From: liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:20:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.142204.7102@newshost.lanl.gov> crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.201001.5991@morrow.stanford.edu> liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller) writes:
>[...]
>= 
>= 	The posting that I saw made references to the fact that most
>= labradors being bred today do not have hunting instincts.  As a Labrador
>= fancier and exhibitor and future breeder, I find that statement to be
>= eroneous.  I have four Labradors of my own that I work in show, field, and
>[...Examples of field Labs deleted for brevity...]
>= 	I am sure that with the current status of the Lab as the #1 most
>= popular dog in teh country that this will be more and more of an issue.
>= However, I am also sure that with the care and concern of responsible
>= breeders, the core population of Labradors will retain all the things that
>= make them wonderful dogs -- including their NEED to bring you things,
>= especially dead birds!
>
>Liza's points are well taken.  My shooting buddy raises chocolate
>Labs who are great hunters.  They are used not only as retrievers
>but as flushing dogs for upland game as well.
>
>But--you knew there would be a "but" didn't you?--Liza's final
>point is, I think, the thing that must be considered in discussing
>what is happening to the breed (or any other breed, for that
>matter).
	I agree with what Charlie says here.  It is important to discuss
what is happening to the breed.  I guess I just wanted to point out that
the prognosis is decidedly not as grim as one might have supposed by the
earlier discussion.

>I'd like to expand on what Liza said with some views of my own.
>First, popularity has been the (at least apparent) ruination of
>many a breed.
	That is absolutely true.

>Popularity doesn't necessarily eliminate the good dogs who retain
>the essential instincts and qualities that the breed was developed
>for but it will, I believe, make it more difficult to find them.
>As less concerned (or unconcerned) breeders produce *many* junk
>dogs to satisfy the demand, it becomes more difficult to find the
>good dogs that are being produced.  And, as more "breeders" appear
>to cater to the breed's popularity, it becomes more and more
>difficult to locate those who are breeding the real dogs.  Thus,
>the appearance exists that there *are no* real X any more (where,
>of course, X is the breed in question).  Whether Labradors have
>reached this state is something that I am not qualified to say.
	Well, Labradors are a strange  situation because there has always
been a dichotomy between "show" people and "field" people.  The two camps
are pretty well-defined and pretty antagonistic towards each other.  I
think that is too bad.  But it does make the problems of popularity more
emphasized.  In my opinion, neither of these camps is in danger of ruining
the breed.  They are the backbone of the Labrador breeding program --
albeit they breed for different purposes.  The real danger is the people
who latch on to the popularity of a breed and breed for profit.  I suspect
that each and every breed that has been damaged by popularity can point to
these folks as the true culprits. 

	Another problem as I see it are people who breed for ONE purpose,
no matter what that one purpose is.  In the case of the cocker spaniel, the
coat was breed for to make the dog a "flashy" shower.  Cockers used to be
hunting dogs and that flashy coat doesn't lend itself to that purpose.  The
hunting temperatment was not bred for and as a result, we have a breed that
looks GREAT!  You have to admit they are pretty dogs and they show very
well in the ring.  The point is that when you decide to change the dogs
original purpose, you change the dog.

	In Labradors, there are a few people who are trying to produce Best
in Show winning dogs.  Most of the breeders are thrilled to win specialties
judged by other breeders.  The physical differences between BIS winning and
specialty winning dogs is apparent.  The BIS dogs are flashy, showy dogs.
I do not like them.  Most of the breeders I know do not like them.  They
aren't labs. I haven't a clue about their hunting ability, because they
aren't run in tests.  I wouldn't breed to a dog that was that one
dimensional.  I want to breed Labradors which excel in beauty (as
Labradors, not as show winners), hunting ability, and temperament.  When I
read breeder publications for Labs and talk to breeders from around the
country, I find that most of the breeders feel the same way.  I can only
talk for the show crowd as I don't know too many folks in the field crowd.
I feel I can safely say that they do not put the same emphasis on looks
that show breeders do.  However, when I talk about the looks of the dog, I
mean that the looks reflect the working ability and structural conformation
of the dog to promote that working ability.

>But real problems are produced as well.  As inferior dogs are bred
>to satisfy demand, the gene pool is poluted.  The genetics of
>complex traits such as hunting ability are complex too.  It becomes
>difficult to weed out the results of such a breeding explosion even
>by those who bother to try.  As it becomes more and more difficult
>to locate good dogs true to the breed, fewer will bother.
	However, I think that the backbone of the breed will continue to
breed to their own goals and thus, will not loose that original, strong
gene pool.  Look at the way that German Shepherds and Dobermans have made a
recovery after their personality.


--
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
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs