From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: The Great Lab Debate
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:30:18 GMT

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).
 
 
>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.
 
 
>Labradors are incrediably
>wonderful dogs.  ...good description deleted for space.....
 
>Chris Barnes would have us believe that the most important part of the
>description of a Labrador is that they are hunting dogs.
> .....deleted to save space....
 
>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 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.
 
 
>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.
 
 
>2.  All breeders sell their pet-quality puppies on spay/neuter contracts
>    by that I also mean that if the only buyer for a pup is a pet buyer and
>    a hot pup needs to go to that home, then the pup should be sold on a
>    spay/neuter contract.  This is so important.
 
Very good suggestion.  Now if we could just that "All breeders" part
to work....
 
 
>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.
 
 
>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....
 
 
>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?
 
 
      ----------------------------------------------
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)   |