"And to make things even more complicated, both of these breeds are so common that it is really foolish to make broad, sweeping statements about either. There are so many of these dogs that exist in so many different lines that have experienced so many different kinds of selection pressures that you simply cannot make generalizations about them."
The post, from Retrieverman, is comparing Labrador Retrievers to Golden Retrievers. The sentiment is true of course throughout the canine world -- particularly so with breeds that exist in very large populations (possibly less so among breeds with very small, tight lines).
The post ends with two great pieces of advice -- that seems pretty universally true:
"You're much better off meeting a dog as an individual"
"And stay the heck away from internet forums and Yahoo! groups."
Click through and read the whole thing, which also has a fantastic title: "Making generalizations about popular breeds is what morons do."
I love reading Retrieverman's blog and his practical perspective. He has a great way of pointing out the histrionics of some folks when they talk dog and in this case, my retriever is better than your retriever.
In a recent article I responded to, I was accused of not knowing what I was talking about because my dogs were MUTTS, heaven forbid(!) and not purebreds, so how could I offer anything to the conversation? Made me laugh. And this from a guy whose dogs fought with each other in the home now and then.
Posted by: Jen Brighton | May 08, 2013 at 02:31 PM