NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/pets/dogs/15419

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!ce293
From: [e-mail] (Gail E. Brookhart)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:53:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gail E. Brookhart)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (David Primeaux) says:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Barnes) writes:
>|> In article <[e-mail]>
>|>    [e-mail] (David Primeaux) writes:
>|>
>|> >Toss up for discussion:  Are the original purposes of the breed so sacrosanct
>|> >that they can not evolve to match today's purposes of the breed?
>|>
>|> MHO:  *IF* the new purpose is in effect serving the same purpose as
>|> before, then yes.  Otherwise, no.
>|>
>|> example: IMHO, the purpose in the labrador retriever is to retrieve
>|> things (usually from cold water).  If you want to breed them to dive
>|> under the water to catch fish (or crabs, or ....) that's fine.
>|> Breeding them to guard a liquor store is not.
>|>
>|> NOTE:  what the objectives are when a person breeds, and what an
>|> individual dog does are 2 entirely seperate questions.  In that case,
>|> if you happen to have a very protective lab (to extend my example above),
>|> then (imho), it would be perfectly acceptable to USE him/her to guard the
>|> store.  But unless it proves that it can accomplish the purpose of the
>|> breed, then it should not be bred (no matter how good a guard dog it is).
>|>
>|>
>|> >Since I own dalmatians, I offer a (rhetorical) followup question:  If my
>|> >dalmatian is a wonderful example of the breed in every respect except that
>|> >she will not (or can't) run for long distances alongside a carriage (her breed's
>|> >original job), would breeding her harm the breed? Note that the question is
>|> >entirely rhetorical, since she is spayed.
>|>
>|> yes.  (that's assuming you have correctly defined the purpose of
>|> dalmations for us.  I don't know anything about dalmations.)
>
>The "in effect serving the same purpose" seems a bit slippery to me, despite
>the example Chris gives.  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?

Since running beside the horse was secondary to the purpose of GUARDING the
horses, it would seem that dalmatian would be able to find "honest work"
guarding and protecting joggers?  There are also sports that emphasize the
athletic abilities of the dal, for instance, lure coursing, agility,
h|dC6getting the equivalent of a German "AD" title (for endurance running).

>
>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.).
>

Many authorities believe that an early use for Dalmatians was as hunting
dogs and they have been known to make passable retrievers and bird dogs.
They were even used for boar and stag hunting.  These qualities it could be
argued might have been what attracted coachmen to handsome dogs with the
wits and protective ability to guard the horses from highwaymen.

From the point of view of protector, the AKC standard does point out that
the Dal makes a sensible and dependable watchdog.  This is not a departure
from original purpose and still has applicability to the modern Dalmatian.
>|>
>|>       -----------------------------------------------------
>|> Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
>|> [e-mail] |         Retriever Club.
>|> [phone] (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
>|> [phone] (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"
>
>david
>[e-mail]
>
Gail Brookhart
[e-mail]