Re: [PyrNet-L] Why ask why?

[JGentzel <JGentzel@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-03-09 22:09:52 EST, you write:

<< HOPEFULLY, THE FOCUS SHOULD BE BREEDING PYRES THAT ARE ABLE TO PERFORM  
THEIR DUTIES
 AS FOR THEY ARE BRED FOR. THERE HAS BEEN  FEW PYRES THAT HAVE BEEN
 EXHIBITED THAT COULD NOT 
 POSSIBLY ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY ARE BRED FOR OUT ON THE FARM. BUT STILL
 WILL RECEIVE THERE
 CHAMPIONSHIPS IN THE BREED RING. VERY SAD. PYRES ARE OR SHOULD BE BRED
 FOR THERE WORKING 
 ABILITY. THE FEW I HAVE SEEN THE SHEEP COULD TRAMPLE OVER. IT SEEMS TO ME
 THEY'RE LOOSING
 THE SUBSTANCE THEY ONCE HAD. OF COURSE I'M NOT SAYING ALL HAVE.
 DISAPPOINTED >>

There is little or no objective evidence to support the above
statements/observations.  Statements and views such as this are, in many
cases, borne out of some personal bias or agenda.  Certainly one can always
find an isolated example, but I have seen very few over  the years that I
could make such observations as the above about. To say this about the breed
as a whole, as I know it, is simply inaccurate.   Our experience since 1972 is
just the opposite.  The breed, if bred properly, will work and certainly will
not be "trampled by sheep".  I think the bias held by many people that show
dogs are some "foo foo" dogs and worthless otherwise is completely unwarranted
in this breed.  This is a natural breed that is very ancient.  That means to
us that we cannot ruin it in a few generations. This means that the instincts
to guard and otherwise are very ingrained and set.   At least, at this point
in time, the dogs work  very well. There are many champions that work for a
living.  There are many breeders who do not discriminate between their dogs as
far as working  and show is concerned.  

Joe