# Fit or Fat-Westminster BOB



## windigo (Sep 25, 2008)

I have tried to be open-minded and non-judgemental about this subject, but no more.

I just flipped through pictures of the Best of Breed winners at Westminster on the New York Times site. Most of the sporting and working dogs looked like they could actually work. But that black lab could no more work a day pheasant hunting than I could paint the Mona Lisa.

What can we do about this if that is what judges are putting up? I am seriously looking for an answer, and I'm willing to work to help change what has become a standard that is far, far from the original intent, not to mention grossly unhealthy for the individuals.

In desperation,

Patsy Martin


----------



## Shiner (Jan 24, 2011)

could you post a link to that? I would like to see it but can't find the picture...


----------



## Donald Flanagan (Mar 17, 2009)

I just looked up the video for the lab group on Westminster's site. It was painful to watch. Saw a couple yellows that I thought were good looking (but fat), and the rest were...wow.


----------



## Shiner (Jan 24, 2011)

got it... I think this is it - http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/breed_judging/sporting/2011_5/retriever-labrador/v1294209


----------



## lizard55033 (Mar 10, 2008)

WOW is correct....but that is my opinion.


----------



## Jungda99 (Jan 15, 2011)

OH MY GOD!!! I am not dog expert...but I would consider all of them obese! From what I have been told you should be able to feel the ribs pretty easily and almost see them.

But then again my lab is 49 lbs during the season and looks fat at 52-53lbs during the off season.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I thought the lab looked just fine. Thank goodness he was just boring and generic,,, like labs always look when they go to "group".

He didn't look like a "special" Thank god. I thought he was very moderate and moved nicely...

The two extremes.. Conformation labs and Field labs.. 

Apples and oranges never compare.

Who cares Patsy??? This subject has been beaten to death since the start of "Rome"

Angie


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

They had labs in Rome?

Two different sports, both done with dogs. Just not the same dogs.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

There were a couple yellows that looked nice, but dang some of them were chunky.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Howard N said:


> They had labs in Rome?
> 
> Two different sports, both done with dogs. Just not the same dogs.


I'm not sure if labs were in Rome but the subject has been going on since the time of Rome...

Who Cares???

Angie


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

I've seen worse.


----------



## Laura McCaw (Jul 28, 2010)

I know it is two different types of lab, but I honestly thought that being overweight can possibly affect the hips?? In my personal opinion, I do not think it looks healthy at all, yes they are pretty, but too much on the large size. I also do not think their group should be in the sporting category as that is NOT a sporty looking dog and I am sure they would not make it through an entire day of activity without collapsing due to exhaustion.


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Angie B said:


> I'm not sure if labs were in Rome but the subject has been going on since the time of Rome...
> 
> Who Cares???
> 
> Angie




I'll take Patsy for $300, Alex.


----------



## Burnt Oak Retrievers (Sep 25, 2009)

I've heard Roman bred labs make excellent all around hunting dogs and a better with children than british bred labs. =)


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

They must not be able to do natural breeding's with them there to fat to do it.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Rome...Fat Labs. Those dogs need a diet, maybe starting with a _Caesar Salad_.


----------



## Darin Westphal (Feb 24, 2005)

Losthwy said:


> Rome...Fat Labs. Those dogs need a diet, maybe starting with a _Caesar Salad_.


As crazy as it sounds...I think your onto something! It seems that everyone in that video is either feeding their dog a treat of bribing it with one, so instead of it being a dog biscuit, why not a piece of lettuce (granted they'd probably cover it in Ranch negating all nutritional value thus it'd be higher in calories then the original dog treat was....)


----------



## Twolabsplus (Aug 29, 2004)

Pretty short in the leg.... for such a heavy appearing body.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Darin Westphal said:


> As crazy as it sounds...I think your onto something! It seems that *everyone in that video is either feeding their dog a treat of bribing it with one*, so instead of it being a dog biscuit, why not a piece of lettuce (granted they'd probably cover it in Ranch negating all nutritional value thus it'd be higher in calories then the original dog treat was....)



So I have a silly question - is there a reason why they do this? Can they not train the dogs to stack (etc) without all the treats?

Serious question BTW...

FOM


----------



## stevehaun (Nov 1, 2010)

Eventually it will stop when the dogs become too fat to copulate...


----------



## JustinS (May 17, 2009)

I kind of care for one, wouldnt it be great to see a healthy working dog have a chance at possibly winning a best of show for breed.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

stevehaun said:


> Eventually it will stop when the dogs become too fat to copulate...


No it won't 

they will either lean them up after the show career to do the deed or AI....

Comercially bred meat turkeys are AI'ed (ive been told) because they have been bred with such huge breast they are not able to breed naturally...... (insert punch line here) (don't want that job, turkey semen collector)

I am with Justin on this, I care. People see this and think this is how their dog should look so they over feed their dog. It makes MH CH a lot tougher because a working dog can't compete. It makes a DUAL CHAMP IMPOSSIBLE.

On another note, I love my dog(s) a lot. From time to time I think about he day that I know is coming in a few years and it ruins my day just thinking about it. I can't imagine intentionally overfeeding my dog to make that day come one day sooner, much less possibly years sooner as heavy as those dogs are. Be it from hips or heart attacks, those dogs are not goin gto live long acive lifes comparatively....


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

Just to provide some with a basis of comparison, I have uploaded a short video of an August 1987 BOB class featuring 13 time Best in Show winner CH Charisma's Lone Star Rick. The quality of this video does not compare to that taken in today's world with HD video cameras, but it is certainly clear enough to view winning show Labs from 23 years ago. 

Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9MY2798rt8


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

*Labrador Retriever Breed Standard*

*Sporting Group*

*General Appearance*
The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion. Physical features and mental characteristics should denote a dog bred to perform as an efficient Retriever of game with a stable temperament suitable for a variety of pursuits beyond the hunting environment.
The most distinguishing characteristics of the Labrador Retriever are its short, dense, weather resistant coat; an "otter" tail; a clean-cut head with broad back skull and moderate stop; powerful jaws; and its "kind," friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament.
Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort. The typical Labrador possesses style and quality without over refinement, and substance without lumber or cloddiness. The Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog; structure and soundness are of great importance.
*Size, Proportion and Substance*
_Size_--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ 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.
_Proportion_--Short-coupled; length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper. The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long or tall and leggy in outline. _Substance_--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat.
*Head*
_Skull_--The skull should be wide; well developed but without exaggeration. The skull and foreface should be on parallel planes and of approximately equal length. There should be a moderate stop--the brow slightly pronounced so that the skull is not absolutely in a straight line with the nose. The brow ridges aid in defining the stop. The head should be clean-cut and free from fleshy cheeks; the bony structure of the skull chiseled beneath the eye with no prominence in the cheek. The skull may show some median line; the occipital bone is not conspicuous in mature dogs. Lips should not be squared off or pendulous, but fall away in a curve toward the throat. A wedge-shape head, or a head long and narrow in muzzle and back skull is incorrect as are massive, cheeky heads. The jaws are powerful and free from snippiness-- the muzzle neither long and narrow nor short and stubby. _Nose_-- The nose should be wide and the nostrils well-developed. The nose should be black on black or yellow dogs, and brown on chocolates. Nose color fading to a lighter shade is not a fault. A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment is a disqualification. _Teeth_--The teeth should be strong and regular with a scissors bite; the lower teeth just behind, but touching the inner side of the upper incisors. A level bite is acceptable, but not desirable. Undershot, overshot, or misaligned teeth are serious faults. Full dentition is preferred. Missing molars or pre-molars are serious faults. _Ears_--The ears should hang moderately close to the head, set rather far back, and somewhat low on the skull; slightly above eye level. Ears should not be large and heavy, but in proportion with the skull and reach to the inside of the eye when pulled forward. _Eyes_--Kind, friendly eyes imparting good temperament, intelligence and alertness are a hallmark of the breed. They should be of medium size, set well apart, and neither protruding nor deep set. Eye color should be brown in black and yellow Labradors, and brown or hazel in chocolates. Black, or yellow eyes give a harsh expression and are undesirable. Small eyes, set close together or round prominent eyes are not typical of the breed. Eye rims are black in black and yellow Labradors; and brown in chocolates. Eye rims without pigmentation is a disqualification.
*(There is more, but it would not fit in a single post)*

Decide for yourselves. I don't see the dog described in the standard in the photo above. Perhaps this is why no Labrador has ever won Best in Show at Westminster?

Evan


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

stevehaun said:


> Eventually it will stop when the dogs become too fat to copulate...


They seldom breed naturally-that's why bench dogs do AI all the time. They need a waist to breed naturally. I approached a well known Labrador handler with a QAA bitch I had and asked her if she would show her. She flat out told me I had to put 15# on her and bring her back. My bitch lived to almost 15 but she wouldn't have with an extra 15#, for one it's unhealthy and it's hard on the joints. I have learned to keep my males on the lean side for successful natural breeding.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Thanks for the video Bruce and yes, Angie, commenting about the state of the show dogs is like talking to a brick wall.

It's sad when the orthpedic vet that I visited with stated (without input from me) that the worst structure he sees is the show dog...

Change it??? Breed this type and then start judging and put up something else...ha ha ha

Oh yes, did I compare this Ch to our field bred dogs of today?...No? it's obvious which lab "type" has moved to the extreme...

I always like to look back on this wonderful champion and it should be obvious to everyone that sometimes newer isn't better. 

*CH. Shamrock Acres Light Brigade*: He was the top winning show dog in the history of the breed from 1970-1985 when his grandson Ch. Charisma's Lone Star Rick took over the record. Ch. Charisma's Lone Star Rick had 14 Best In Shows to beat his grandfather's 12 BIS's. He was also the top producing show sire in the history of the breed from 1971-2005

http://www.tealwoodkennel.com/LightBrigade1.html


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Thanks for the video Bruce and yes, Angie, commenting about the state of the show dogs is like talking to a brick wall.
> 
> It's sad when the orthpedic vet that I visited with stated (without input from me) that the worst structure he sees is the show dog...
> 
> ...




now THAT is a drop-dead handsome specimen! thanks for the link!-Paul


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Evan said:


> *Labrador Retriever Breed Standard*
> 
> *Sporting Group*
> 
> ...


Ok So i have bolded my favorite parts of the standard, and I have underlined the parts that I think are a joke with these dogs, most of them are panting while trotting around the ring like they have never retrieved anything but a cheeseburger. So if it says working condition for the weight is that why you have to fatten them up and they can be overweight for show condition?


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

SueLab said:


> Thanks for the video Bruce and yes, Angie, commenting about the state of the show dogs is like talking to a brick wall.
> 
> It's sad when the orthpedic vet that I visited with stated (without input from me) that the worst structure he sees is the show dog...
> 
> ...



I loved the video. Thank you!!! Kona has a very heavy influence of Brigg's on his dam's side and it is very apparent looking at him. When I look at these pictures and videos ,it makes me so sad the see what has happened to the breed


----------



## PridezionLabs (Mar 8, 2009)

I can agree that alot of the dogs I see in the ring are too heavy and can say that alot of field dogs have improper structure, so if the bench dogs would lose weight (which several should). I have read the last three pages and the other threads on this subject. I know the standard and have read and re-read it more times that I care to imagine. It's sad... However! I see that BOTH sides bench and field could pay ALOT more attention to the standard. I am hearing that they are overweight, but not so much that they have bad structure in these threads? I am to assume that drop a lil weight and they are spot on? I think that both sides often take what THEY LIKE about the standard and apply it, instead of adhearing to the entire standard. There I said it.....


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Here's a CH golden, 67 pounds of lean muscle. Finished very fast, with 3 big majors including two 4 pointers, one of them at a golden specialty over 70+ other goldens. Not in the least overweight, not overly boned, and doesn't have a long coat by any stretch of the imagination, will gladly chase birds all day.
Just want to dispel the myth that all breed CH goldens are fat pigs with massive bones that trip over their coats because they're so long.
Unfortunately you have to click on the thumbnails to see the photos because I am a dummy and couldn't figure out how to get full sized photos on here, no matter how much a kind and patient Ken Bora tried to help me.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

My first lab was from Shamrock Acres Light Brigade lines.That dog was great to hunt with and he looks almost the same as the"field" dogs I have now.

I train obedience for my pup at a place that has most of it's clients focus on obedience,agility and show.There are very few of us there that train for hunt test and hunting.I get comments all the time from some of the show people that my dogs are too skinny,look like hounds,etc.I've also been asked things like "how do yo make them like swimming" It's just two very different worlds.I think I have the best looking labs there.I like those "skinny" field dogs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

How can field people be expected to focus on conformation and structure, if that is what is considered perfection? There's no judging of moderate dogs which field people might breed to, as they can't compete. And Field dogs aren't ever judged for structure, why would they be, they can't win anything, it doesn't mean squat for future breeding. Right or wrong;This makes Conformation a joke, in the field world, and as it is a joke, we don't ever judge it, probably wouldn't even know how to evaluate it, and thus we breed only for what's important to us performance. We have no checks on proper conformation from the show-side, as the other sporting breeds do. We just assume that in order to perform one must have adequate conformation, which is somewhat true. But this is why the breed will continue to develop into extremes.

So now they I've said this what I'll get is "If you want it to change put your field lab in conformation, sorry but even if my dog happens to be prefect conformation-ally, (and there are field labs that are, not that we'd ever know it). I'd rather spend the 80-300+ bucks on something I might actually have a chance of winning, maybe signing my derby dog up for the NFC-NAFC


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's a CH golden, 67 pounds of lean muscle. Finished very fast, with 3 big majors including two 4 pointers, one of them at a golden specialty over 70+ other goldens. Not in the least overweight, not overly boned, and doesn't have a long coat by any stretch of the imagination, will gladly chase birds all day.
> Just want to dispel the myth that all breed CH goldens are fat pigs with massive bones that trip over their coats because they're so long.
> Unfortunately you have to click on the thumbnails to see the photos because I am a dummy and couldn't figure out how to get full sized photos on here, no matter how much a kind and patient Ken Bora tried to help me.


Looks like the handler is a little light for the show ring too;-)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> I'll take Patsy for $300, Alex.


That's like the name of my red dog Golden; Alex, "Things that are red for 500".

I think Patsy has a point, and we have it worse with Goldens. If you look back at old photos of early 20th century Goldens, they looked a lot more like our modern Field bred dogs than the current show dogs do. On the other hand, I'll admit to being pleasantly surprised when I offered to shoot some flyers for a group of Canadian show dogs that were going for their WCX at the Golden Specialty last Fall. I expected piggish, over weight dogs with little interest in retrieving, but these dogs were fast, stylish, intense retrievers, and not plump, short legged, and long haired dogs like I see in the show magazines. Maybe they kept closer to the original up in Canada.

John


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

In order for structure to have merit, it MUST contribute to function, at least in a sporting dog. I have been to the seminars, taken and watched video, drawn structure lines on photos, but I haven't seen anywhere that it improves function. 

If anyone is concerned with structure, it must be the field folks. Without it, they can't win. period. If the structure of their dogs were "bad", the dogs could not compete at the levels that they do. Look past the "science" and see what is happening in the real world. You know, that place where ducks fly and pheasant run.

Not buying the structure arguement.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

gsc said:


> In order for structure to have merit, it MUST contribute to function, at least in a sporting dog. I have been to the seminars, taken and watched video, drawn structure lines on photos, but I haven't seen anywhere that it improves function.


I bet if you asked those who've been thru cruciate or elbow, etc, surgery in the peak of their dogs' careers they may shed a different light on that.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

PridezionLabs said:


> I can agree that alot of the dogs I see in the ring are too heavy and can say that alot of field dogs have improper structure, so if the bench dogs would lose weight (which several should). I have read the last three pages and the other threads on this subject. I know the standard and have read and re-read it more times that I care to imagine. It's sad... However! I see that BOTH sides bench and field could pay ALOT more attention to the standard. I am hearing that they are overweight, but not so much that they have bad structure in these threads? I am to assume that drop a lil weight and they are spot on? I think that both sides often take what THEY LIKE about the standard and apply it, instead of adhearing to the entire standard. There I said it.....


Agree. Actually I can get past the weight in most cases.... that's not a permanent thing at all thankfully. What grinds me is the pet homes watching the boob tube and thinking that Muffy is just fine at 85# cuz she rolls just like the show dogs in the ring.

The bench group would do well to not only show the dogs in fit condition, but try a little harder at proving their dogs' trainability, however. It is darned hard anymore to find studs that not only look good, and are healthy/sound, but will give me the confidence that I will have something "upstairs" to work with in their get.

The field end is not w/o their problems either. Until we can get more folks to seriously critique their dogs' and pups' structure, we will continue to see the imbalances front to rear that are so common. Fronts that are very lacking in angles, often coupled w/ very over angled rears (sickle hocks, etc) don't make for a package that can weather the storm. How many times do we see stud pages for field dogs and the only photos available are of them sitting? 

Conformation is far more important to the performance dog than many are giving it credit for. And there I go ending a sentence w/ a preposition again. Damned midwest trait!


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Had a pup out of these two show "pigs", and I have never had a pup that wanted into the duck pen as bad as she did. Tho' she was only an "average" marker, she had the nose to make up for it. Some of these "show dogs" will do just fine in the field if that is what they are trained for (and fed for). 
An FC by no means but an allround good duck dog.


----------



## Mike Boufford (Sep 28, 2004)

Evan said:


> *Sporting Group*


The irony of this picture is just too outstanding.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> I bet if you asked those who've been thru cruciate or elbow, etc, surgery in the peak of their dogs' careers they may shed a different light on that.


I'm not questioning the importance of structural soundness. Yes, I think the field dogs could improve, but I don't think the show dogs have it, unless you are suggesting they don't have problems?

I don't know what the best structure is. Nor how to get it. Too many genes in that pool. I just haven't seen the "structure" ideal that is being pushed currently translate into anything of value in the real world.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

_"


tom said:



Had a pup out of these two show "pigs", and I have never had a pup that wanted into the duck pen as bad as she did. Tho' she was only an "average" marker, she had the nose to make up for it. Some of these "show dogs" will do just fine in the field if that is what they are trained for (and fed for). 
*An FC by no means but an allround good duck dog.*"

Click to expand...

_


tom said:


> That's the flip side of the coin. I've been blessed in that all of my field trial dogs were also handsome and well built at least in my mind, but that was really a matter of luck as I was more concerned in the performance aspect of the pedigree. I have seen ugly, ugly field champoins, and I have had conversations with FT folks who could care less what their dog looks like, as long as he or she does the work. Pretty is as pretty does. So in that repect, many of us are just as bad as the Show people at deviating from the original for the sake of competition results.
> 
> On the other hand, I have seen many very handsome all around duck dogs that were FC/AFCs, and that, in my mind is the ultimate dog.
> 
> John


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Go back and look at the video.

Focus on their feet when they are stacked. I saw a lot of flat, broken down feet.

Movement? Hard to really make a judgment from the video, but from what I could see, I saw a lot of crabbing and side-winding movement.

Helen


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

she's a doll, runs like a gazelle. That's NOT me, sadly....



huntinman said:


> Looks like the handler is a little light for the show ring too;-)


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

awesome post.



windycanyon said:


> Agree. Actually I can get past the weight in most cases.... that's not a permanent thing at all thankfully. What grinds me is the pet homes watching the boob tube and thinking that Muffy is just fine at 85# cuz she rolls just like the show dogs in the ring.
> 
> The bench group would do well to not only show the dogs in fit condition, but try a little harder at proving their dogs' trainability, however. It is darned hard anymore to find studs that not only look good, and are healthy/sound, but will give me the confidence that I will have something "upstairs" to work with in their get.
> 
> ...


----------



## PridezionLabs (Mar 8, 2009)

windycanyon said:


> Agree. Actually I can get past the weight in most cases.... that's not a permanent thing at all thankfully. What grinds me is the pet homes watching the boob tube and thinking that Muffy is just fine at 85# cuz she rolls just like the show dogs in the ring.
> 
> The bench group would do well to not only show the dogs in fit condition, but try a little harder at proving their dogs' trainability, however. It is darned hard anymore to find studs that not only look good, and are healthy/sound, but will give me the confidence that I will have something "upstairs" to work with in their get.
> 
> ...


