NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/pets/dogs/15411

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!tamvm1.tamu.edu!CBARNES
From: [e-mail] (Chris Barnes)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:25:09 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamvm1.tamu.edu

In article <[e-mail]=>
   [e-mail] (David Primeaux) writes:

=> The "in effect serving the same purpose" seems a bit slippery to me, despite
=> the example Chris gives.

Well, that's always the problem with hypothetical senerios - the examples
frequently don't quite fit.  Alas, I tried....  :-)


=> Let's get back to dalmatians, for example. And let's
=> 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?
=>
=> 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.
=>
=> 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.).

You make a compelling argument, but it has a serious flaw.....ANYTHING
a dog could do COULD be considered to be archaic.  I might find very
little use in having a dog that runs beside a carrage, but far be it
from me to prevent someone else from doing something they enjoy.  After
all, if I do that, someone may do it to me someday......!

And with hundreds of different breeds to choose from, surely there is
one that already suits a particular function without having to change
another.

      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
[e-mail] |         Retriever Club.
[phone] (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
[phone] (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"