From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Subject: Re: Hunting ability in Labradors (long)
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:25:48 GMT

In article <2A9126C7.23768@ics.uci.edu>
    tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
 
>Both Liza and Charlie brought up many good points in their discussion
>of breeding labs.  While Chris applauds what they have to say, the
>context of their posts and Chris' is quite different.
 
I don't think Cindy has quite caught on to what I am saying.  It is
evident in what she attributes to what I say.
 
 
>Chris keeps talking about ALL labs, as in "Don't get a lab unless you
>plan to do hunting with it."  This is an extremely arbitrary statement
>that will, of course, raise the ire of anyone who is not hunting their
>lab.
 
Close, but not quite.  True, my recommendation to someone that is
looking for a pet will ALWAYS be against getting a Lab.  Why?  Because
they *could* be getting one that IS "birdy" and should be used for
hunting/breeding.  As these dogs ARE rare, it should be prevented.
And (to use someone else's words), throws things out of balance.
BUT, that is different from what I tell people that already have a Lab
and use it for another purpose (ie.  don't breed).
 
 
>Liza and Charlie, on the other hand, are saying "If you breed labs,
>make sure that lab is balanced: conforms to the standard, has the
>correct temperament, and is birdy."  This is a very sensible viewpoint
>and should be considered by ALL breeders (well, substitute "birdy" for
>other things appropriate to other breeds).
 
I have no problem with this, and have said so.
 
 
>Chris is outraged any time a lab is not used for hunting.
 
WRONG.
 
 
>But let's
>examine this scenario a bit more fully.  He says that it "degrades"
>the breed if you have labs that do not hunt.  Well, I disagree.
 
I would disagree too, except that's not what I said.  I said it
degrades Labs to breed for purposes other than hunting (companionship
in this case).  Go back and read the example I used (where the
pet Labs were BREEDING!).
 
 
>Let's
>postulate that we have a litter from the best possible parents in
>terms of the balance for labs.  Even with this super litter, you will
>have variations: some will be better than others at different things.
>You find that you have a non-birdy pup, so you sell that pup as a pet.
>
>Now, this pup is *not* doing anything to degrade the breed.  There is
>a normal extent of variation within any litter and this can happen.  A
>labrador that does not hunt is not a problem. Even in the ideal
>situation, where only "perfect" labs were bred, you'd still have this
>occuring.  Genetics are too complex to bring out clone after clone, no
>matter your breeding program.
>
>Now, suppose that this pup is bred and has a litter of puppies.  *Now*
>this is a problem.  But is it a problem because the puppy is
>non-birdy?  No, the problem is that it was *bred*.  And now we're in
>the world of back-yard breeding and all those associated problems.
>But the problem never was that that pup was not birdy.  Back-yard
>breeders are a menace to ALL aspects of the balance: looks,
>temperament, and abilities.
 
This sounds like an EXACT quote of what I said!
 
 
>You are missing the forest for the trees, Chris.
 
Sounds like (in the last paragraph) we're seeing the same thing....
 
 
>This is what Liza
>and Charlie were trying to point out.  Liza made it very clear how she
>(and many other breeders she knows) is dealing with this: she (and
>they) breed only those dogs she (and they) consider suitable for
>breeding.  She listed several criteria: CH, CD, and JH -- there is
>your balance.
 
And I commend them for it (again).
 
Side note:  IMHO, a JH is so easy (at least for Retrievers) as to be
   a meaningless title.  If you plan on responding to this, please
   change the subject line.....
 
>I'll make it clear what I'm doing to try and prevent
>this (though it's not restricted to labs): I distribute lots of
>information on why you should neuter your pet, plus information on
>just what is involved in putting together a *good* litter.  It was one
>of the reasons for making the FAQ's redistributable.
 
And I commend you for it.  Keep up the good work.
 
 
>What are you [Chris] doing?  Well, you're lecturing anyone who is
>thinking of getting a lab not to do so unless he'll use it for
>hunting.
 
And I have given my reasons for doing so.
But, answer your question (and toot my own horn):
 
1. I judge Hunting Tests, and try to make the titles that the dog's
   earn mean something.
2. When I sell those pet-quality pups, I sell them with a spay/neuter
   contract.
3. When I sell those "birdy" pups, I encourage the buyer to run them in
   Hunting Tests or Field Trials to prove the dog.
4. I am a VERY active member of my local Retriever club.  I help the
   new members with their training (obiediance as well as hunting).
5. I am an active member of this group (I do post answers to people's
   questions when I feel I have the knowlege to do so).
etc.
 
>You're telling everyone who has a lab that isn't hunting
>that they're ruining the breed.
 
Again, not quite.  I tell people that BREED their non-hunting Labs
that they are ruining the breed.
 
 
To conclude, I have obtained permission to include someone else's
private email to me.  She does understand my position....
 
 * * * * * included email from Susan B  * * * * *
 
Chris,
   I've been following this thread over the past few days, and I
even opposed you on the net (I'm the one who argued that your
friend was in effect doing his breed a favor by mating his not-
so-qualified bitch with a superior stud).  I just want you to know
what I've decided after all this:
 
   I've changed my mind about defending your friend.  It was of
course naive of me to presume that breeding in good qualities
ensures that the offspring will pick up the good qualities.
(Luckily, I'm no breeder.)
 
   I think I finally understand your position, but it's taken a lot
of replies on your part for me to get there (PLEASE correct me
if I'm wrong!!  I just want to understand!!) :
          You're not inherently opposed to dogs being USED cross-
           purposes (I gather this from your admission to allowing
           your lab pups to be used as seeing-eye-dogs).  What you
           REALLY oppose is people BREEDING cross-purposes,
           and for THAT reason, you oppose people buying cross-
           purposes, since that encourages breeding cross-purposes.
           Right so far?
 
           So your real beef is with BREEDERS, right?  You don't
           really care, do you, if someone takes a particular dog who
           happens to be a good hunter and a good companion, and
           doesn't hunt with him, as long as this person doesn't breed
           the dog right?  (Because if this person wanted to breed the
           dog, they should at first prove the dog to be a good hunter.)
           That is, you wouldn't care as long as this person didn't
           make it known to the breeder that he or she was buying
           the dog for companionship only (otherwise the breeder
           might pick up on the fact that there's a market for non-
           retrieving retrievers, for instance), right?  Am I totally
           confused by now?  Unfortunately, there IS a market for
           companionship dogs who can't hunt.  And breeders darn
           well know that.  So some of them breed for that market
           only, and not for the hunting market.  And that's your
           beef, right?  If that's what you're trying to say, I AGREE
           WITH YOU!!   There are plenty of hunting dogs out there
           who are also good companions who also have good
           conformation, and THESE are the dogs which should be
           being bred, and any dog that lacks any one of these qualities
           should NOT be bred, right???
 
I truthfully had never thought much about any of this until this
recent flame war began.  I really am very glad there has been so
much discussion on this subject.  I had no idea people had such
strong opinions about dog breeding (I own a mutt and never really
paid that much attention even to the differences between breeds -
until recently, as a direct result of reading the net!)  I think I've
learned more from this particular thread than any other on the
net, and I hope that people like you continue to stir up these types
of conversations in spite of being flamed - it really gets us thinking!
 
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that if you do agree with what
I think you're trying to say, it isn't coming out that clearly, and
that's what's causing all the fuss.  On the other hand, if I've gotten
you all wrong, and you really do think that ALL retrievers should be
out in the field retrieving, then please let me know so that I can pick
that bone with you.
 
Thanks
Susan
srb@atmosmips.jpl.nasa.gov
 
 
cb **** I don't think it's so much a flame war as a really good   ****
cb **** discussion that sometimes gets a little heated   !!!      ****
 
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |  Only 14 more days until the start of
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |           hunting season (in Texas)
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |