From: CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Proposed Standard for Labradors
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 09:51:50 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamvm1.tamu.edu

 MB> = Marla Belzowski   LL> = Liza Lee
 
LL>  By popular demand, here is the new proposed standard for the breed.
LL>  I will try to read rpd in order to participate in the discussions on this
LL>  topic and, of course, will remain available via email for further discussion.
 
Thanks Liza.  Would you mind posting the letters to the AKC from people
you were talking to before (if that's allowed)?  If you don't still
have them, I do and will post them if you like.  They were very good,
well thought out letters that I think would add to our discussion.
 
 
LL>  Objections to the New Proposed Standard (NPS):
LL>
LL>  1. 	Poorly written.  This document cannot be passed by the AKC as it
LL>  	is not even written properly.  The grammar, spelling and punctuation
LL>  	are appalling.
MB>
MB>  TOTALLY AGREE!!!  I may not be the best speller in the world or
MB>  the best at grammer, but in any OFFICIAL document I write I make sure
MB>  the my spelling is correct at least.
 
Well since I can't spell worth a hout ;-), this doesn't mean alot to
me.  Other than it gives evidence to the claim that they were trying to
ramrod this through so fast that they didn't have time to spell check it.
 
 
LL>  2.	The disqualifications are, in my opinion, not only unnecessary but
LL>  	dangerous.  Disqualifing perfectly good or even outstanding dogs on the
LL>  	basis of one and only one criteria strikes me as being short-sighted in
LL>  	the slightest.  There is not currently a problem with height in
LL>  	Labradors and thus, fixing what "ain't broke" does not make sense.
LL>  	The other disqualifications (pigmentation and docking) are either
LL>  	better addressed as serious faults, or are already addressed in AKC
LL>  	regulations.
 
MB> I agree too.  Height is a crazy disqualification for Labs.  (A Fault
MB> or a Major Fault may be necessary for extremely small or extremely
MB> oversized Labs).  I prefer a larger Lab (I use to have a 110 lb female
MB> Lab/golden that looked exctly like a large yellow Lab).
MB> I think maybe the color disqualification is justified (brindled or
MB> black with tan spots), but the other pigmentation should be serious faults.
MB> Docking is covered in the AKC rules I believe.
 
Not being a conformation person, I find any DISQUALIFICATION due to
minor devitions from the ideal to be absurd.  Note that I said minor
devitions, this means that the more sevear the devition, the more it
should be penalized (ie. penalize a dog that's 28" tall more than one
that's 26").  It's like in a hunting test, a single cast refusal in a
Master isn't enough for the dog to fail, but it sure better not have
10!
 
 
LL>
LL>  3.	There are apparently some procedural problems with this new
LL>  	standard that are troubling.  Of the fifteen members of the
LL>  	Standard Committee, only seven were at the meeting and voted
LL>  	on this new standard.  This strikes me as being a serious breech
LL>  	of proper procedure.
 
MB> Sounds really fishy to me.  I think it better get a second run threw.
 
Don't they have to have a quarum of committee members present (a quarum
generally being 2/3's)?  This sounds like grounds for the AKC to
reject the proposed standard, even if what was written were flawless
(it isn't).
 
LL>  4.	The standard of the breed is meant to be a descriptive document
LL>  	which outlines the ideal Labrador Retriever.  This document goes
LL>  	beyond the call of duty and starts to lecture on problems and their
LL>  	causes.  These topics would better be addressed in a book on Canine
LL>  	Structure than in the standard of the breed.
 
MB> Defininatly should not lecture on causes of faulty movement.  Any
MB> competent judge should be able to see this!
 
Agreed.
 
I would add #5 to this:  I beleive the proposed standard should not
only include language that indicates that the dog LOOKS like it can
work, but it should have to prove at least a minimum degree that it
DOES work (ie. Make them be able to do at *least* JH work).
(oh, I can see the flames comming over this....   ;-)   )
 
 
LL>  POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE NPS:
 
LL>  The general description of the Labrador as written in the NPS is
LL>  pretty good and represents an improvement over the current standard.
LL>  In particular the section on "temperament" is particularly
LL>  good.
 
MB> YEPPPP!!!
 
*nod*
 
 
MB> You have a ligit. gripe is you as me.  We just revised the collie
MB> standard and there was a huge fight over the sentence..
MB> "In judging the collie the head qualities are of most importance."
MB> When too much emphasis is placed on only one aspect of the breed, everyone
MB> suffers.  Each dog should be evaluated on the OVERALL dog.
MB> Then those dogs comming closest to the breed standard in all other areas
MB> should be placed higher than those that have some faults according to the
MB> standard.
MB>
MB> The standard must not be biased to specific areas.
 
I agree.  Anytime one aspect is made more important than the whole, you
just lost the whole.
 
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"