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: 19 Aug 92 00:05:23 GMT

In <16847BCDD.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:

>Close, but not quite.  True, my recommendation to someone that is
>looking for a pet will ALWAYS be against getting a Lab.  Why?  Because
>they *could* be getting one that IS "birdy" and should be used for
>hunting/breeding.  As these dogs ARE rare, it should be prevented.
>And (to use someone else's words), throws things out of balance.
>BUT, that is different from what I tell people that already have a Lab
>and use it for another purpose (ie.  don't breed).

Hm, this seems to be contradictory.  If those people bred those ones
that DO happen to be "birdy" then you don't have a problem, according
to what you've said.  You cannot expect everyone who buys a dog / Lab
to be this knowledgeable.  You can, on the other hand, expect BREEDERS
to be more qualified to pick out which dogs should go to pet homes and
which should be bred.  This is a separate problem, as I've said.

>Again, not quite.  I tell people that BREED their non-hunting Labs
>that they are ruining the breed.

That's not what you said to the fellow that was wondering what sort of
breed would suit him.  You said, don't get a labrador unless you plan
to hunt him (no mention of breeding).  That was the one I followed up
with "Well, don't get an <X> unless you plan to <Y> with it."

If you stuck to the above, I wouldn't flame you quite so often.  As it
happens, you are very often extraordinarily sweeping in your initial
comments and you qualify them when you go into detail after people
object to those comments.  I shouldn't be so surprised that people
misunderstand you all the time.

Here's a bit of a tangent if you want to get into it: You keep
maintaining that a lab that is a companion is not a "fit lab" to be
bred.  But, and this is admittedly my opinion, what if the traits to
be a good hunter are very closely aligned with those traits that make
it a good companion?  Labs are reknowned for their temperament (and a
steady one makes a good hunting dog and a good companion), their ease
of training (again, complements both a hunting dog and a companion
dog), a willlingness to please (ditto), and an ability to retrieve
(ditto -- makes a good companion because it's a way to play).  Is a
dog that has all of the correct *traits* that, incidentally are being
used in a different way, really changing the breed (let's not get into
breeding for the moment)?  If changing the purpose is simply a
different use for each of the same traits, I don't see where those
traits are disappearing.  If the change in purpose loses one or more
of those traits, then yes, it is obvious that the breed is being
changed (or more accurately, splintered into another breed).

--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.