From: liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller)
Subject: Re: The Great Lab Debate
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:59:44 GMT

In article <1684A85AE.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.200013.20739@morrow.stanford.edu>
>    liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller) writes:
> 
>>It seems to me that this entire episode started out with the comment being
>>made that Labs shouldn't be sold as pets because that will encourage the
>>downfall of the breed.  I recall that the basis for this was that Labs are
>>hunting dogs and should only be used as hunting dogs.
>>
>>To which I reply, POPPYCOCK!
> 
>Actually, it started when someone (I don't remember who, and really
>don't care) recommened that someone replace their Golden with another
>Golden, giving the reason that Goldens make wonderful pets.  They
>completely left out any encouragement to either: 1)  have the pet-
>quality Golden spayed or neutered, or 2) utilize the dog for it's
>original purposes.
> 
>I objected to this recommendation on the grounds that this type of
>recommendation, if followed frequently by many people, eventually
>would encourage the downfall of the breed.  I have said many, many,
>many times that they could be used for other purposes as long as
>they weren't used for breeding.  (those are words that got put in
>my mouth for me).
 
	Well, fine, other than the breed of dog, I pretty much had the
other facts in order.  The original purpose of all the retriever breeds was
as a gentleman's hunting dog.  Does that, by your definition, mean that
only men who live on estates in England should own them?  Don't be absurd.
However, it is also important to note that the original purpose of being a
gentleman's hunting dog by nature requires them to be a good companion.  I
see nothing wrong with labs being pets based on that description.  My
goodness though, think if we went back to the REAL original purpose of
Labs.  When was the last time you had *your* lab haul fish nets in off the
coast of Newfoundland?  I don't think you deserve that dog, Chris.
Obviously I am being facetious here, but I think it is worth noting that
there have been different purposes for Labs in the years since their
inception as a recognizable breed.

>>What are Labradors?  I could post the Labrador standard as I have in the
>>past, but that is a physical description of the ideal Labrador and doesn't
>>begin to encompase the true description.
> 
>Give the North American Hunting Retriever Association (NAHRA)
>definition a look.  I believe it's somewhat different that what even
>(i've heard) the LRC (affliated with the AKC) says.
 	Well, I am a member of NAHRA and they are a worthy organization.
They are NOT, however, a registry for dogs and do not have breed standards.

>>And for me, two out of three or one out of three is just not good enough.
>>Labradors are all around dogs and all of their attributes need to be
>>protected.  It would be just as easy for me to say that UGLY labs shouldn't
>>be bred as it is for Chris to say that non-birdy labs shouldn't be bred.
>>And, in my opinion, both are true.  In my opinion, a lab that is ugly as
>>sin but has a senior hunter title is just as bad as a beautiful Champion
>>who won't even retrieve a ball in the backyard.  Neither of them should be
>>bred.
> 
>Just because I don't go around extolling the value of the dog
>conforming to the breed standard, does not mean that I do not think
>it's important (I do).  But I see little reason in adding my voice to
>a choir of people that are willing to that when the point I want to
>make is to defend one specific area that I believe was being neglected
>(hunting ability).  True, I have seen dogs at hunting tests that are
>far too large (for example) to be anywhere close to the breed
>standard.  But guess what; that made them less capable hunting dogs as
>well (what's that part that says that part of the dog's apperance is
>to display its abiltiy to perform in the field?).  In fact, ALL of the
>dogs that I have seen that truely excell in their field abilities I
>feel are the epitomy of what the breed standard calls for in their
>appearance (in spite of the altered specimans that USUALLY show in the
>conformation ring).  SO, since I believe the field events ARE producing
>the "conformationally correct" specimens, I see little need for the
>conformation ring for Labs.  As far as obiediance, very little needs
>to be said here; a dog that doesn't have superiour obiendaince simply
>would be impossible to also be a good field worker.  Same goes for
>temprament.
	I don't know what you mean by the "altered specimans" remark but
your idea that field events are producing conformationally correct dogs is
a complete exageration.  I've been to a fair share of field events in the
last year and there are very many superior field dogs that are extremely
ugly dogs -- and they are being bred because they are performing in the
field.  Just look at the NAHRA newsletters, there is at least one dog that
is advertised who is over 100 lbs and has a high (I don't remember off hand
how high) title for field work from NAHRA.  He's offered at stud.  The
Labrador Retriever standard recommends that males be   60-75 lbs and 22-1/2
to 24-1/2 inches at the shoulder.  Most field dogs do not fit that
standard.  Granted the heights and weights listed are merely
recommendations and not requirments.  

>>I believe that breeders should make more of an effort to come together in
>>all three areas of importance to the breed.  And let's not forget the
>>fourth and equally important area of HEALTH.  All breeding stock MUST be
>>evaluated for hereditary diseases of all kinds (including hip and elbow
>>dysplasia, PRA, OCD, epilepsy, and, newly diagnosed in a Lab stud on the
>>West Coast, von Wildebrand's disease).  These things are CRUCIAL!
>Total agreement.
 	Well, unfortunately, a lot of "field" types are not in total
agreement.  There dogs can perform, so why should they check these things
out.  Granted there are also folks that breed conformation dogs that have
that attitude, but they aren't likely to be very successful.  Very, very
few people in the conformation world will be willing to buy a puppy or use
a stud when all the proper health checks haven't been completed.

>>I have three goals I'd like to see for dog breeding in particular:
>>
>>1.  Stop all retail sales of pets.
> 
>I presume you mean dogs.  I really don't see much need in restricting
>fish and bird sales after all.....  The only problem with this is
>how do you define "retail sales".  Do you mean pet stores?  Do you
>mean that I can't receive money from people that take home a puppy
>that my only bitch produces once every 2 years?  Good idea if you
>mean the first, bad if the second.  Also (assuming you mean the first),
>it would be very difficult to word properly so that you get the
>desired effect.
 	Retail is generally taken to mean selling from a store.  It is
opposed to wholesale which is direct from the source.  Retailing implies a
middle-man.  I want to see pet stores stop selling pets -- of any kind.
There are people out there who breed birds and fish and reptiles and no
doubt do a better job than the store in the mall.  I'm sure that serious
herp-lovers don't stop in at PetWorld for a new snake.  They go somewhere
where they can be sure that the snake is healthy and has been well-cared
for.  I don't think that a retail store can offer the correct conditions to
take care of animals.

>>3.  Responsible breeders should recognize that most dogs were originally
>>    bred with a purpose in mind and that purpose is an intregal part of
>>    the breed and can not be ignored nor taken for granted.  They also need
>>    to recognize that dogs are a complete package and when you breed for
>>    one thing, be it coat color, hunting ability, obedience ability, or
>>    whathaveyou, you are damaging the breed.
>No problem here.
 	And yet you state that you consider hunting ability to be the only
truely relevant piece of information that a breeder needs to worry about
(other than health concerns, of course).

>>These are MY goals and I am not trying to push them on anyone else.
>Ahem.  You did say above "all breeders" (#2).  I don't disagree with
>it, but....
 	I also said that these are MY goals and I am not pushing them on
anyone else.  I do not believe in legislating this process.  I think it
needs to be done via education and peer-pressure.

>>Now, as to the issue of whether or not Labs should be sold as pets.
>>ABSOLUTELY!  They should.  Labs are marvelous pets.
> 
>Again, no problem here.  Now it's your turn; Should Labs be *blindy*
>recommened as pets?  Yes or no?
 	No animal should be blindly recommended as a pet.  And NO ONE has
said that they should.  However, labs do make superior pets.  No animal is
perfect however.  My sister loves my labs, but she is allergic to them.
She wants a dog that doesn't shed as much as my dogs do.  Get the point?
Sure, I'd recommend that someone look into labs as pets.  I'd tell them how
happy I am with mine, but I would also suggest that they do their homework
-- if you've read any of my posts, you'll know thats true.  People should
no more blindly get a dog than they would blindly adopt a child.  I've
never said anything to the contrary, so I don't see how your question has
any relevance.

	As to your remarks that hunting provides all the information you
need as a breeder because it handles the obedience, conformation, and
birdiness.  I don't believe that is true, but let's just assume that it is.
Put your money where your mouth is.  Show your dog.  Do obedience trials
with your dog.  And then report back to us.  What's that you say?  You 
don't have time to do all those things?  Well, that's very interesting.  It
should make you appreciate these people who have titles from all three
areas on their dogs.  The bitch that I have right now, my breeding hopeful,
is from a sire and dam that are both CH, JH, and CD titled.  I'll put them
up against your dog, Chris, anyday as good representatives of the breed.

	I just don't think you have done your homework on these issues,
Chris.


--
Liza Lee Miller         My dogs are labradorable!     liza@pangea.stanford.edu
Cibola Labradors            Field * Show * Fun                    415/326-5309
Cibola's Misty Mountain Hop--Hopper                   Mistypoint Kashmir--Kash
Talimar All-Pro At Delby--Niner          Campbellcroft Cibola Rosette -- Rosie
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs