From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors (long)
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:23:00 GMT

In article <16uc69INNn3n@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>
    terry@eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes:
 
>You seemed to have deleted my questions about breeds to recommend Mr. Joe
>Q. Dogowner.  You say "Not Labs!"  Do you have a better suggestion for a
>40 - 60 lb dog who is good with kids, is relatively easy to train,
>likes attention and exercise?
 
I deleted it because I didn't answer it.  My answer would be to ask
other questions:
Long hair or short?
How big? (that info was given).
Protective?
 
I would probably try to get them to get a mutt from the pound, but
if they wanted a purebred (citing the reasons given in other people's
posts), I would let someone else make a recommendation (Labs & Goldens
are generally bigger than 60 lbs., so they wouldn't qualify anyway).
If you go up to a bigger size, then I would (and have in the past)
recommend GSD, Rotts, and Doberman's.
 
>>>>Because
>>>>they *could* be getting one that IS "birdy" and should be used for
>>>>hunting/breeding.
>>>
>>>With Rottweilers, we can usually tell at 8 weeks old if a dog will be
>>>an outstanding working prospect.  Is this not true for Labs?  Can't
>>>the breeder find this extremely "birdy" dog before he sells it?
>>
>>Typcally, yes; the breeder can tell if the dog will be birdy.  And IF
>>the pet buyer is buying from a breeder that cares, then it's not a
>>problem.  But most breeders don't care (note:  by breeder here, I mean
>>everyone that has a bitch produce a litter of pups, not just the
>>profess. or informed breeder).  Most breeders will sell any pup to
>>you that you pick out.....
>
>Then I think your original proposal needs modification.  The problem
>is not the *buyer* of the puppy, but the *seller*.  You proposed that
>a Lab should not be purchased except for hunting because the dog
>*might* be an extremely "birdy" one and those are rare.  It seems that
>now you say it is not the buyer at all who has the problem, but the
>greedy seller who will take money from anyone with a checkbook
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
>regardless of the temperament or abilities of the dog.  You propose to
>solve this problem by making sure that only serious hunting people buy
>dogs from Mr. Incompetent Lab Breeder just in case the puppy the buyer
>picks out happens to be a great one?  AKKK.  I think you are avoiding
>the problem.
 
I don't believe I ever said, or implied that.
 
 
>>To me, 2,000 quality pups seems to be a pretty small number....
>
>Well, I understated the number of registrations / year and used an
>extremely small number for the percentage of "birdy" pups.  If a
>Rottweiler breeder was breeding for Schutzhund dogs and he can not
>get more than 1 in 50 dogs to be good willing workers with good
>temperaments, he had better make some serious changes in his breeding
>program.  I assume the same would apply for Lab breeders.
 
True.  And making sure that those pups that do go as pets go with a
spay/neutuer contract is one way (the best ?) in making those serious
changes in the breeding program.  But this only works if a significant
portion of the breeders are also making the change.
 
 
>This discussion still begs the point.  If the problem is the
>breeder and you will never solve that problem by trying to limit the
>types of people he can sell to.  He will always be able to find
>unsuitable buyers with an open checkbook.
 
The "if" in that statement is the correct word.  As I have already
said, I don't beleive the "if" clause is correct, so the "then" clause
is never checke (please forgive my terminology here - sometimes my
programming intincts just creep out ;-)).
 
 
 
PS to those who are following this thread:  I can't speak for Terry
and Carol (and the others that have thrown in their parts), but I
don't think this discussion qualifies as a "flame war".  Just a good
discussion/debate on a topic that interests us.
 
      ----------------------------------------------
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)   |