From: bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Hunting Abilities: Lab Registration
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:00:52 GMT
Reply-To: bws20@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Summary: A few hard figures
In article: <1992Sep2.211258.15112@u.washington.edu>

Don MArtin writes:vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv inclusion vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I agree, the current gene pool of registered labs is huge. My point
was that if you insisted on some type of hunting credentials, the 
pool would be too small for comfort. I did a little research over
the weekend. Here is a summary:

labs registered in 1991 105876 (in 1990 it was 95766)

Approximate AKC awards and crude ratios:

Confirmation champions       178     0.17%
Field champions               50     0.05%
Amateur field ch.             42     0.04%

Tracking dog                  26     0.02%
TDX                           12     0.01%

Junior hunter                657     0.62%
Senior hunter                222     0.21%
master hunter                154     0.15%

These are extrapolated from 10 issues of the AKC Awards.
vol.11:09 to 12:08 with 11:10 and 11:11 missing. Volume
12 is 1992 so these are the most current.

From these, you can see that abou 5-7 dogs per 1000 get
a hunting award. To require this for registration or
breeding would almost wipe out the breed. This is still
true even if you double or triple the number of awards.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ end inclusion ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

One nit:  if this were a requirement, surely more people would see it as
an important goal and breed/ train accordingly.  Simply because relatively
few Labs are getting these awards does not necessarily mean that relativel
y few are *incapable* of getting them.  Your percentages are absolutely
meaningless as they are based on insufficient data.  How many of the AKC
registered Labs were entered in trials leading to a Field championship?
Divide that into 50 Field champions and you have a statistic which may
mean something.  Ditto for the rest of your numbers.  Perhaps you have
a future as a government economist  <grin>.

I also disagree with your assessment that this would necessarily almost
wipe out the breed.  European working dogs seem to exist in decent numbers
despite having working requirements for determining breeding sutiability.


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv inclusion vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I expect that the idea of requiring an award is doubly
doomed. It is probablable that fewer than 1% of the
owners would be interested and a larger number would
probably be outraged at being told what to do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ end inclusion ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think you are correct on these points.


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv inclusion vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The second reason is the AKC. To call the AKC conservative and
slow to change is a gross understatement. As an example, the
Old English Sheepdog Club has been trying to get permission
to tie the hair out of the dogs eyes while showing in obedience.
No way!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ end inclusion ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Will wonders never cease?  The AKC seems to me to be making the good and
logical choice here.  The dog's natural coat should not be an impediment
to the dog's functionality.  If it cannot see where the heck it is going
then it seems obvious there is a problem with the coat, like maybe the
conformation crowd has encouraged excessive coat cause it looks _so_
pretty.  One wonders how many English sheep farmers found it necessary
to tie back the hair on their working dogs--surely they would have
selected against this in their breeding.  This seems painfully obvious
to me. Good for the AKC!


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv inclusion vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I can post the raw data for these rates if anyone is interested.
However, it would take more than order of magnitude changes to 
invalidate the point that an AKC hunting award requirement
for registration is hopeless.

Don Martin
Widdershins Old English Sheepdogs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ end inclusion ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Without getting directly involved in this registration argument, I would
like to add that "hopeless" is not equivalent to "worthelss" or to
"undesirable."

bws

--
**************************************************************************
bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs