# Show vs. Field enlightenment



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I, along with all of you can't understand the split.

The show type dog can't do the field work. But they consistently win for how they look. The people producing the show type dogs are working hard and have spent many years trying to get that look. I'm sure they are very dedicated to their "game" and know what they want. The show judges are rewarding their efforts. The standard has been changed fairly recently according to what I read here.

Labrador retrievers have been around for a long time. Long before they came here and ended up in field trials. There's a connection to Newfoundland dogs. Depending what version of history you read Labs came from them or they came from Labs. The show people always talk about coat and otter tails for water work. There's usually a reference somewhere to Labs helping fishermen.

Maybe the show people are trying to produce a dog that was around in the 1800's or earlier. Pre field trial if you will, or whenever pre field trial was.

I read something yesterday on the internet after a link from RTF along these lines but can't find it again.

It is about the only plausible explanation I can see to explain the difference between the field and show Labradors. Old type and new type Labrador retrievers.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Lash said:


> ....The show people always talk about coat and otter tails for water work. There's usually a reference somewhere to Labs helping fishermen.....


 Our Human ideas about what should work, are flawed.

What works is what works.

If you want to produce what works, you need to forget what you think should work, and select for what actually does work.

The Show Ring is the opposite.
They define what works by what they decide should work, and then they select and breed for those traits until they are grossly exaggerated.

This is what produces flat-faced Pugs and Bulldogs that need surgery in order to breathe, and frog-legged German Shepherds that have useless rear legs.

No breed is immune to this inevitable outcome.

The breeds that still have an actual purpose in life, are the ones that eventually split. 
Because, in order to continue producing dogs that can actually DO the work that the breed was intended to do, they HAVE TO part ways with what the Show Ring eventually produces.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Right on copterdoc. John there are lots of good books out there w/pictures of the 1850-70s working English Labs. See w/your own eyes how todays show Labs have diverged. Start w/Wolters.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

> If you want to produce what works, you need to forget what you think should work, and select for what actually does work.


Nice concept if it works! James Lamb Free has pics of Labs, etc in his book. One I have singled out looks like our old hunting Lab when we are kids. It no way does the pic from the book or Blackie1 resemble the show Lab of today. I don't really admire what the show people are doing to their Labs in spite of all their care b/c it can't be healthy nor does it exhibit a working Lab!IMO


----------



## zachlw1 (Feb 21, 2014)

I know that the VDD has their own issues, but I admire that there is no apparent divide between working and "show" (even though I'm not sure that there is such a thing for them) dogs. Each Deutsch Drahthaar carries hunt test results and a score for coat and conformation.

Of course I went the other direction and have a golden...


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Because both sides in this issue choose to not enter each others game the split happens. Only 60 or so Dual Champs have happened in Labrador History . 

The only issue one can have with the Westminster judge is her interpretation of the standard. A NFC field Champ was not present at Westminster. He or she would have looked very different then the winner and also be not to standard.

What is the task of a Show Labrador. When in the ring he must have a calm temperament, not be barking, and just trot down and back and stack and be examined. 

A National Field Champ must compete and show athletic ability, marking, trust, attention, intelligence, scenting, running ability, swimming ability, etc. 

On rare occasions you get a dual Champion. But it takes the want of the owner to go for it. Some have the time and money to do it if they have the right dog. 

What is the real shame today is in the show side a want to keep putting more substance into a small package restricted for height. It makes for a non-athletic look. All Labradors, both field and show should have an ability to have fun hunting and running in the fields or woods and be able to swim. Sadly many Show Labradors are put with a Professional handler who drags them to shows in a van and live in a hotel room or worse their metal crates out in the van. Pro handlers know what judges look for, fatten up dogs before a show if the judge likes substance. Even owner/ handlers know the type a judge likes. They won't enter an event unless they think they have a chance to win. 

The show dogs also produce extremely calm pets and companions. Many families who own one of these Show types would never give them up. Breeding for temperament in a correct Labrador should be the hallmark of a good breeder. What is correct has a wide range in todays Labrador.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

As I said earlier, I can't understand the split. It makes absolutely no sense to have the show lab be the representative for what Labs are or should be.

You don't need to be a judge to see that they couldn't run around very long. I'm sure the breeders are intelligent. I'm sure the judges are intelligent. I thought that it might make sense if they envisioned a dog with a different purpose than we do.

I think anyone would agree that both types couldn't serve the same purpose.

Why not officially have two separate breeds then? Don't know that there's enough time in a dog's life to do both though.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

swliszka said:


> Right on copterdoc. John there are lots of good books out there w/pictures of the 1850-70s working English Labs. See w/your own eyes how todays show Labs have diverged. Start w/Wolters.


swliszka,

I wish what you say was true about lots of good books with pictures from the 1850 - 70s of working English (British) Labs. But, sadly it's not. The earliest photographic technology wasn't invented until the 1840's. The earliest photographs of Labs I'm aware of are from 1867. They are of Lord Home's Nan & Nell. The next earliest photograph of a Lab I know of is of Buccleuch Avon, who was born in 1885. He is known to be one of the founders of the breed. The only other photograph I know of a Lab prior to 1900 is of a Lab named Brayton Sir Richard. If you know of others I'd be interested in seeing them. Let me know.

There's been much discussion about the proper height of the Labrador on the forum lately. Here's a quote that may lend some historical perspective to the size of the earliest Labradors. It comes from a book entitled _The Labrador Dog; Its Home and History_ by Lord George Scott and Sir John Middleton, published in 1936. I believe the following quote is from the Buccleuch family game book. The 6th Duke of Buccleuch was Lord George Scott's father. The quote is referring to two dogs given to the 6th Duke of Buccleuch by the 3rd Earl of Malmesbury. Ned and Avon are among a handful of St. John's waterdogs who became the founders of the Labrador retriever.

“_Ned was a compact little dog of perfect shape, about nineteen inches; Avon was slightly larger, perhaps nearer twenty inches and a lovely little dog in his prime_.” 

Swack


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Swack said:


> “_Ned was a compact little dog of perfect shape, about nineteen inches; Avon was slightly larger, perhaps nearer twenty inches and a lovely little dog in his prime_.”
> 
> Swack


Funny Swack..I read that the other day too..made me think about what I was taught. My mentor, now deceased, had the more classical type of labs. They did show and they did hunt. Regardless, she told me once, "If you can't get your dog in a john boat on the water, the dog is too big." 

I've always kept that in the back of my head when breeding. My boy is 75 pounds. I can get him in the boat. If he was much larger, I'd be swimming with him! My youngest girl is 55 pounds and under the height standard by a half to and inch I'd guess. I'd like her a little taller, but she's a tough little girl and persistent. I like that about her. She's been looked at a couple of different times to get measured in the ring. Will be interesting to see if she ever finishes because she's definitely not a huge girl. Ah well, she likes birds!


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

In a Labrador Filed Trial dog the only thing that matters relative to the show side is if your puppy has white between the paws from Dual CH Banchory Bolo (1915-27) 








.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

John Lash said:


> As I said earlier, I can't understand the split. It makes absolutely no sense to have the show lab be the representative for what Labs are or should be.
> 
> You don't need to be a judge to see that they couldn't run around very long. I'm sure the breeders are intelligent. I'm sure the judges are intelligent. I thought that it might make sense if they envisioned a dog with a different purpose than we do.
> 
> ...


So take you Lab or Labs to a dog show and enter them. If thousands of field Labradors showed up with entry fees it certainly would make a statement. All you need is a full AKC registration. Be sure your Labrador is correct height as they may wicket you.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Lash said:


> ....It makes absolutely no sense to have the show lab be the representative for what Labs are or should be.....


 It's what the system inevitably produces.

The reason that the issues are so blatantly obvious in the Labrador Retriever breed, isn't that it's a "Lab thing".

It's because the Labrador Retriever dominates the field in performance competition and testing. 
And thus, it is being selectively bred for that arena on a much larger scale than the other Retriever breeds.

The problem is with the Conformation system. Across the board, for ALL breeds of dogs. 

And they aren't going to change the system just because we can't use what it produces for honest-to-goodness functional purposes.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

So football players have not changed from the fifties to the players 60 years into the future ? Things change. The rich only owned the dogs you are showing pictures of. The numbers were never as great as today. 

Just curious. At adult age how tall is your Labrador at the withers ? Just about every Field Lab male I run into hunting towers over my Labrador who is to standard height. 

I am betting your Field Labs today are quite taller then Labs of the past you are posting pictures of. They are beautiful specimens, but also not to standard.



> *Size - The height at the withers for a dog is 22-1/2 to 24-1/2 inches; for a bitch is 21-1/2 to 23-1/2 inches. Any variance greater than 1/2 inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds. The minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age. *


----------



## David Maddox (Jan 12, 2004)

.44 magnum said:


> So football players have not changed from the fifties to the players 60 years into the future ? Things change. The rich only owned the dogs you are showing pictures of. The numbers were never as great as today.
> 
> Just curious. At adult age how tall is your Labrador at the withers ? Just about every Field Lab male I run into hunting towers over my Labrador who is to standard height.
> 
> I am betting your Field Labs today are quite taller then Labs of the past you are posting pictures of. They are beautiful specimens, but also not to standard.


Ive been a High School coach for 32 yrs, and feel comfortable saying that it's very difficult to compare football players of today with those 60 yrs ago. Mainly due to weight programs and nutrition, plus the fact that, just like the Labrador breed itself, there's more of 'em.
Ive owned 6 field trial bred bitches since 1997. All were somewhere between 21 and 23". Four were 21-21 1/2", two over 22". My tall girl measured in at 23.


----------



## duckstruck (Nov 20, 2013)

Maybe the Retriever or gun dog clubs should get together and start a working show dogs type of event. Minimum quals or title to be called a working dog as a pre-requisite to enter, then hold the beauty contest. You could go as deep as you want, best of breed, best color of each breed and then best of show etc...

I can feel the cost of new pups going up already.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

duckstruck said:


> Maybe the Retriever or gun dog clubs should get together and start a working show dogs type of event. Minimum quals or title to be called a working dog as a pre-requisite to enter, then hold the beauty contest. You could go as deep as you want, best of breed, best color of each breed and then best of show etc...
> 
> I can feel the cost of new pups going up already.


duckstruck,

The LRC has a requirement for their members that show champions must pass a WC to be able to use the title CH. What do you think about a field Lab having to get a conformation certificate (CC) before they can use the titles FC, AFC, MH, etc.?

Swack


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

n a Labrador Filed Trial dog the only thing that matters relative to the show side is if your puppy has white between the paws from Dual CH Banchory Bolo (1915-27) 

.

Interesting, I don't know if all dogs with Bolo spots descended from him, but Lb. has one.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Breck said:


> In a Labrador Filed Trial dog the only thing that matters relative to the show side is if your puppy has white between the paws from Dual CH Banchory Bolo (1915-27)
> 
> View attachment 17419
> 
> ...


Breck,

May I ask why this is important to you?

Swack


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Swack said:


> Breck,
> 
> May I ask why this is important to you?
> 
> Swack


Yes, Field Trial Champion lure. 
Mine had 'em.
.
Same holds for the "Zipper" between the eyes.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

.44 magnum said:


> So football players have not changed from the fifties to the players 60 years into the future Things change.


Yeah, great analogy, right? Football players over the last 50-60 years have gotten bigger, faster, stronger and more athletic.

Meanwhile, Labrador retrievers - of the conformation persuasion - have gotten bigger. And bigger...and bigger. Nobody needs to tell you what "bigger"'s a euphemism for, either.



.44 magnum said:


> Just about every Field Lab male I run into hunting towers over my Labrador who is to standard height.
> 
> I am betting your Field Labs today are quite taller then Labs of the past...


You might want to run into a few more of them 










from a little closer vantage, say at a field trial.

MG


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Swack- fair comment. I have had access over the years to an English publication , if memory serves me right that had origins in the 1790s. There are etchings of these dogs in that period stated. i THINK (?) it/was called Sporting Times. The University of Minnesota , Vet school should have it because I found it misplaced in the Science Library on a locked 4th floor (1986). . The short and long of it, there are period paintings which I have seen @ the Washington , D.C. mall museum complex by English artists showing these dogs as well as etchings and photographs.


----------



## duckstruck (Nov 20, 2013)

Swack said:


> duckstruck,
> 
> The LRC has a requirement for their members that show champions must pass a WC to be able to use the title CH. What do you think about a field Lab having to get a conformation certificate (CC) before they can use the titles FC, AFC, MH, etc.?
> 
> Swack


I guess my point is, if the Field or Working Dog people have a problem with how the breed standards are interpreted to rule out the type of dogs that excel in the field, then start your own beauty contest if you want. To have it that all FC's or Hunt Test Titled dogs must conform to the Confirmation would be like mandating that all hockey players must have all their original teeth.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

The LRC brought in a field champion to show the judges in a judging seminar. The judges all thought it was over sized. Measured, it was right in standard, just appeared taller because it actually had legs. The show judges need to be exposed to field Labs who meet the standard so their eye will adapt. If all they see are overweight Labs with no air under their tums, this is what they will assume is the norm.

All ten of the Field Trial dogs passing the Conformation Certificate at the National Amateur, measured in standard---included two NAFCs. 

Glenda


----------



## Trifecta (May 17, 2013)

Glenda Brown said:


> The LRC brought in a field champion to show the judges in a judging seminar. The judges all thought it was over sized. Measured, it was right in standard, just appeared taller because it actually had legs. The show judges need to be exposed to field Labs who meet the standard so their eye will adapt. If all they see are overweight Labs with no air under their tums, this is what they will assume is the norm.
> 
> All ten of the Field Trial dogs passing the Conformation Certificate at the National Amateur, measured in standard---included two NAFCs.
> 
> Glenda


I've had the wicket called on my dogs twice. I'm happy to have my dogs measured in.

The problem is, I know there are judges out there who don't bother to measure. They just assume the dog is too big (or too small, for that matter).


----------



## jenbrowndvm (Sep 25, 2011)

Glenda Brown said:


> The LRC brought in a field champion to show the judges in a judging seminar. The judges all thought it was over sized. Measured, it was right in standard, just appeared taller because it actually had legs. The show judges need to be exposed to field Labs who meet the standard so their eye will adapt. If all they see are overweight Labs with no air under their tums, this is what they will assume is the norm.
> 
> All ten of the Field Trial dogs passing the Conformation Certificate at the National Amateur, measured in standard---included two NAFCs.
> 
> Glenda


[Glenda has a good point and I think that both the Conformation as well as the Working Labrador people would be surprised at how well the working Labrador fits within the measurements outlined in the breed standard. There is the impression that the working Labrador is taller/bigger than the standard. I would bet that if we went and measured a large group FT/HT dogs that we would find that alot of them actually are right in there. You can measure your own to see how they compare. 

I just went through and measured all 4 in my house right now - two bitches and two males. All four are working Labs of FT/HT breeding. I would consider them the typical body type and size that I see at FT/HT and other working disciplines. Here were their measurements:

Bitch #1: 21" - 54# (a bit short and underweight for the standard - but may just make it in there with the 1/2" variance - and she's preggers so she will have that Bench belly here soon enough)
Bitch #2: 23" - 58# (within standard)
Male #1: 24" - 72# (within standard)
Male #2: 24" - 68# (within standard)
My other female who is in training I would guess is 22-22-1/2" and weighs 52#. (underweight for standard ) - but I would consider perfect body condition)

So they meet at least this aspect of the breed standard. Now they may not win any beauty contests but they can do the job they were designed to do.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I first posted this in 2007, then again in 2012. In 2012, ol Swack really took issue with it, so I don't expect he'll like it any more this time around. The book comes from a textbook of dog behavior.



> _Originally Posted by Buzz _
> _I found some interesting thoughts in a book I'm reading - "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by __Steven__R.__Lindsay__. The section is called, "Origins of Selective Breeding."_
> 
> _He mentions that the Greeks understood the importance of selective breeding, but they also recognized the danger of breeding that displaces function for the sake of appearances._
> ...



Drakehaven posted some pretty great information about the origins of the Labrador Retriever in that 2012 thread.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...e-they-so-rare&p=901263&viewfull=1#post901263


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

if they can be measured for height why dont they make them run across a scale and weigh them also?


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS2dUCZhmcs<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS2dUCZhmcs" target="_blank">





Just about perfect !


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

duckstruck said:


> Maybe the Retriever or gun dog clubs should get together and start a working show dogs type of event. Minimum quals or title to be called a working dog as a pre-requisite to enter, then hold the beauty contest. You could go as deep as you want, best of breed, best color of each breed and then best of show etc...
> 
> I can feel the cost of new pups going up already.


The GRCA has somewhat done exactly that.

FC Topbrass No Time To Paws SH CCA "Flash" was the first Golden to get the new CCA title at the Golden Specialty last Fall. It is a non competitive Conformation Assessment Program. It's a similar purpose to the WC (Working Class) and WCX (Working Class Excellent) titles for mostly show Goldens to show basic competency in the field.

1) What is the original intent of the CCA?

Twofold: (a) to provide a NON-COMPETITIVE area of participation in conformation where dogs are assessed against the Breed Standard rather than merely against other dogs present and (b) to give owners written reports as to the evaluators' assessments which will provide information not available in the show ring.

2) How does the CCA compare to other basic non-competitive, entry level tests offered to Golden Retrievers?

Both the Hunt Test and WC programs require an average passing score of 7 points in all categories and the number of attempts is not limited.

The CCA program is also on a point scale requiring the dog to score a minimum of 75 or higher out of 100 possible points, broken down into ten categories. A non-competitive CCA event tests the individual dog on the physical conformation and temperament qualities as set forth in the Breed Standard. There is a limit on the number of attempts that can be made. It also has a mandatory pass for temperament and sets a minimum age of 18 months. While the conformation quality of a retriever MAY improve with maturity and conditioning, the basic structure changes very little.

The CCA, WC, and Hunting Test programs are similar in that they all reward very good to excellent representatives of the breed by comparison to an impartial criteria without bias or dog-to-dog competition, and they all test the desired physical and/or mental attributes of a sound hunting companion.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Anybody that takes the WC or WCX seriously, is too far gone to be able to recover.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Anybody that takes the WC or WCX seriously, is too far gone to be able to recover.


It's for show dogs. 

Geez some people just like to criticize every damn thing.


----------



## Maxs Mom (Sep 17, 2009)

WC and WCX for the Goldens is considerably different than the Labrador WC. Labradors also have a CC (CCA) I don't know it's as highly sought after. I know many CH Goldens who get their CCA as it's judged differently and takes attitude into consideration. When I took my dog for her CCA one dog was DQ'd for going after the other dogs during socialization. 

At Labrador National they have a "performance" conformation class. I've not seen it yet but hope to put my husbands lab in it next fall. It allows altered dogs. They have a contest called "The Challenge" and it's about scoring Q's and points in multiple venues including conformation. They don't count the CC or WC for The Challenge if my memory is correct. So they created an additional conformation class. I'm curious how my husbands lab will do. She looks like a lab, adheres to standard but has a tiny waist.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Swack said:


> duckstruck,
> 
> The LRC has a requirement for their members that show champions must pass a WC to be able to use the title CH. What do you think about a field Lab having to get a conformation certificate (CC) before they can use the titles FC, AFC, MH, etc.?
> 
> Swack


I think that is is a good idea, , but that it should be an AKC requirement to get the title in the first place.

john


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

[QUOTEc;1191948]The problem is with the Conformation system. Across the board, for ALL breeds of dogs. 

And they aren't going to change the system just because we can't use what it produces for honest-to-goodness functional purposes.[/QUOTE]

This is the pot calling the kettle black, you are the problem not me! If you did/thought my everything would be better.

Before there were recognized breeds dogs were referred to what they did, retrievers, herders, flushers, etc. From there breeds were developed. Once a type was set a standard was developed. The standard describes what the breed is. This goes beyond just how it looks. It inclubes attributes that are often unique to that breed. In some cases it may include disqualifications.

It much easier to blame the field Labrador faction for the breed split that the show faction. The field type labs are not shown, and have not been shown in numbers for at least a couple of decades. Ultimately, judges can only judge what is exhibited to them. As time goes by that type becomes set in peoples mind as being correct.

Tom


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Anybody that takes the WC or WCX seriously, is too far gone to be able to recover.


It can be a good first step. I met a couple women at the 2011 Golden Specialty in Colorado. They were down from Canada with their show-obedience Golden's and wanted to try and get WC-WCX titles on their dogs. Golden retriever people tend to believe their breed is one of, if not the most versatile breeds ever, so many go for as many titles as possible. Anyway these women are serious trainers and competitors and were worried about the flyers because they don't have flyers in Canada, so we shot some flyers for them after the day's stake. I was wary expecting these show dogs to be disinterested reluctant retrievers. Boy was I wrong, these two dogs were high flying retrieving machines that flew out there for this new treat. 

They went on that week to get their WC or WCX. Fast forward to last years Specialty in Texas, Leanne after a couple years of training got fourth in the Qualifying. She continues to compete in Show, Obediance and Agility, but is now interested in field trials. Leanne also encouraged and helped my field trial buddy Dave Cheatum to show his field trial dog in the field-show event at the specialty where Fire earned a second place.

Now I have to say, regardless the feel good story I just told, I think the split between field and show dogs is even larger in Goldens than Labs. Hopefully Leeanne is one of the first pioneers in leading us back to where we came from.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Cowtown said:


> It's for show dogs......


 You might be on to something.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

john fallon said:


> I think that is is a good idea, , but that it should be an AKC requirement to get the title in the first place.
> 
> john



Personally I think the idea of denying an extremely talented dog the title of FC or AFC because it doesn't meet some standard that defines some folk's idea of what a perty Labrador looks like is offensive and idiotic.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Buzz said:


> Personally I think the idea of denying an extremely talented dog the title of FC or AFC because it doesn't meet some standard that defines some folk's idea of what a perty Labrador looks like is offensive and idiotic.


Buzz,

I was playing the devil's advocate. Several people have commented in various threads that they think show Labs should have to prove they can retrieve to be called a Champion Labrador *retriever.* Their logic is that the dog's are representing the breed and should be able to do the work.

Using the same logic, but from the other side of the fence, why shouldn't a field Lab be required to meet some minimum requirements of the standard in order to represent the breed as a Field Champion *Labrador* retriever. After all, they too are representing the breed.

If both of these policies were put into practice, I'd bet that show Labs would become better in the field and field Labs would be more likely to meet the basic requirements of the standard.

Just food for thought.

Swack


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Personally I think the idea of denying an extremely talented dog the title of FC or AFC because it doesn't meet some standard that defines some folk's idea of what a perty Labrador looks like is offensive and idiotic.



I agree with Swack, and...if it had startes 40 years ago, the lack of dual champions the breed is experiencing now would not be so pronounced...

It is short sighted mindsets such as the one you experss that have paid a large part in getting us to this point.

john


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Swack said:


> Buzz,
> 
> Using the same logic, but from the other side of the fence, why shouldn't a field Lab be required to meet some minimum requirements of the standard in order to represent the breed as a Field Champion *Labrador* retriever. After all, they too are representing the breed.
> 
> Swack


Yet another brilliant suggestion Swack. Your emphasis was well placed.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Swack said:


> Buzz,
> 
> I was playing the devil's advocate. Several people have commented in various threads that they think show Labs should have to prove they can retrieve to be called a Champion Labrador *retriever.* Their logic is that the dog's are representing the breed and should be able to do the work.
> 
> ...


What exactly does the title FC or AFC mean? In my mind, it only indicates that dogs who earn the title have demonstrated through direct competition that they possess skills and physical attributes, necessary to perform their job in the field, that are superior to their competition. The show folks on the other hand purport to be producing dogs with the physical attributes necessary to be successful in the field, and that dogs who earn the designation CH have by competition shown that they posses those attributes to a degree superior to their competition. 

Field dogs have proven their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt by actually performing the work and being judged to have turned in the best performance. Show dogs on the other hand have proved nothing, they are merely judged posses physical attributes that some folks have decided are the making of a superior field dog.

I find it offensive to consider denying a dog who has proven his worth a title because he/she doesn't "represent the breed" well when stacked up against a set of standards INVENTED by folks who think they are smart enough to determine what makes a suitable specimen. I see nothing wrong, on the other hand, with requiring folks who believe they know what makes a great specimen to go out and prove their theory with actual results competing against great dogs.

I've heard the saying, life is too short to hunt with an ugly dog.
I prefer, life is too short to hunt over a dog with no talent.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

john fallon said:


> I agree with Swack, and...if it had startes 40 years ago, the lack of dual champions the breed is experiencing now would not be so pronounced...
> 
> It is short sighted mindsets such as the one you experss that have paid a large part in getting us to this point.
> 
> john


The dogs they are putting up as champions bear so little resemblance to the standard, I don't even know how you can begin to claim that the performance people are the problem.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

It will be hopefully the younger generation coming up in the ranks that can create change and ask why and why not.


----------



## Dazed (Apr 7, 2013)

Google Hidden Springs Labs, just for starters.. Just a thought


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I'd be way more okay with there being such a thing as a DC, and no such thing as a CH, than I would with such a thing as a DC, and no such thing as a FC.

Form follows function. 
Humans attempting to reverse that sequence defies nature, and is essentially bass-ackwards.


----------



## DrDuck (Dec 26, 2013)

John Robinson said:


> Now I have to say, regardless the feel good story I just told, I think the split between field and show dogs is even larger in Goldens than Labs. Hopefully Leeanne is one of the first pioneers in leading us back to where we came from.


I agree and there are a number of women in the Kansas City area that belong in that list of pioneers.


----------



## DrDuck (Dec 26, 2013)

Buzz wrote: "I've heard the saying, life is too short to hunt with an ugly dog.
I prefer, life is too short to hunt over a dog with no talent." 

I think it might be even better to say Life is too short to hunt over a poorly trained dog with no talent or style.

Thinking back I have hunted over a number of ugly dogs who turned out to be worth their weight in gold at the end of a day of hunting. Anyone here ever hunt over a small peek a poo hybrid. I have and it was small, obedient and it pointed and retrieved quail and small ducks with style. He thought he was a fifty pound dog.

Spencer Tomb


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Buzz said:


> The dogs they are putting up as champions bear so little resemblance to the standard, I don't even know how you can begin to claim that the performance people are the problem.


Buzz,

I agree with you completely on this point. No argument from me. Dog shows and their interpretation of the standard has evolved over the years so they are no where near evaluating the traits a Lab needs to perform in the field.

On the other hand, field trials have also evolved and no longer resemble "an ordinary day in the field" they are intended to represent. They've become a contest for highly specialized and highly trained retrievers. Do they test for the needs of the hunter? Do they mostly reward heritable traits a hunting dog needs or is it more the training they've received? I know it's a combination, but if we're using trials to select breeding stock for the hunter, shouldn't we try to test primarily for heritable traits? 

So, the question in my mind is whether FT competition is still a valid method of selecting for the traits a hunter needs in his retriever. Or has it become such a highly specialized competitive event that it has evolved beyond its original purpose, much like the specialized competition in the show ring?

Swack


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Swack, a valid point. As dogs and methods get better the trials get harder and harder. Way more than the hunter would need. But I think it's fair to say that if a dog's parents can win a Field trial the average guy could teach him to do what he wants as a hunting dog.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

John Lash said:


> Swack, a valid point. As dogs and methods get better the trials get harder and harder. Way more than the hunter would need. But I think it's fair to say that if a dog's parents can win a Field trial the average guy could teach him to do what he wants as a hunting dog.


Especially since there is definitely a trend of field trailers favoring the smart, biddable, level headed dog over the out of control fire breather. I don't own a FC or AFC, but I have hunted with some. And the QAA dogs I own are a pure pleasure to share a days hunt with.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Throw away the "wicket" and bring on the fence. If the show dogs can do this: then they are worthy to be called labs


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

firehouselabs said:


> Throw away the "wicket" and bring on the fence. If the show dogs can do this: then they are worthy to be called labs
> View attachment 17455


Poor Kiku got her butt whooped for doing that when she was young though..  4' fence in front yard... not something I want to encourage my dogs to scale! They should however be able to handle obed jump heights and that's my concern w/ all the added bone these days. Don't see near the number of conformation bred dogs doing Open and Utility anymore and yet they used to have to jump 1.5x their heights vs 1x today.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Buzz said:


> The dogs they are putting up as champions bear so little resemblance *to the standard*, I don't even know how you can begin to claim that the performance people are the problem.