I agree completely Anne! That hits the nail on the head


----------



## goldust (May 12, 2005)

A fat dog with good structure can go on a diet - a dog with bad structure can't fix it with a diet.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

I think my dogs are underweight according to their standards!!! I just had my older dog Blackie weighed and he was 71 lbs at 8 yo. I try to keep him near 69 to 70 lbs. Tar and he also have more energy than those dogs. JMO


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

gsc said:


> I'm not questioning the importance of structural soundness. Yes, I think the field dogs could improve, but I don't think the show dogs have it, unless you are suggesting they don't have problems?
> 
> I don't know what the best structure is. Nor how to get it. Too many genes in that pool. I just haven't seen the "structure" ideal that is being pushed currently translate into anything of value in the real world.


Well you don't think the show dogs have it but in the next paragraph, you are admitting that you don't know what it is or how to get it.  

Are you actually confusing structure with "heart" here? Field dogs DO tend to have a lot more heart. Just because they want to "go" doesn't mean they have proper structure though. LIke I said above, there are a lot of imbalanced field dogs out there (front to rear). That front especially needs to be good to take the pounding our dogs do. Both the front and rear need to be strong for the hazzardous terrain they are often dealing with (holes, etc-- think shock absorption).

Granted, there are a lot of show dogs w/o much "go", but I don't generally see many horrendous structural faults in the ring. In many cases, the show dogs have been bred to be "easy keepers", not demanding of alot of mental or physical work. I probably would want that too if I had 18-20 labs in a kennel situation as many of those breeders do. I've had labs for 18 yrs or so now, and currently have 7 "big dogs" (all training/competing for various performance venues exc 1) + an 11 wk old puppy. They are all house dogs-- surely it makes me question my sanity at times! Anne


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's a CH golden, 67 pounds of lean muscle. Finished very fast, with 3 big majors including two 4 pointers, one of them at a golden specialty over 70+ other goldens. Not in the least overweight, not overly boned, and doesn't have a long coat by any stretch of the imagination, will gladly chase birds all day.
> Just want to dispel the myth that all breed CH goldens are fat pigs with massive bones that trip over their coats because they're so long.
> Unfortunately you have to click on the thumbnails to see the photos because I am a dummy and couldn't figure out how to get full sized photos on here, no matter how much a kind and patient Ken Bora tried to help me.


I think that if you don't admit that there is a problem with the goldens that are in the show ring, then you are in denial. I would like to weigh and measure some of the dogs that I see in the show ring. And I would like to try to feel their ribs. Take a look at some of the pictures of some former champions photos and tell me this is what is being put up in the show ring. Right now I'm looking at a photo of English and Irish Dual Ch. David of Westley. Doesn't look like anything I see in the show ring. I am not too familiar with what's going on with labs but it looks like there might be a similar problem. I hope that labs don't develop the same split that I see in goldens because I think that the split can't be repaired.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

gdgnyc said:


> I hope that labs don't develop the same split that I see in goldens because I think that the split can't be repaired.


Say what????


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

windycanyon said:


> Say what????


I think GDNYC is saying, is "if you Lab folks think you have a problem here, just look at the difference between Show and Field Goldens, and you'll see a huge difference, where never the twain shall meet".

John


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I think GDNYC is saying, is "if you Lab folks think you have a problem here, just look at the difference between Show and Field Goldens, and you'll see a huge difference, where never the twain shall meet".
> 
> John


 
This is so true and so sad!! It's such a wide, wide gulf now, it's no wonder the Golden Retriever is the fastest breed in decline. (Pat Hastings Seminar) Depressing.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Don't know how much you've been hanging out at the golden show ring, but I've spent a lot of time there rather recently as well as with the dogs getting prepped for the ring. The trend in goldens is definitely back toward the moderate, athletic dog. The dogs in the ring pretty much all look just like the dog in the photo. And most goldens ARE typically shown in hard working condition, and you can feel their ribs. 
At least in the midwest.
Sure, there are some, especially from a couple of noted breeders, that are clunky and overdone. But that's not the overall trend in this area.
There is no disqualification for weight, but there is for height. The standard calls for 23-24 inches for males. Any golden between 22-23, or 24-25, is to be faulted, and in a highly competitive breed major faults are typically the kiss of death. Any golden standing over 25 inches or under 22 is automatically disqualified. 
They do measure (wicket) in the ring. Dogs who are DQ'd twice can never enter again.
I do agree with one statement you made, though, with a qualification. As long as people insist on breeding for only one thing (be it show, agility, field, obedience, whatever) the split in the breed will never be repaired. 



gdgnyc said:


> I think that if you don't admit that there is a problem with the goldens that are in the show ring, then you are in denial. I would like to weigh and measure some of the dogs that I see in the show ring. And I would like to try to feel their ribs. Take a look at some of the pictures of some former champions photos and tell me this is what is being put up in the show ring. Right now I'm looking at a photo of English and Irish Dual Ch. David of Westley. Doesn't look like anything I see in the show ring. I am not too familiar with what's going on with labs but it looks like there might be a similar problem. I hope that labs don't develop the same split that I see in goldens because I think that the split can't be repaired.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Thank you John and Pals. In fact it might be in the best interests of the lab people to go to a golden show and take a look at what's in the show ring and then go to the field and look at some real field goldens (not goldens in the field as they are NOT one and the same). Then you might realize how a breed can be destroyed. (Golden breed standard states that the golden is primarily a hunting dog.) Take a look and try to avoid it in labs.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

You are more than welcome to look at the show photos and point out anything in that dog's structure that makes him not suited for hunting, such as shoulder lay back, depth of forechest, balance, rear angulation, coat type, length of neck, letdown of hock, ratio of forearm to body, ratio of height to length, ratio of muzzle to skull bone, etc. But please be specific, not just a general "not suited for hunting".
Here's the breed standard to help you along:
http://www.grca.org/history_breed/breed_standard.html



gdgnyc said:


> Thank you John and Pals. In fact it might be in the best interests of the lab people to go to a golden show and take a look at what's in the show ring and then go to the field and look at some real field goldens (not goldens in the field as they are NOT one and the same). Then you might realize how a breed can be destroyed. (Golden breed standard states that the golden is primarily a hunting dog.) Take a look and try to avoid it in labs.


----------



## windigo (Sep 25, 2008)

Wow. I wrote that last night and here it is 6 pages, so I win, Angie! Obviously LOTS of people care!

I know we have some serious LACK of attention to the importance of structure in field labs. I've never been known as a middle-of-the-road kind of person, and sometimes, shooting for a "mean" gives you mediocrity. HOWEVER, we need to do something to change thinking on both sides of the fence. A dog with no leg, neck or nose and 30 extra pounds can't even be judged through the fat. A dog with cow hocks, torn cruciates, bad elbows, a huge nose, too much leg and size has problems, too.

I originally posted this hoping to spark a CONSTRUCTIVE conversation about what we can do to solve problems on both sides. Do we start a working group attatched to the Labrador Retriever club? AKC? Judges seminars? Puppy evaluations? It has to be the two groups wanting to fix their own problems, not just criticizing each other. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

I thank everyone for their passion. I think we can use it to help the breed, but I don't know where to start.

Patsy


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

hotel4dogs 
I must admit that the dogs I see are in the NYC area but I must add that I recently worked at a golden specialty. There were very few specimens that had the physical traits that I look for in a hunting dog. And I can assure you that on Long Island I only know of one person breeding field dogs and only one other person who breeds dogs and tries to get some field lines in their breedings. My opinion is that the breeders here don't give a hang about what's good in the field. BTW, when was the last time there was a golden Dual Champion?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Barb-

In Indy they were overdone, with very short backs and lots of bone. There were two dogs, two out of 42 that I would consider to be moderate. Granted I didn't go up and squeeze them for fatty tests, but really the difference is huge to my eye. I'm no expert-mostly I'm just a PIA, but I do love the breed and grew up with Miner's High Times Golden Retriever's. I spent many a night at their house when I was a kid, and I dearly love the Golden Retriever. I aslo judge AKC Hunt Tests and sometimes it's just painful to watch the 'show' lines-of both breeds. That painful sad feeling I've experienced more times than I would care to say while judging. And no; I never make presumptions when judging, that is the fastest way to screw up judging and it's not fair. I train regulary with a show golden who is not the 'norm'-he is very fast, loves water and is couragous, never blinks or no gos. And everytime Sue goes somewhere people comment on how unlike a 'show' golden the Chillimeister acts. So obviously this "show" attitude reputation in the field is indeed a fact of life. And that is what most people on here are really trying to comment on. Barb- I think your dog is lovely and congrats to you for playing in both venues-it can't be easy. (And after my adventures in foo foo land-I really do mean that). I also think my Ryder is a beautiful animal and very balanced-but they don't look much alike. That is the gulf everyone talks about.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

The last DC golden was a long, long time ago and there's not likely to be another for a long, long time. 



gdgnyc said:


> hotel4dogs
> I must admit that the dogs I see are in the NYC area but I must add that I recently worked at a golden specialty. There were very few specimens that had the physical traits that I look for in a hunting dog. And I can assure you that on Long Island I only know of one person breeding field dogs and only one other person who breeds dogs and tries to get some field lines in their breedings. My opinion is that the breeders here don't give a hang about what's good in the field. BTW, when was the last time there was a golden Dual Champion?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

People often comment to me that my boy isn't a "typical" show dog, and I think of the people that I know who are trying to breed so that people will no longer say that. It's encouraging, and I really do believe if you look at the goldens in the show ring 5 years ago, and look at them now, some progress has been made. There's a long way to go, though, I don't dispute that. 
I just get tired of the sterotype that, because the dog can go in a show ring and do okay, they can't do anything else. There is a group of us who are trying to train/breed dogs who can perform well outside the ring. 
In my humble and often wrong opinion, the problem really is people who breed for one and only one thing, regardless of whether that one thing is to win in the show ring or to win the national obedience championship, be a FC, or whatever. I feel that's what's causing the split in the breed. 



Pals said:


> Barb-
> 
> In Indy they were overdone, with very short backs and lots of bone. There were two dogs, two out of 42 that I would consider to be moderate. Granted I didn't go up and squeeze them for fatty tests, but really the difference is huge to my eye. I'm no expert-mostly I'm just a PIA, but I do love the breed and grew up with Miner's High Times Golden Retriever's. I spent many a night at their house when I was a kid, and I dearly love the Golden Retriever. I aslo judge AKC Hunt Tests and sometimes it's just painful to watch the 'show' lines-of both breeds. That painful sad feeling I've experienced more times than I would care to say while judging. And no; I never make presumptions when judging, that is the fastest way to screw up judging and it's not fair. I train regulary with a show golden who is not the 'norm'-he is very fast, loves water and is couragous, never blinks or no gos. And everytime Sue goes somewhere people comment on how unlike a 'show' golden the Chillimeister acts. So obviously this "show" attitude reputation in the field is indeed a fact of life. And that is what most people on here are really trying to comment on. Barb- I think your dog is lovely and congrats to you for playing in both venues-it can't be easy. (And after my adventures in foo foo land-I really do mean that). I also think my Ryder is a beautiful animal and very balanced-but they don't look much alike. That is the gulf everyone talks about.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I know. There's a CH golden that is in this area and has tried probably 6 or 8 times for JH legs, and finally managed to pass one.
That kind of stuff makes me want to cry when I see it. 




