From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 03:26:38 GMT

I probably won't have time to do this topic justice at the moment
but may have more to say later.  For the time being, I must comment
(briefly, I hope) on this particular post.

To begin, *all* breeds evolve, sometimes radically, sometimes for
better sometimes (more often, *I* believe) for worse.  Sometimes
the original purpose of a breed continues to exist; sometimes it
does not.  To compare circumstances for a breed whose original
purpose still exists with on whose does not is, at best, comparing
apples with oranges.

In article <1h5965INN2v1@CS.UTK.EDU> primeaux@carlsberg.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux) writes:
= |> >entirely rhetorical, since she is spayed.
= |>  
= |> yes.  (that's assuming you have correctly defined the purpose of
= |> dalmations for us.  I don't know anything about dalmations.)

All of the following will use various sporting breeds (my interest)
as examples.  I will leave it to you to contrive analogous
situations for your own favorite breed or group.

While, the purpose of Dalmations (as described by David (?) is,
arguably obsolete, that is not true of the sporting breeds, at
least as far as potential use is concerned.  (It is true of some
sporting breeds as far as the breed is concerned--the breeds have
been changed to satisfy the whims of people who (apparently) neither
know nor care what decades (or centuries) of breeding tried to
accomplish.)  The American Cocker Spaniel *as a breed* is a case in
point.  I say "as a breed" because there are (as I understand it)
lines that retain the instincts that the breed was developed for.
But, by and large, the breed has deteriorated to ornamentation.
Enough people didn't care enough about the history or purpose of the
breed and arbitrarily changed it to satisfy a whim:  The preference
for excessively feathered animals.

In some cases, breeds have split into to, or even more, sub-breeds.
The Golden Retriever, the English Setter, are cases in point.

It is frequently mentioned, if not preached, here and elsewhere,
that is it *wrong* to breed a dog that is unlikely to "improve the
breed."  Too often, this phrase is taken to apply only to
superficial qualities--appearance.  For those of you who *don't*
believe that it is wrong to breed dogs who lack the instincts for
which the breed was developed, please explain to me how that
differs from breeding dogs who lack the *appearance* that is
characteristic of the breed.

To be more specific, why is it worse to breed a dog that is, say,
an inch taller or shorter than the breed standard specifies than
it is to breed a "bird dog" that lacks bird sense?

I guess that my view is that, if the original purpose of the breed
has disappeared, it *may* be acceptable to permit its purpose to
evolve but if that purpose continues to exist, it is definitely
*not* acceptable to do so.  If you don't care enough about that
breed to want to perpetuate *all* of its characteristics, find
another breed.

= The "in effect serving the same purpose" seems a bit slippery to me, despite
= the example Chris gives.  Let's get back to dalmatians, for example. And let's

I assume that, here, you are saying that cases exist where Chris's
comment is difficult to apply, not that Chris's example is
"slippery."

= for the sake of argument that the original purpose of the breed was to run for 
= long distances alongside a carriage.  Being a carriage dog is perhaps a trifle 
= archaic, agreed?  So we have a breed whose original purpose is passe. Some might
= argue that the breed is no longer needed (I won't, and apparently Chris won't 
= either -- although I hesitate to put words into his mouth).  Others might argue
= that the breed is needed so long as someone somewhere is willing to still get in
= a carriage and run these dogs so that they can be tested (with regard to original
= purpose) for fitness to breed.  Another alternative is the one that I *think* Chris
= might champion is that they should be tested in performance of some task that is
= "in effect serving the same purpose."  Running alongside cars is one such task 
= that comes to mind.  In my mind this would present a clear and evident danger to
= such dogs, I don't want to be unfair about the issue.  What would a safe, suitable
= task "in effect serving the same purpose" be for a dalmatian?

Perhaps one should ask *why* they were bred to run alongside
carriages.  Was it purely ornamentation?  Was it to guard the
occupants from highwaymen?  What?  Until that question is resolved,
the "morality," if I may call it that, of breeding dogs unsuitable
for that task and the development of suitable alternative purposes
cannot be properly decided.

Incidentally, I should think that, under similar conditions
and at similar speeds, it would be no more dangerous for a dog to
run alongside a motor car than alongside a horse-drawn carriage--
perhaps less so.  I also find it difficult to imagine any sound,
Dalmation-size dog, in good condition that would be hard pressed to
keep up with a horse-drawn carriage for any distance that it is
possible to drive such a carriage these days (and, perhaps, even
for the distances originally involved).

= My opinion:  if the original purpose of the breed is archaic and the breed is 
= still valued for other purposes -- such as disposition or color or size or whatever
= -- dogs of that breed can and *ought* to be bred with those values in mind.

Does breeding for the orignal capabilities harm these "other
purposes"?  If not, why not keep the breed intact?

= My opinion, one step further:  if the original purpose of the breed is archaic
= to some people but they still value the breed for other purposes (as above),
= -- dogs of that breed can and *ought* to be bred with those values in mind.  I point
= out (*not* to start a flame war, but only to illustrate with a controversial example)
= that some people consider hunting archaic (I have been known to hunt, so don't
= bother flaming me for this observation.). 

It may be archaic in some eyes but it is still done and dogs are
still used for the purpose.  That some people *don't* hunt should
be irrelevant to the issue of maintaining breed characteristics.

Allow me to close with an analogous question.

You claim that if the original purpose of the breed is "archaic to
some people...dogs of that breed can and *ought* to be bred with
those values in mind."  If that is true, then why not permit
breeding for other characteristics that "some people" may value?
Why not, for example, permit spotted Labs or solid color
Dalmations?  Surely there are people somewhere who like Dalmations
but would like one in, say, solid red.  Should we not cater to
these people and permit Dals of that color to be bred and
registered?  After all, it's only coat color.  Why is it all right
to forget about function but not appearance?  Why, for that matter,
are there people who would not *think* of breeding a dog whose
appearance departs from that specified in the breed standard but
who would not hesitate to totally disregard the function for which
the breed was developed?  Have we as a society become so obsessed
with appearance that we will readily discard the function for which
breeds were developed while blathering incessantly that we *MUST*
*NOT* breed a dog whose appearance departs even minutely from
accepted standards?

I don't know about you, but *I* think that's sad.


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov