From: liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller)
Subject: The Great Lab Debate
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:00:13 GMT


This whole debate is rather puzzling and confusing.  I have some disjointed,
no doubt, thoughts to add to the debate as a whole and to my previous
comments in specific.

It seems to me that this entire episode started out with the comment being
made that Labs shouldn't be sold as pets because that will encourage the
downfall of the breed.  I recall that the basis for this was that Labs are
hunting dogs and should only be used as hunting dogs.

To which I reply, POPPYCOCK!

What are Labradors?  I could post the Labrador standard as I have in the
past, but that is a physical description of the ideal Labrador and doesn't
begin to encompase the true description.  Labradors are incrediably
wonderful dogs.  They typically have a strong desire to please their loved
ones.  They are strong, active dogs that know when it is time to lie down
in front of the fire and snooze.  They get along with people and seem to
instinctively know when someone is too young or too old to handle the
full-blown Lab greeting.  They are patient with children, tending to ignore
the pulled tail and fingers in the ears.  They are protective of their
homes without being an insurance liability.  They are also retrievers,
natural, instinctive, eager retrievers.

So, were does that leave us?  In my mind, it leaves us with a beautiful dog
that has a marvelous temperament and a purpose in life.  The same could be
said of most breeds.

Chris Barnes would have us believe that the most important part of the
description of a Labrador is that they are hunting dogs.  This, he seems to
believe, is to be protected at all costs.  To which I disagree.  Oh, it is
to be protected, but the beauty and the temperament are equally important.
The Labradors in *MY* breed are beautiful animals which conform to the
Labrador standard, they have temperaments which make them ideal pets and
which are highly trainable, and they have all their retrieving instincts
intact.

And for me, two out of three or one out of three is just not good enough.
Labradors are all around dogs and all of their attributes need to be
protected.  It would be just as easy for me to say that UGLY labs shouldn't
be bred as it is for Chris to say that non-birdy labs shouldn't be bred.
And, in my opinion, both are true.  In my opinion, a lab that is ugly as
sin but has a senior hunter title is just as bad as a beautiful Champion
who won't even retrieve a ball in the backyard.  Neither of them should be
bred.

So where does that leave us?  I have given MY description for the breed
(and I am NOT claiming that this should be interpreted as speaking for
anyone else).

I believe that breeders should make more of an effort to come together in
all three areas of importance to the breed.  And let's not forget the
fourth and equally important area of HEALTH.  All breeding stock MUST be
evaluated for hereditary diseases of all kinds (including hip and elbow
dysplasia, PRA, OCD, epilepsy, and, newly diagnosed in a Lab stud on the
West Coast, von Wildebrand's disease).  These things are CRUCIAL!

I think the problem lies with breeders who don't care as much about the
breed as they do their own interests or wallets.  There are hobby breeders
in both camps (show and field) that are immoral and unethical in their
practices.  The largest problem is from the backyard breeders whose
ignorance is their only defense.  

I have three goals I'd like to see for dog breeding in particular:

1.  Stop all retail sales of pets.

2.  All breeders sell their pet-quality puppies on spay/neuter contracts
    by that I also mean that if the only buyer for a pup is a pet buyer and
    a hot pup needs to go to that home, then the pup should be sold on a
    spay/neuter contract.  This is so important.

3.  Responsible breeders should recognize that most dogs were originally
    bred with a purpose in mind and that purpose is an intregal part of
    the breed and can not be ignored nor taken for granted.  They also need
    to recognize that dogs are a complete package and when you breed for
    one thing, be it coat color, hunting ability, obedience ability, or 
    whathaveyou, you are damaging the breed.

These are MY goals and I am not trying to push them on anyone else.

Now, as to the issue of whether or not Labs should be sold as pets.
ABSOLUTELY!  They should.  Labs are marvelous pets.  They are wonderful
companions.  Face it, even if you hunt or show or do obedience with your
dog, MOST of its time is spent being your dog!  If you sell dogs on
spay/neuter contracts as pets, you are NOT doing a disservice to the breed.
Rather you are acting as an emissary for the breed by showing the general
public how wonderful this breed is.

I hope this isn't too disjointed or strident.  I feel very strongly about
this.  My main points are that Labs are a multi-purpose animal and should
be bred as such.  No one purpose is more important than the others.  And,
that the answer to most of these problems is RESPONSIBLE BREEDING.  That
is what it boils down to.  The people that are irresponsible about their
breeding practices are the ones that cause the most trouble for the rest of
us.  So, practice responsible breeding, or support those that do so, but
don't try to limit the availability of a marvelous dog like the Lab for no
reason other than your narrow point-of-view.  (I am not merely speaking to
Chris here -- I have some problems with a lot of the views expressed on
this issue).


--
Liza Lee Miller         My dogs are labradorable!     liza@pangea.stanford.edu
Cibola Labradors            Field * Show * Fun                    415/326-5309
Cibola's Misty Mountain Hop--Hopper                   Mistypoint Kashmir--Kash
Talimar All-Pro At Delby--Niner          Campbellcroft Cibola Rosette -- Rosie