From: primeaux@carlsberg.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Date: 22 Dec 1992 13:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
Reply-To: primeaux@carlsberg.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: carlsberg.cs.utk.edu

In article <1h5o36INNo22@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ce293@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gail E. Brookhart) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, primeaux@carlsberg.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux) says:
|> 
|> >In this newsgroup I have frequently seen references to the original purposes
|> >of various breeds.  Usually these references are about hunting breeds and either
|> >state or imply that to breed dog X which demonstrates poor Y instinct is bad since
|> >to do such would "harm" the breed.
|> 
|> I agree that it does harm the breed and my reasons will follow shortly.
|> 
|> >
|> >Toss up for discussion:  Are the original purposes of the breed so sacrosanct
|> >that they can not evolve to match today's purposes of the breed?
|> 
|> And what might the modern purpose of a given breed be?
|> 
|> I think that the problem comes when _all_ breeds end up with the same
|> purpose and that purpose only.  Too many breeds are left with no purpose 
|> other than as a fireside companion on the hearth of the home.  If a person
|> wants simple companionship, there are breeds very well-suited to provide
|> that service alone.  On the other hand, folks like Chris want a Labrador
|> RETRIEVER and work to maintain that RETRIEVER instinct and ability in
|> addition to their ability to be a companion to the hunter.

Good observation, Gail.  Thank you for pointing it out.

|> 
|> My reasons for choosing the breeds that I did are because I desired dogs
|> with the traditional abilities and instincts of my breeds.  I wanted that
|> terrier fire and gameness in my Airedale as a watchdog and guardian of
|> myself and my belongings.  I sought the level-headed intelligence and
|> steadfastness of my Bouvier because I wanted those characteristics in
|> another protector.  I wanted their size to make a statement that would
|> dissuade the threats of ne'er-do-wells without having to go to an attack
|> dog.  To not have gotten those traits associated with my breeds and their
|> heritage would have negated their suitability for the work roles I desired
|> them to perform.  
|> 
|> Admittedly, they are exemplary companions but if I had only wanted a
|> companion, I could have saved myself a lot of money for dog food and gotten
|> a Papillon or a Pekingese as they would make equally suitable companions.
|> Too many people only want companionship from their dogs and try to water
|> down a working ability that gets in the way of companionship.
|> 

Again, good points.

|> >
|> >For the record:  I do not believe they are, but I am interested in hearing
|> >other perspectives -- particularly those which go beyond "but where do you 
|> >then draw the line on allowing change in breed specification?"
|> >
|> >Since I own dalmatians, I offer a (rhetorical) followup question:  If my 
|> >dalmatian is a wonderful example of the breed in every respect except that
|> >she will not (or can't) run for long distances alongside a carriage (her breed's
|> >original job), would breeding her harm the breed? Note that the question is 
|> >entirely rhetorical, since she is spayed.
|> >
|> Yes.
|> 
|> The breed standard of the Dalmatian according to the American Kennel Club
|> says that the breed "should be capable of great endurance, combined with a
|> fair amount of speed."  I don't know if coaching is the original purpose of
|> the breed but it is what the fancy dictates as the purpose of the breed and
|> chooses to emphasize.  Therefore, a responsible breeder would do well by
|> their chosen breed to not breed specimens that fail to support the standard of
|> breed perfection.

Actually, I had envisioned a dalmatian which was" of great endurance, combined
with a fair amount of speed", but which also would not run alongside a coach --
nice word, "coaching," by the way.  Nevertheless, I find myself now tending to agree
that a dalmatian which does not show endurance and a fair amount of speed should not
be bred. 

Note: because of the vagaries of news timings, this post might appear at some sites
before a previous response to Chris Barnes.  Please take this into consideration
when reading these posts.

|> 
|> For the same reasons I think that it is irresponsible to breed Airedales
|> with soft coats and no fire, Bouviers with no intellect or who display
|> aggression, and German Shephers whose rumps are practically dragging the
|> ground.  It serves no purpose for the breeds.  Until I can see that the
|> modern purpose of a dog requires that they be incapable of work and that
|> their form does not act as a partner to function, I will continue to
|> support the breeding of dogs that can perform the tasks their makers set
|> before them.
|> 
|> 
|> >And a Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukka, Best New Year to all!
|> >david
|> >primeaux@cs.utk.edu
|> > 
|> >
|> And Happy Holidays to One and All!
|> 
|> Gail Brookhart

primeaux@cs.utk.edu
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs