From: srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:19:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Aug21.161913.19675
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1684A7D56.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.193045.28803@newshost.lanl.gov>
>    srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee) writes:
> 
>>>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,
> 
>IF.  Simple facts are that many don't.  You could argue (with
>justification) that my argument above is really still just putting the
>blame on the breeder - not the original one, but the new one (the one
>that was the seller).  At any rate, I think it's moot because it's the
>same person we're talking about.

What?  Sorry, I don't follow this argument.   The point I am trying to
make is that _if_ a person *does* go to a reputable breeder, and is
put off by "I won't sell you a dog unless you *hunt* with it", they
will probably wind up going to a less desireable outlet.  People
that do _not_ go to a reputable breeder in the first place are moot, for
the purposes of this discussion.  However, the people that *do* seek good
advise should not be turned away.  They will _add_ to the very problem
you are worried about if they are.

> 
>>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.
> 
>I'm not convinced that this will "undoubtedly" happen.  As I've said,
>I don't think most breeders are as consiencous as those that read this
>group - especially those that have a financial interest in making that
>sale.

But I _am_ talking about reputable breeders.  A reputable breeder _will_
educate people about their breed.  If not, then it is not a reputable 
breeder, by definition (in my opinion).  What do breeders of different
dogs say out there?  Is this not true?  Perhaps my definition of
a reputable breeder needs to be altered (I'm serious, not trying to be
sarchastic).

[stuff deleted]

>>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.
> 
>I remain unconvinced.  Responsibility in a transaction between multiple
>parties almost never rests soely on just one of the parties.  Mind you,
>I'm not alieviating the breeder of his/her responsibility; I'm just
>saying that the buyer has his/her share of it too.

The buyers reponsibility is to provide the dog with a healthy, caring, loving
home (in a nutshell).  Beyond that, the buyers responsibility is to live up to 
any agreed to obligations set fourth in the purchacing agreement with the 
breeder, such as neutering or showing or whatever.  It is the _breeder's_ 
responsibility to do his or her best to place the dog in a good home, and a 
proper home, based on the people in question and the dog in question.  The 
responsibility for choosing which dog goes where is that of the breeder, not 
the buyer.  Is it perfect?  Of course not.  But it is infinitely better than 
irresponsible breeders and pet stores.

> 
> 
>>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)?
> 
>Absolutely!

You agree?  Then why not practice this?  I hardly think telling people they
do not deserve the companionship of a fine lab unless they hunt with
it educating them 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.
> 
>Of course anyone's reaction would be something along those lines if
>they were "educated" about the breed like that.  And I don't advocate
>doing that.

But when you say things like "If you are not going to hunt, don't get a lab"
you are , in effect, doing just that.  You are telling people that want
a companion animal to look elsewhere if they want a lab.  This is exactly
contrary to what I think "breed representatives" should do.  It perpetuates
a myth of elitism and turns people off.  The result?  People who are
determined to get a lab will get one from a less desireable source, and
may even wind up breeding it, to the detrement of the breed.

> 
> 
>>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?
> 
>This sounds an awful lot like what I've been saying, especially when
>you added "....or another breed".

It does and it does not.  I don't call "Don't get a lab unless you want
to hunt with it" counciling.  These are exactly the kinds of things that
can turn people off, especially when they are looking for a quality 
companion animal.  In some of your other posts, you have said you have no
problem with people getting pet-quality labs with spay/neuter contracts.
Then why turn them off with blanket statements like the above?  To me,
counciling people involves a lot of question asking and answering, not
simply cutting people off if they do not happen to be interested in
hunting.

> 
> 
>>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.
> 
>I totally agree.

Then what is the problem?  Like I said before, I understand your concern.
You are a knowledgable person when it comes to this breed.  You obviously care 
about the breed.  It is your approach that I cannot fathom.  All I am saying
is that blanket statements do very little to solve the problem.  I argue
that they can actually *contribute* to the problem.

> 
>      ----------------------------------------------
>Chris Barnes            |
>x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |  Only 11 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.