Putting aside for a moment the carracatures that are being putting up as champions.....it is sad to say that, for the most part, yes it is US, the field performance people that could not give a hoot about what the "good" performance dogs look like, even relative* to the standard *

john


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Putting aside for a moment the carracatures that are being putting up as champions.....it is sad to say that, for the most part, yes it is US, the field performance people that could not give a hoot about what the "good" performance dogs look like, even relative* to the standard *
> 
> john


Though we all, for the most part, appreciate a good looking animal, I think you are correct in that most of us would sacrifice a lot in order to have a field champion. If I had to choose between a really handsome dog who couldn't do the work or an ugly one who excelled, I would take the ugly one. Fortunately you can have your cake and eat it too. I very much consider looks when I'm choosing a breeding to pick a pup out of.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

When anyone buys a AKC registered Labrador Retriever that is what they are getting. All Labradors are supposed to be bred to be wonderful pets with calm temperament that can be a hunting companion also.

If you have needs like wanting to get into Field Trial games any old Labrador will not cut it. It is a specialized sport. Same goes for showing dogs. Not all Labradors are going to like the ring. If you want to get into that game another specialized dog is available. 

One can argue type till you turn blue. But the field trial specimens are as poorly bred to the standard are as some over done show specimens. 

Unless your Labrador has won a Field Trail Championship or a Bench Championship he is just a pet. Loved by all the owners. Myself when purchasing my last Labrador I wanted a "Gentleman's Hunting " Labrador. The dog comes from a breeder who has been in the game since the 1960's. Her husband has always hunted with the dogs that are bred. All Labradors if bred correctly can be trained to hunt. Each litter will have some pups with more desire. This goes for dogs from any litter and type.

While I'd love for the breed to stop being split it is not going to change soon. Too much money is being made with the split. Specialization means a higher price for well bred pups on both sides.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

.44 magnum said:


> While I'd love for the breed to stop being split it is not going to change soon. Too much money is being made with the split. Specialization means a higher price for well bred pups on both sides.


Even if you're not Confucius, please enlighten on that one...

MG


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

crackerd said:


> Even if you're not Confucius, please enlighten on that one...
> 
> MG


Show breeders have no difficulty selling all their pups and for $1,200.00 to $1,400.00 .. Find a good Grady/ Traveler litter on this site and the cost of a pup is... $2,000.00 .. or so.

A popular well used Sire with results in their offspring can make quite a lot of money for breeders. While there at not that many making great sums of money breeding, some do. Don't also leave out the prices for handlers and trainers. Dogs are a big business.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

I wasn't sure which of the threads this should go on, but felt it might work well here. This is taken from an article in the February 1962 AKC Gazette and apparently first appeared in an earlier issue by the then editor, Mr. A.A. Jones. 

"The purpose of the breed Standard is to describe the dog that is ideally constructed to do the work of the breed. No interpretation of a Standard, as used in bench judging, can be correct if it rules out the dogs that are built to work. In the 1930s, we are told, 'the same dogs were scoring in field trials and shows. That was before the days of field type and show type. All Labs one saw were excellent movers ... most were lean canine athletes; well-muscles, handsome outdoor dogs.' This, although it was recently said of one breed, surely represents the ideal for all retriever breeds".

This was then picked up by the Chesapeake column to say: "Whether or not we run our dogs in the trials, we must all feel that we owe it to our breed to work our dogs, to select for ability and performance, temperament and tractability and our ideal for conformation should be the dog that is built to work".

Glenda


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Glenda Brown said:


> I wasn't sure which of the threads this should go on, but felt it might work well here. This is taken from an article in the February 1962 AKC Gazette and apparently first appeared in an earlier issue by the then editor, Mr. A.A. Jones.
> 
> "The purpose of the breed Standard is to describe the dog that is ideally constructed to do the work of the breed. No interpretation of a Standard, as used in bench judging, can be correct if it rules out the dogs that are built to work. In the 1930s, we are told, 'the same dogs were scoring in field trials and shows. That was before the days of field type and show type. All Labs one saw were excellent movers ... most were lean canine athletes; well-muscles, handsome outdoor dogs.' This, although it was recently said of one breed, surely represents the ideal for all retriever breeds".
> 
> ...


Good stuff Glenda! 

One thing I'd like to add is that "Built to Work" can be defined differently depending on what a person does with his retriever. A Texas dove hunter may have different needs from a guy who hunts geese from a field in the upper Midwest. Someone who hunts sea ducks may have a different ideal build from a person who hunts Dakota pheasants. A serious field trial competitor may have his idea of perfection which doesn't match a Michigan grouse and woodcock hunter's notion of perfection. And a flooded timber duck hunter may have different preferences from a fellow hunting tidal marshes.

There's room to accommodate different styles (or types) within the breed standard. Each can be suited to a different specialty. One a little larger and more powerful; another a little smaller and more agile. Yet they each should have the "Stamp" on them which defines them as a Labrador retriever. What I think we've found issue with are those dogs at either extreme which have exceeded the limits set forth by the standard and deviated from what defines the breed.

Swack


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

A dog that actually does the work, is obviously built to work.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t31/901806_365798813532983_2028396470_o.jpg?dl=1

1963 picture and overview of the breed standard using an actual dog.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Swack said:


> Good stuff Glenda!
> 
> One thing I'd like to add is that "Built to Work" can be defined differently depending on what a person does with his retriever. A Texas dove hunter may have different needs from a guy who hunts geese from a field in the upper Midwest. Someone who hunts sea ducks may have a different ideal build from a person who hunts Dakota pheasants. A serious field trial competitor may have his idea of perfection which doesn't match a Michigan grouse and woodcock hunter's notion of perfection. And a flooded timber duck hunter may have different preferences from a fellow hunting tidal marshes.
> 
> ...




This makes a lot of sense. After all what is a breed standard but someones opinion?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Grady was mentioned so I will use him as an example. Maybe he doesnt fit the breed standard but I think he is a very nice looking dog and he can certainly do the work. I have a Grady pup here that is a horse but he still is a beautiful animal. He may be too large to run all day hunting upland birds but he is well suited for harsh waterfowl conditions. Hard to put a standard on something that requires different types. I for one am gratefull for different types of labs. I can choose what best suits my needs. I think generally under the skin they are still labradors and thhat is what makes them so special. The breed has survived us humans which cant be said for some other breeds. I'd like to see a breed standard put on humans.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The primary function of the retriever breeds the Labradore included, is to seek and retrieve fallen game and deliver it to hand. 
This this is true for all fallen game but with with a specific emphasis placed on waterfowl hunting,
And while they are very addaptable and do have many secoundary functions, the dogs under discussion here are primaraly being breed to to be tested on such retrieving of fallen game.

Hence the body style needed to perform the secondary tasks should not be a _major_ consideration when breeding.
Don't stray too far from the _"Stamp"_

john


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

john fallon said:


> The primary function of the retriever breeds the Labradore included, is to seek and retrieve fallen game and deliver it to hand.
> This this is true for all fallen game but with with a specific emphasis placed on waterfowl hunting,
> And while they are very addaptable and do have many secoundary functions, the dogs under discussion here are primaraly being breed to to be tested on such retrieving of fallen game.
> 
> ...


It would be a clinical world John if this were true.
I bet 99 % of the retriever breeds registered or unregistered in the world won't/don't retrieve to hand? The ''Stamp'' of the 99% is not necessarily the Stamp 'we' all perceive?
The dogs under discussion are 'Labrador Retrievers' as a Breed ..Scary !!


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Grady has a Conformation Certificate which he received after being judged by three AKC conformation judges, all Lab breeders. The same with his son, Trav. They both were judged to be within the standard for a Labrador Retriever. I would love to have seen them be shown at something like Westminster. Instead of "baiting them" with liver, how about waving a dead duck to get their attention. 

Glenda


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Glenda....I've wished before that I COULD bring a dead duck into the show ring. My dogs would REALLY shine!!!


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

suepuff said:


> Glenda....I've wished before that I COULD bring a dead duck into the show ring. My dogs would REALLY shine!!!


Try a wing, use it when you really want a striking pose like after moving for the judge. Some dogs can be too fixated on the wing in your pocket and never take their eyes off your hand which can defeat the purpose.

Tom


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

I have Tom...but the duck works OH SO MUCH better!!! LOL!!!


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

You all might want to take a quick look at the video of the gundog demo at Crufts. I think all of those dogs showed a happy medium between the show and field "specialists". They were considerably more athletic in look than their representatives in the show-ring portion of Crufts, but they were all respectable representatives of "type" for their breeds (JMHO). 

Just an FYI ... the size disqualification for Labs is a more recent addition to the Standard (last 10 years or so?) Prior to that there was a size mentioned in the Standard, but no disqualification attached. Goldens, OTOH, have had a size disqualification for as long as I can remember. As I recall the size disqualification was added for Labs in response to the trend of shorter-legged dogs in the show ring. It was the show contingent that objected to the addition of the disqualification at that time.

That dog shown in the 1962 Standard looks like a very balanced dog and one capable of doing his job in the field. I far prefer the noble, "chiseled" look of the head on that dog to what we see today in the show ring. Back in the early 70s I knew a YLM built very much like that. He was a CH and a good hunting dog, too. I'm not a Lab person, so that opinion may not be worth anything


----------

