From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Proposed Standard for Labradors
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Organization: ICS Dept., UC Irvine
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:09:50 GMT



FYI -- this is the letter I wrote to the LRC/AKC committees over
the proposed changes. [I wrote it in LaTeX, but it should be largely
readable.]

\opening{To Whom It May Concern:}

I am writing to you about the proposed standard of the breed for the
Labrador Retriever.  I feel that it has some serious problems and
should be rejected in its present form.

Not the least of its problems is the embarrassing quality of writing.
There are misspellings (``snippiness'' for ``snipiness''), errors of
grammar, and other mistakes that would make any self-respecting
proof-reader cringe.  At the least, the document needs to be edited
thoroughly for these mistakes.

The most significant problem, in my mind, is the inclusion of
disqualifications in the proposed standard.  For example, calling any
variance outside the height recommendations a disqualification is
ludicrous.  We may as well shut down the Puppy and Novice classes in
the show ring --- any young dog that has not yet reached its adult
height will not be shown for fear of banishment from the ring should
it collect enough disqualifications.  Conversely, what of the dog that
is shown young and gains its Championship while it is within the
height limits, and then grows too tall?  Should its Championship be
stripped?  And what of the dog that is an excellent specimen in every
way except that it is over- or under- height?  Is it then the
ruination of the breed?  I think not, for height is one of the easiest
variables to control, and breeding with a larger or smaller dog, as
appropriate, will keep the offspring from becoming too large or too
small while preserving the other outstanding qualities of that dog.

The disqualifications listed for coat colors are unreasonable.  A dog
that is out of coat, shedding a winter or summer coat, or growing out
sun-exposed hair may be subjected to an unfair disqualification.
Describing coat deviances as faults as is currently done is more than
sufficient.

The sections describing the general appearance of the Labrador
Retriever are generally good, with the exception of the
listed disqualifications.  I would like to see some description of the
Labrador's ideal expression added.

The section on movement starts out very well, however it concludes
with the following:

\begin{quote}
A short, choppy movement or high knee action indicates a straight
shoulder; paddling indicates long, weak pasterns; and a short, stilted
rear gait indicates a straight rear assembly all are serious faults
(sic).  Movement faults interfering with performance include weaving;
side-winding; crossing over; high knee action; paddling; and short,
choppy movement, should be severely penalized.
\end{quote}

Why on earth is the standard describing some of the {\it causes} of
poor movement?  The standard is not an educational document, it is a
description of the ideal for the breed.

\begin{quote}
    True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the
breed as the ``otter'' tail.  The ideal disposition is one of a kindly,
outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards
man or animal.  The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his
gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog.
Aggressiveness towards human or other animals, or any evidence of
shyness in an adult should be severely penalized.
\end{quote}

I am delighted to see this description of the Labrador Retriever's
temperament.  I hope that this remains in the proposed revisions.

\begin{quote}
Disqualifications:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item Any deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
    \item A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
    \item Eye rims without pigment.
    \item Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the
	tail.
    \item Any other color or a combination of colors other than black, yellow
	or chocolate as described in the Standard.
\end{enumerate}
\end{quote}

I have serious reservations about the inclusion of disqualifications
in the proposed standard.  It is my opinion that this will encourage
the appearance of dogs that merely do not disqualify in the ring,
rather than dogs that strive to meet the standard of an ideal
Labrador.  A positive description in the standard would encourage the
latter rather than the former.  I think that the above items should be
considered faults and penalized appropriately (as they are now).  In
addition, since the standard is intended to describe {\it all}
Labradors, the inclusion of disqualifications is meaningless from a
non-show ring point of view.  If disqualifications must be present,
they should focus on faults that hinder the dog from performing its
intended function of hunting and retrieving, {\it not} on cosmetic
faults.

In spite of some of the admirable sections of the proposed standard, I
feel that its flaws render it unacceptable and urge you to futher
revise it into a document that the Labrador Retriever fancy can be
proud of.

\closing{Sincerely,}
--
Cindy Tittle Moore

Terrell's Chocolate Deduction--Hershe (Labrador Retriever)

The rec.pets.dogs FAQ -- all ten parts -- is available via ftp to
pit-manager.mit.edu under pub/usenet/news.answers/dogs-faq/*.  There
is a mail server, email me for details.

In loving memory of Betsy: 4-10-92 to 8-19-92...
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs