From: primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: looking for new dog suggestions
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:29:52 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
Reply-To: primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: wham-o.cs.utk.edu


I have resisted the temptation to respond to this thread.  But it seems that
some of us have the idea that change is inherently a bad thing (at least
when it comes to dog breeds).  I am not a dog breeder and I do not play one
on TV.   I make some observations:  1) if humans were not involved in the 
breeding process, there would be breeds (only "mutts");  2) to argue that
a certain breed must retain certain characteristics (such as the ability
to hunt) begs the question when 3) the very intervention of humans in the 
breeding process changes the shape and characteristics of future members
of the breed.  Let's face it: labs aren't out there on their own looking
for mates which might improve the breed.  What we consider a beautiful 
specimen of a cocker spaniel bred for show/looks is just another dog to 
another dog.  We are the ones who have decided what is "natural" for a 
breed.  And we can change it if we wish.  In a previous post on this 
topic Scott Winders said:

|>If someone wants to take a hunting dog and make it a perfect companion,
|>let them.
 
To which Chris Barnes replied:
 
> No.  Not without a fight.  Not with MY breed.

How pretentiously overbearing.  "MY breed" indeed. You don't own the
breed, Chris.  If the breeding community moves in the direction of 
breeding out the hunting ability then that is the way it will be.  *You*
may still own specimens of that breed which retain the hunting instinct,
but the best of the breed will be otherwise.





In article <168469530.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu>, X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
|> In article <16gpu8INNhe8@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>
|>     terry@eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes:
|>  
|> >I really think what needs to be restored in our breeds is one key
|> >word, "BALANCE."
|>  
|> I agree.  But my question is how do we get that back into balance (and
|> IMHO, many of the sporting breeeds are out of balance towards
|> confirmation and "pet-ification").


I submit that there is no more wrong with the "pet-ification" of a
breed than there is with the "petrification" of a breed. 

|>  
|> >I'm all for working ability in our working dogs, but
|> >if competition becomes the only goal, we can end up with dogs that are
|> >not safe in a home.  That is not my idea of a good working dog.  Some
|> >field trial people end up with dogs that are so hyper they are
|> >unlivable.  Sure they can hunt, but they aren't good companions.
|>  
|> Actually, although they might win Field Trials and pass Hunting Tests,
|> they aren't what I would call a good hunting dog.  But that is really a
|> problem with judge selection at the events (something that I can
|> influance in my own little way since I'm judging another Hunting Test
|> early in October).
|>  
|>       ----------------------------------------------
|> Chris Barnes            |
|> x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |  Only 15 more days until the start of
|> (409) 846-3273 (home)   |           hunting season (in Texas)
|> (409) 845-8454 (work)   |


-- david