From: ce293@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gail E. Brookhart)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:39:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ce293@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gail E. Brookhart)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


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.

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.

>
>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.

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