From: davids@gardener.lanl.gov (David Simmons)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors
Originator: davids@feynman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:16:16 GMT


In article <2A9126C7.23768@ics.uci.edu>, tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
|> 
|> I'm pulling together several threads in this article, mostly on
|> Barnes' [Chris], Miller's [Liza], and Sorsby's [Charlie] articles.
|> 
|> Both Liza and Charlie brought up many good points in their discussion
|> of breeding labs.  While Chris applauds what they have to say, the
|> context of their posts and Chris' is quite different.
|> 
|> Chris keeps talking about ALL labs, as in "Don't get a lab unless you
|> plan to do hunting with it."  This is an extremely arbitrary statement
|> that will, of course, raise the ire of anyone who is not hunting their
|> lab.
|> 
|> Liza and Charlie, on the other hand, are saying "If you breed labs,
|> make sure that lab is balanced: conforms to the standard, has the
|> correct temperament, and is birdy."  This is a very sensible viewpoint
|> and should be considered by ALL breeders (well, substitute "birdy" for
|> other things appropriate to other breeds).
|> 
|> There is a world of difference between those views, and while I found
|> it amusing that Chris kept applauding points that they were making, I
|> was still annoyed with his overall attitude.
|> 
|> Chris is outraged any time a lab is not used for hunting.  But let's
|> examine this scenario a bit more fully.  He says that it "degrades"
|> the breed if you have labs that do not hunt.  Well, I disagree.  Let's
|> postulate that we have a litter from the best possible parents in
|> terms of the balance for labs.  Even with this super litter, you will
|> have variations: some will be better than others at different things.
|> You find that you have a non-birdy pup, so you sell that pup as a pet.
|> 
|> Now, this pup is *not* doing anything to degrade the breed.  There is
|> a normal extent of variation within any litter and this can happen.  A
|> labrador that does not hunt is not a problem. Even in the ideal
|> situation, where only "perfect" labs were bred, you'd still have this
|> occuring.  Genetics are too complex to bring out clone after clone, no
|> matter your breeding program.  I won't even get into the intricacities
|> of those dogs that do not display certain characteristics, but
|> consistently pass them on to their offspring.
|> 
|> Now, suppose that this pup is bred and has a litter of puppies.  *Now*
|> this is a problem.  But is it a problem because the puppy is
|> non-birdy?  No, the problem is that it was *bred*.  And now we're in
|> the world of back-yard breeding and all those associated problems.
|> But the problem never was that that pup was not birdy.  Back-yard
|> breeders are a menace to ALL aspects of the balance: looks,
|> temperament, and abilities.
|> 
|> You are missing the forest for the trees, Chris.  This is what Liza
|> and Charlie were trying to point out.  Liza made it very clear how she
|> (and many other breeders she knows) is dealing with this: she (and
|> they) breed only those dogs she (and they) consider suitable for
|> breeding.  She listed several criteria: CH, CD, and JH -- there is
|> your balance.  I'll make it clear what I'm doing to try and prevent
|> this (though it's not restricted to labs): I distribute lots of
|> information on why you should neuter your pet, plus information on
|> just what is involved in putting together a *good* litter.  It was one
|> of the reasons for making the FAQ's redistributable.
|> 
|> What are you [Chris] doing?  Well, you're lecturing anyone who is
|> thinking of getting a lab not to do so unless he'll use it for
|> hunting.  You're telling everyone who has a lab that isn't hunting
|> that they're ruining the breed.
|> 
|> Guess which set of tactics *I* find more effective and less offensive?
|> 
|> --Cindy
|> --
|> Cindy Tittle Moore -- Terrell's Chocolate Deduction (chocolate labrador bitch)
|> 

<clap> <clap> <clap> <clap>......

FINALLY, a sensible, thoughtful and eloquent response to Chris' jumping
up and down about HIS breed (not to imply, of course, that Charlie and Liza's
replies were anything less than sensible and eloquent!).

Thank you, Cindy, for pulling this all together.  In all of this discussion,
I had been wondering what Chris propose we do with any pup that obviously
is lacking in some way at birth.  Do we simply drown them becasue they
do not meet his (Chiris') standards?

Well, Chris?
-- 

David G. Simmons
davids@lanl.gov

If I said it, LANL didn't... 

-- 

David G. Simmons
davids@lanl.gov

Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs