quite sure that when
>>it makes it there, the first reaction from my of those will be the
>>same as mine was:  CONGRATULATIONS CHRIS!!!
 
I tried to respond to Debbie, but her mail bounced.  I did post to
rec.pets.dogs, and guess what?  Debbie's guess as to their response
was exactly correct.  In other words, in a group where the people that
know, and care enough about dogs to daily read a group with 75 odd
posts per day about dogs had nothing bad to say to me for the breeding.
And believe me, if they think there is something backyard going on,
they will let you (and everyone else) know about it.
 
 
>You want to talk about support from the peanut gallery?
 
Actually, in this case, Debbie is the knowlegeable person.  You (jan)
are the peanut gallery.
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   Duck hunting is not a matter of
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |   of life and death.  It's much
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   more important than that!
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |
Xref: sparky tx.news.stats:167 austin.news.stats:76