From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:41:44 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

After reading reading all the other articles on breeding Labradors, I figured
I'd stick in my two cents worth.  Personally I figure a dog in the sporting
group (or any group), should be required to fulfill its stated purpose.  I can 
name several breeds which due to show breeder breeding solely for beauty, have 
lost their ability to function as originally intended.  It would give me some
satisfaction if the AKC made it mandatory for any conformation champion in the
sporting group to have passed a hunting test (ie: you couldn't compete in the
ring for points until your dog had passed a hunting test, nor could any dog be
qualified as a true champion until it had passed a Sr hunting test).  It is
considered reckless for a breeder to breed a line that carried hip displacia,
but it many times considered trivial for a breeder to breed a line without
giving any consideration to the breeds primary functionality; this should not
be so.  Requiring a dog to fulfill its original function would pretty much
require all AKC breeders to breed for the traits which made the dog desirable
in the first place.  Now I would not in any way restrict those who wish to own
a hunting, or ratting or etc dog solely for a companion animal, but I would
put the responsibility to produce all around champion dogs on the backs of all
breeders. 

Now some will consider this a bit extreme; obviously I do not.  I have seen
too much evidence that many ring breeder have no interest at all in preserving
the original function of a breed.  After all it wasn't all that long ago that
Poodles were in the sporting rather than non-sporting groups.  Because poodles
were intelligent and responsive, ring breeders took them from being a hunting
dog and turned them into a purely companion pet.  Nor can you blame that
transformation on puppy mills, as even the top show lines which have never
seen a puppy mill, have degraded hunting skills (in fact who even thinks of
them as a hunting dog anymore). 

Then there is Pomeranian.  Pomeranians are a nice small companion dog, but if
you look at the AKC history of Poms (or just listen to their history at a
major dog show), you will learn that they were originally a Nordic sled dog.
I can easily see Chris' discomfort when he sees his Labrador, and thinks of 
the transition of Pomeranians from sled dog to lap dog.

As I also mentioned in a previous article, Cocker Spaniels are following the
same general path as Poodles, and have been warned by the AKC, about being
kicked out of the Sporting group.

Further, I think that Chris' fears are well stated in the Mar 1990 magazine
_Atlantic Monthly_, which how some show breeders are harming several breeds by
breeding for aesthetics rather than function.  In fact here's an excerpt
mentioning a few such breeds:

	Many of the toy breeds are so small and fragile that they cannot live
	outside artificial environments.  The Bulldog and the Boston Terrier
	have difficulty whelping naturally, because the the breed's 
	exaggerated heads.  [Robert] Hetherington [owner and breeder of the 
	top winning bulldogs in recent years] says, "The bulldog is a
	man-made dog, and man has to be responsible for it, but that's a 
	reason to improve the breed, not abandon it."

	The problem exists throughout the world.  In Australia, the Kelpie,
	which is considered a rival to the border collie in management of
	sheep, became the darling of the show ring in the 1930's and within
	3 decades had nearly lost its herding instinct.  In 1960's the Working
	Kelpie Council of Australia began to rescue the breed, by
	establishing a registry for working stock.  In the United States, the
	Australian Kelpie has been in the miscellaneous class since 1941, and 
	Susan Thorp, the secretary of Working Kelpies, the American breed 
	club, wants to keep it there.  "In the AKC," she says, "the dog 
	becomes an object.  People get dogs, don't use them, and they 
	selectively breed them for characteristics other than work."

And then there's Irish Setters.  When one mentions that breed, the first image
most people get is a brainless highstrung mess.  The show ring breeders took
an intelligent, talented dog, and reduced it, in the words of one expert, to a
dog " which gets lost at the end of a leash" (_Atlantic Monthly_, "The
Politics Of Dog" Mar 1990).  And again, we are not talking about puppy mill
pups, we are talking about show ring champions.  The problem got so severe in
the fifties and sixties, that the AKC was finally forced to take a hand.  The
breed was considered so heavily damaged by the AKC, that for a 10 year period
(during the early sixties), Irish breeders were allowed to crossbreed with
English Setters (who were still considered good hunters).  Each line of Irish
Setters was allowed to crossbreed with English Setters up to twice, and still
keep their registration of Irish Setters.  For the AKC to sanction and
encourage crossbreeding, indicates how bad off the Irish were considered (this
information was also gotten from that field trial official Ray Calkins).  Its
not even all that surprising if you take a look at how the ring changed the
Irish Setter.  To see how much the Irish has been modified by the show ring,
one should look at the English dog portraits from the 18th and 19th centuries. 
The Irish Setters of old were shorter, broader of chest, had shorter duller 
red coats, shorter and blunter tails, broader head, and blunter muzzle.  Now 
the show ring Irish Setters are starting to resemble runners like Greyhounds 
and Afgans.  They are now tall, svelte, have long, luxurious, bright red coat 
and dramatic feathers, a narrow head, a long pointed muzzle, long ears, long 
whiplike tail (heavily feathered), a narrow, deep chest, and wasp waste.  
These were all aesthetic decisions made by the breeders and the people who set 
the standards.  None of those changes can be said to be something which 
actually improved the breed in any way but aesthetics.  By the way, there are 
still hunting lines of Irish Setters, but they are getting quite distinct from 
the show lines, and in many cases, could probably no longer successfully 
compete for show titles. 

In conclusion, I personally feel that if a dog is in a specific category (eg:
herding, hunting, ratting), then it is irresponsible to breed solely for
aesthetics.  Thus a terrier which can't rat, or a Setter which cannot hunt, 
should not be rewarded for mere aesthetic conformation.  This is why I would 
assert that no dog should be able to earn either a champion status, or a best 
in breed (and definitely not a best in show) unless it has excelled in the
working requirements of its breed.

				Later,

				Dave Butler

    I'm glad my wife has never made me choose between her and my dog,
    cause I'd really miss her.
				Anonymous
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs