From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors (long)
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:54:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.193045.28803@newshost.lanl.gov>
    srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee) writes:
 
>>Actually, it's both - or at least could be.  It's the breeder's fault
>>when they are obscured from the best interests of the breed (for what-
>>ever reasons).  There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about this
>>point, so it doesn't get discussed except when there is confusion and
>>has to be brought up.  But, it's the buyer's fault when they insist
>>upon buying purebreed, but don't care enough about the breed to find
>>out about its purposes (and again, it's not the simple possession of
>>the dog that is bad, it's the fact that some of these unknowing buyers
>>do become breeders themselves).  This is the point I have been trying
>>to make (and seems to the the point of contention).  Either one can be
>>equally as damaging.
>
>It is not clear to me what exactly is the buyers fault.  If the buyer
>goes to a reputable breeder,
 
IF.  Simple facts are that many don't.  You could argue (with
justification) that my argument above is really still just putting the
blame on the breeder - not the original one, but the new one (the one
that was the seller).  At any rate, I think it's moot because it's the
same person we're talking about.
 
 
>which we all agree he/she should, and demonstrates
>a lack of knowledge about the breed, the breeder will undoubtedly educate
>this person and eventually decide whether or not to sell a dog to this
>person.
 
I'm not convinced that this will "undoubtedly" happen.  As I've said,
I don't think most breeders are as consiencous as those that read this
group - especially those that have a financial interest in making that
sale.
 
SIDE NOTE:  I don't buy into the argument that selling puppies is
always a no-profit situation.  If it were, I don't think the kennels
that do it (including those that ARE consiencous) would do it.  After
all, that's how they make their living (at least in part).  If you
wish to respond to this, please change the subject line for a new
thread.
 
 
>A responsible breeder should do the absolute best he/she can to
>ensure that such people do not become breeders of these dogs.  They certainly
>can stop them from breeding a dog they may sell to them.  It seems to me
>that the responsibility is clearly back in the lap of the breeder, as
>it should be.
 
I remain unconvinced.  Responsibility in a transaction between multiple
parties almost never rests soely on just one of the parties.  Mind you,
I'm not alieviating the breeder of his/her responsibility; I'm just
saying that the buyer has his/her share of it too.
 
 
>If I accept your supposition that most people that buy pure-bred dogs
>for pets do not qualify as informed buyers, then is it not our job to help
>them along (in the sense of educating them about the breed, and helping
>them make an informed, correct decision)?
 
Absolutely!
 
 
>Determined but uninformed
>buyers that go to a reputable breeder and are told "your are obviously a
>moron when it comes to <breed>, so I won't sell you <breed>" will be
>insulted and probably turn to less appropriate outlets, such as
>irresponsible breeders or pet stores.  Then they  may indeed wind up
"polluting the gene pool" as you fear.
 
Of course anyone's reaction would be something along those lines if
they were "educated" about the breed like that.  And I don't advocate
doing that.
 
 
>It would make more sense to me for
>a good breeder to "council" prospective buyers, and help them make the
>correct decision, be it for their breed or another breed.  After
>all, if they are that uninformed about one breed or another, who better
>to provide information about the breed than a good breeder?
 
This sounds an awful lot like what I've been saying, especially when
you added "....or another breed".
 
 
>The decision
>should be made *together*.  If it turns out that a pet quality is the
>correct decision, then the breeder sells the dog with a neuter requirement.
>The people or person in question would win, the breeder would win, the
>breed in question would win, and most importantly, the *dog* would win.
 
I totally agree.
 
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |  Only 11 more days until the start of
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |           hunting season (in Texas)
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |