From: dittwil@bbs1984.chi.il.us (Bill Dittmann)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors (long)
Date: 25 Aug 92 09:33:07 GMT
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <16849AE26.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu>, X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris
Barnes) writes:
>In article <16uc69INNn3n@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>
>    terry@eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes:
> 
>>You seemed to have deleted my questions about breeds to recommend Mr. Joe
>>Q. Dogowner.  You say "Not Labs!"  Do you have a better suggestion for a
>>40 - 60 lb dog who is good with kids, is relatively easy to train,
>>likes attention and exercise?
> 
>I deleted it because I didn't answer it.  My answer would be to ask
>other questions:
>Long hair or short?
>How big? (that info was given).
>Protective?
> 
>I would probably try to get them to get a mutt from the pound, but
>if they wanted a purebred (citing the reasons given in other people's
>posts), I would let someone else make a recommendation (Labs & Goldens
>are generally bigger than 60 lbs., so they wouldn't qualify anyway).
>If you go up to a bigger size, then I would (and have in the past)
>recommend GSD, Rotts, and Doberman's.
> 
>>>>>Because
>>>>>they *could* be getting one that IS "birdy" and should be used for
>>>>>hunting/breeding.
>>>>
>>>>With Rottweilers, we can usually tell at 8 weeks old if a dog will be
>>>>an outstanding working prospect.  Is this not true for Labs?  Can't
>>>>the breeder find this extremely "birdy" dog before he sells it?
>>>
>>>Typcally, yes; the breeder can tell if the dog will be birdy.  And IF
>>>the pet buyer is buying from a breeder that cares, then it's not a
>>>problem.  But most breeders don't care (note:  by breeder here, I mean
>>>everyone that has a bitch produce a litter of pups, not just the
>>>profess. or informed breeder).  Most breeders will sell any pup to
>>>you that you pick out.....
>>
>>Then I think your original proposal needs modification.  The problem
>>is not the *buyer* of the puppy, but the *seller*.  You proposed that
>>a Lab should not be purchased except for hunting because the dog
>>*might* be an extremely "birdy" one and those are rare.  It seems that
>>now you say it is not the buyer at all who has the problem, but the
>>greedy seller who will take money from anyone with a checkbook
> 
>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.
> 
>NOTE: this also implies that the informed buyer that buys a pet-
>quality Lab (in this case) and never uses that dog for breeding IS NOT
>part of the problem.  I have no problem with this (as I have said more
>than a few times now), but somehow I keep getting these words tossed
>in my mouth that says I do.  It is my contention that most people that
>buy pure-bred dogs for pets do not qualify as a "informed buyer", so
>having a general rule that says "do not recommend Labs as pets" is
>a good rule.  Just because there are exceptions to a rule is not a
>reason to throw the rule out.
> 
> 
>>regardless of the temperament or abilities of the dog.  You propose to
>>solve this problem by making sure that only serious hunting people buy
>>dogs from Mr. Incompetent Lab Breeder just in case the puppy the buyer
>>picks out happens to be a great one?  AKKK.  I think you are avoiding
>>the problem.
> 
>I don't believe I ever said, or implied that.
> 
> 
>>>To me, 2,000 quality pups seems to be a pretty small number....
>>
>>Well, I understated the number of registrations / year and used an
>>extremely small number for the percentage of "birdy" pups.  If a
>>Rottweiler breeder was breeding for Schutzhund dogs and he can not
>>get more than 1 in 50 dogs to be good willing workers with good
>>temperaments, he had better make some serious changes in his breeding
>>program.  I assume the same would apply for Lab breeders.
> 
>True.  And making sure that those pups that do go as pets go with a
>spay/neutuer contract is one way (the best ?) in making those serious
>changes in the breeding program.  But this only works if a significant
>portion of the breeders are also making the change.
> 
> 
>>This discussion still begs the point.  If the problem is the
>>breeder and you will never solve that problem by trying to limit the
>>types of people he can sell to.  He will always be able to find
>>unsuitable buyers with an open checkbook.
> 
>The "if" in that statement is the correct word.  As I have already
>said, I don't beleive the "if" clause is correct, so the "then" clause
>is never checke (please forgive my terminology here - sometimes my
>programming intincts just creep out ;-)).
> 
> 
> 
>PS to those who are following this thread:  I can't speak for Terry
>and Carol (and the others that have thrown in their parts), but I
>don't think this discussion qualifies as a "flame war".  Just a good
>discussion/debate on a topic that interests us.
> 
>      ----------------------------------------------
>Chris Barnes            |
>x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |  Only 12 more days until the start of
>(409) 846-3273 (home)   |           hunting season (in Texas)
>(409) 845-8454 (work)   |
i wouldn't blame a desire to bu a purebred dog on the buyer i would point the
finger many other places, one of which is the AKC. correct me if i am wrong but
most dog clubs have a little rule about crossbreeding dogs. the AKC doesn't
want to acknowledge them as anything other than a problem most breeders do the
same. now what do you think a person wanting to get a quality pet would want a
mutt that is treated as second class dog or a purebred? not to mention the fact
that a mutt's charecteristics are unknown while a purebred's are well
documented.  if you want to take this tact i would suggest that again you are
inconsistent with your own goals. in an ideal situation  there are no mutts
what then are the people who want pets to buy purebreds of course. now you have
you choice purebreds bred for pets or the castoffs from purpose breeders like
yourself. this situation is not realistic but never the less it points out that
the only people you want to have a purebred dog are those few that show/hunt
the dog. 
 
somewhere down the line your logic is going to break your own rules or stated
desires
 

William Dittmann
Dittwil@bbs1984.chi.il.us
Dittwil@elof.iit.edu