From: srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors (long)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:30:45 GMT

In article <16849AE26.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>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.

It is not clear to me what exactly is the buyers fault.  If the buyer
goes to a reputable breeder, which we all agree he/she should, and demonstrates
a lack of knowledge about the breed, the breeder will undoubtedly educate
this person and eventually decide whether or not to sell a dog to this 
person.  A responsible breeder should do the absolute best he/she can to 
ensure that such people do not become breeders of these dogs.  They certainly
can stop them from breeding a dog they may sell to them.  It seems to me
that the responsibility is clearly back in the lap of the breeder, as
it should be.

> 
>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.

If I accept your supposition that most people that buy pure-bred dogs
for pets do not qualify as informed buyers, then is it not our job to help
them along (in the sense of educating them about the breed, and helping
them make an informed, correct decision)?  Determined but uninformed 
buyers that go to a reputable breeder and are told "your are obviously a 
moron when it comes to <breed>, so I won't sell you <breed>" will be 
insulted and probably turn to less appropriate outlets, such as 
irresponsible breeders or pet stores.  Then they  may indeed wind up 
"polluting the gene pool" as you fear.  It would make more sense to me for 
a good breeder to "council" prospective buyers, and help them make the 
correct decision, be it for their breed or another breed.  After 
all, if they are that uninformed about one breed or another, who better 
to provide information about the breed than a good breeder?  The decision
should be made *together*.  If it turns out that a pet quality is the
correct decision, then the breeder sells the dog with a neuter requirement.
The people or person in question would win, the breeder would win, the
breed in question would win, and most importantly, the *dog* would win.

>      ----------------------------------------------
>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)   |

-- 
============================================================
Stephen R. Lee                 | 
OooWoo Racing Kennel           | I'd rather be driving sled
E-Mail: srlee@beta.lanl.gov    | dogs.
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs