NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/pets/dogs/15412

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!cs.utk.edu!carlsberg.cs.utk.edu!primeaux
From: [e-mail] (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Date: 21 Dec 1992 21:50:37 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Lines: 73
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: carlsberg.cs.utk.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Barnes) writes:
|> 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......!

Actually I don't consider this to be a serious flaw, but rather a conclusion
justly drawn from my position.  So let's look at ...

My opinion, yet another step further: whether a dog does or does not fulfill the
purpose of the breed (original or otherwise) should not disqualify the dog from
breeding.

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

This is an interesting point, Chris.  But taste, not function, is also a determining
factor in acquisitions -- and not only of dogs: should not a well-maintained
Ford, mid-sized 4-door sedan have the same funfctionality as a well-maintained
Chevy, mid-sized 4-door sedan?  Yet some might prefer the Ford, others the Chevrolet.
My point:  suppose I want a dog that looks just like a lab, has the temperment of a
lab, is the size of a lab and I simply don't care about retreiving.  Why should I
look to another breed when it seems pretty clear that a lab is what I want?  And
if the purpose of labs eventually evolves to be a companion rather than a hunter,
then so be it.

[e-mail]

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