NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/pets/dogs/15374

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 5.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!gateway
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Obedience v. Breed
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:33:26 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 85
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Barnes) writes:

|> >
|>     I don't think that ANYONE who knows retrievers would even try to compare
|> the field ability of labs and goldens. Labs are much better in the field.
|> (E.g., just look at the number of FCs and AFCs for both breeds)
|> However, I don't think that this means that many/most goldens can't function as
|> field dogs for hunters.

But the real question is was this always the case?

|>
|> >Not coincidentally, as a percentage they are also far more likely to have
|> >a conformation background.  And I don't believe it's all that strange
|> >that most people are readily able to tell the difference between goldens
|> >with a hunting test/field trial background from those with a show
|> >background - they physically look different.
|> >
|>     I can easily tell the difference between labs from conformation lines
|> and labs from field lines, too. So I don't think that you can single out
|> goldens in this respect.

No, you can add the English and Irish setters, but why?  The show standard
for labs, tall, sleek, leggy is hardly what you'd want for a water dog.
Good water dogs in comparison look short and fat.  Just what are the show
people breeding for?  Some arbitrary measure of good looks?

|>
|>     Chris, I think that a golden who is not a good retriever should
|> probably not be bred. I also think that a golden who is not a good retriever
|> is not a good specimen of this breed. However, I strongly disagree that a
|> golden who not a good retriever is a poor dog ("ruined" in your terminology).
|> For example, a couple years ago I sold a 1-year-old golden retriever who was a
|> poor retriever (she'd retrieve an object about 10 times, then get bored and
|> quit) to a divorced lady who planned on neutering the dog. The lady has a
|> young son (about 7 or so) who was going through therapy because he felt
|> "unloved" (his grandfather had just died and he felt really bad about the
|> divorce). When I called about a month later to find out how the dog was
|> working out for them, the lady informed me that her son really loved the dog
|> and had made some new friends in the neighborhood while he was out walking
|> her. His outlook about life had dramatically changed for the better, and there
|> was some talk about discontinuing his therapy.  Although intellectually, I
|> feel strongly that a golden should be a good field dog, emotionally I feel
|> that turning this kid's life around is far more important that bringing the
|> 11th duck out of the water.
|>
|>     I agree that a golden should be good in the field. However, this is
|> only one of the many important/enjoyable things that this breed can do. I
|> disagree with you that golden retrievers as a breed have been "ruined" because
|> I've seen too many examples of members of this breed enriching the lives of
|> their owners, including bringing the duckies out of the water.
|>

If you think about it, though, you could insert any breed of dog in the above
(great) story for golden retriever.  With few exceptions, dogs are dogs and they
evoke the same emotions in us no matter what they look like or how well they
retrieve ducks.  We just get a little added satisfaction from a good retrieve.
I think that if you are breeding dogs who are a member of the sporting breeds
classification, you should ask yourself if people are still using these dogs
for what they were intended.  If they are as is the case with goldens, labs,
pointers, setters, and etc. then conformation - means more than a dog that looks
nice who does well in the show ring.  Conformation also means that a dog can
carry out the function for which it was intended.  IMHO the sooner the AKC
recognizes this, the better off the sporting breeds will be.

I thought that it was interesting to learn that the AKC was thinking of dropping
Am. Cocker Sp. from the sporting breeds.  As someone here on the net wrote the
AKC was to drop this breed because there was so little use (few titles) of these
dogs as a hunting breed.  In my mind, then lets split the Setters, Pointers, and
Labs into different breeds:  English Bench Setter, English Field Setter and drop
the bench breeds from the sporting classification.
|> ********************************************************************************
|> Sandra Augustine  |Home of: Conformation, obedience, and field titled Golden
|> NORWOOD KENNELS   |Retrievers who do therapy dog work, a disobedient but
|> ems: [e-mail]|beautiful Siberian husky and a *cute* Norfolk terrier puppy
|> ********************************************************************************
|>         The above opinions are not those of my employer.
|> ********************************************************************************
|>

--
___________
    jy
    [e-mail]