Pals said:


> Barb-
> 
> I aslo judge AKC Hunt Tests and sometimes it's just painful to watch the 'show' lines-of both breeds. That painful sad feeling I've experienced more times than I would care to say while judging.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> You are more than welcome to look at the show photos and point out anything in that dog's structure that makes him not suited for hunting, such as shoulder lay back, depth of forechest, balance, rear angulation, coat type, length of neck, letdown of hock, ratio of forearm to body, ratio of height to length, ratio of muzzle to skull bone, etc. But please be specific, not just a general "not suited for hunting".
> Here's the breed standard to help you along:
> http://www.grca.org/history_breed/breed_standard.html


We really want the same thing but you are now patronizing me. I did look at the breed standard. Did you look at the photo of David of Westley or maybe Chee-Chee of Sprucewood---dogs that represent a type closer to what was being bred years back? 
I don't want fat dogs with a lot of hair. I want to see a dog that can walk without waddling. A good head is one with good eyes, a good nose, and a smart brain. I want a fast dog that can run down a wounded cockbird, a dog that can hunt grouse cover all day, and a dog that can fit in my duckboat and not drag in half the bay after a retrieve. 
I can't evaluate the dog in your photo without seeing it in person. I also must see it work.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> People often comment to me that my boy isn't a "typical" show dog, and I think of the people that I know who are trying to breed so that people will no longer say that. It's encouraging, and I really do believe if you look at the goldens in the show ring 5 years ago, and look at them now, some progress has been made. There's a long way to go, though, I don't dispute that.
> I just get tired of the sterotype that, because the dog can go in a show ring and do okay, they can't do anything else. *There is a group of us who are trying to train/breed dogs who can perform well outside the ring. *In my humble and often wrong opinion, the problem really is people who breed for one and only one thing, regardless of whether that one thing is to win in the show ring or to win the national obedience championship, be a FC, or whatever. I feel that's what's causing the split in the breed.


I applaud you in this endevour to bring working ability back into the show ring, and to reinforce your point, I'll mention again my surprise and thrill at seeing the Canadian Show/obedience Goldens I helped with flyers at last years Golden Specialty. They were pretty special dogs, and I would be prowd to hunt over them any day. Maybe your efforts are taking hold in Canada as well.

Most of my bad attitude regarding show Goldens is a result of 1) Looking at all the pictures in GRCA magazine and 2) being mortified and ashamed for the breed when I saw somebody run one of those fluffys back when I was doing hunt test. They would do anything to avoid water and basically reinforced peoples image of Goldens wearing bandanas. I really wish lab hunt test people would come out to a field trial and watch the fast, stylish great marking, strong water Goldens that run there. You can get a real warped idea of what a Golden is if you just see them in hunt test.

John


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

PridezionLabs said:


> ... However! I see that BOTH sides bench and field could pay ALOT more attention to the standard. I am hearing that they are overweight, but not so much that they have bad structure in these threads? I am to assume that drop a lil weight and they are spot on? I think that both sides often take what THEY LIKE about the standard and apply it, instead of adhearing to the entire standard. There I said it.....


No, I do not think that you can assume that...weight is not the only reason some dogs can not move freely in the field and are not fit enough to perform at a minimum standard. Trotting in the ring might be smooth but what happens when they are required to run after a bird for any distance?

Granted there are injuries with field dogs BUT most of those dogs are worked daily for months or years...A comparison to our human athletes who have injuries and arthritis that someone sitting at a desk job would never get.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> In my humble and often wrong opinion, the problem really is people who breed for one and only one thing, regardless of whether that one thing is to win in the show ring or to win the national obedience championship, be a FC, or whatever. I feel that's what's causing the split in the breed.


Got a winner!!

Form follows function folks, if you breed for only one function, that is what you will get.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

In fact I did go look, and I think if David of Westley were blow dried like the dogs in the ring now, you'd see quite a bit of similarity, but as you say, it's hard to tell from photos. 
We do want the same thing. I want a dog with enough bone that he's not going to be shivering after his first cold water retrieve. I want a dog with enough "pants" and "tail feathers" that he can sit on cold ground all day and not even feel it. I want a dog whose angles and balance are such that he can run all day, effortlessly. A dog who can shake the water off his coat and be basically dry right away. A dog with a big enough neck that he can carry a bird back over long distances repeatedly. A dog with a big enough rib cage to enclose the lungs needed for this work. And over all, I want a dog that from the first time he sees a bird, will go pick it up and bring it back to me without putting a tooth mark on it. 



gdgnyc said:


> We really want the same thing but you are now patronizing me. I did look at the breed standard. Did you look at the photo of David of Westley or maybe Chee-Chee of Sprucewood---dogs that represent a type closer to what was being bred years back?
> I don't want fat dogs with a lot of hair. I want to see a dog that can walk without waddling. A good head is one with good eyes, a good nose, and a smart brain. I want a fast dog that can run down a wounded cockbird, a dog that can hunt grouse cover all day, and a dog that can fit in my duckboat and not drag in half the bay after a retrieve.
> I can't evaluate the dog in your photo without seeing it in person. I also must see it work.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

tom said:


> Got a winner!!
> 
> Form follows function folks, if you breed for only one function, that is what you will get.


I would agree EXCEPT when comparing CH's from 20 years ago, please tell me which current "type" of lab has moved farther from that look - a look which I believe is much closer to matching the written standard which has not been "updated" over those years?

"Type" of labrador just means to me that there will never be another dual champion...ever...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

SueLab said:


> I would agree EXCEPT when comparing CH's from 20 years ago, please tell me which current "type" of lab has moved farther from that look - a look which I believe is much closer to matching the written standard which has not been "updated" over those years?
> 
> "Type" of labrador just means to me that there will never be another dual champion...ever...


Exactly! And I would say the exact same thing about the Golden Retriever; look at pictures of Goldens from the 1920s and 30s, they look very much like field trial Goldens of today, and not at all like the show Goldens I see in GRCA magazine. Hotel for dogs is trying to do something about that and I applaud the effort.

John


----------



## Philip Carson (Mar 17, 2009)

Evan said:


> *Labrador Retriever Breed Standard*
> 
> *Sporting Group*
> 
> ...


So, if dog is, say 26 inches at shoulder, 90 lbs. of muscle, and magnificent looking, he's DQ'd? May I get a bench person's opinion?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

this is a fascinating website if you're interested in golden retrievers who hold multiple titles:
www.undeniablegoldens.com
Also fun to browse around it and see who the top producing sires and dams are for various titles. For example, the #1 studs for producing FC offspring, NAFC-FC TOPBRASS COTTON OS FDHF and AFC YANKEE'S SMOKE'N RED DEVIL OS each produced 5 FC offspring.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

yes, he's DQ'd. If he's DQ'd twice, he can't be shown in breed again.
There's a reason that goldens and labs aren't supposed to be over 24 inches, and are supposed to be between 65 and 75 pounds, which is why the standard reads the way it does.
I don't think people are arguing the standard, they're arguing that what's winning in the ring isn't to the written standard. 



Philip Carson said:


> So, if dog is, say 26 inches at shoulder, 90 lbs. of muscle, and magnificent looking, he's DQ'd? May I get a bench person's opinion?


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Look more like mastiffs than a lab in my opinion. Sad when you look at many of the other sporting breeds that have not been molested to near extinction. Look at a chessie or many others that still look asthletic, and well sporting. My guess is many of those pigadors couldn't hnt for much more than a cookie in the next room!!


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

I wonder if the show dog people sit around and beeotch about how lanky and greyhound like some field labs are with their pointy muzzles...just sayin' I bet nobody in the show ranks who got to Westminster, the pinacle of THEIR sport gives a crap what a bunch of people who like nothing more than to beat this topic to death really thinks. Apparently the complaints listed here don't factor into their game and no amount of belly aching will fix what any of you see is wrong with their sport because it IS their sport. But it doesn't matter, when this thread ends another will pop up in its place, as usual.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

endlessly.

Which do you love, the breed or the sport? (that's a rhetorical "you", not aimed at you directly). A lot of people at the pinnacle of any dog sport love the sport itself, not the breed. IMO.




WALDMAN79 said:


> I wonder if the show dog people sit around and beeotch about how lanky and greyhound like some field labs are with their pointy muzzles...just sayin'


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Philip Carson said:


> So, if dog is, say 26 inches at shoulder, 90 lbs. of muscle, and magnificent looking, he's DQ'd? May I get a bench person's opinion?


Yes, DQ for height.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Philip Carson said:


> So, if dog is, say 26 inches at shoulder, 90 lbs. of muscle, and magnificent looking, he's DQ'd? May I get a bench person's opinion?


"Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ 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."

Actually the standard was written this way (1994) (with the disqualification) because the show dogs were becoming to short, not to tall.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

SueLab said:


> I would agree EXCEPT when comparing CH's from 20 years ago, please tell me which current "type" of lab has moved farther from that look - a look which I believe is much closer to matching the written standard which has not been "updated" over those years?


This argument always makes me laugh... why only go back 20 years? Heck, I just found a 1991 calendar page at work in the back of a cabinet today, in fact. That was only 20 years ago.  Even the 1970's was VERY recent in the history of the breed. If you go _way_ back to the _very first labradors_, they are much more like today's show labs. Maybe not those who are multiple specialty (all-lab) show winners, but definitely the more moderate show dogs I still see so often in the ring. Yet so many people (whether show or field) "choose" those they prefer from the lineup of old black and white photos from back then to help argue their points. I can find just as many heavier-boned, heavier-coated labs in those old photos as I can find lighter-boned, thinner-coated labs. Especially with the _pre-show-dog __original_ labradors.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Misty Marsh said:


> Look more like mastiffs than a lab in my opinion. Sad when you look at many of the other sporting breeds that have not been molested to near extinction. Look at a chessie or many others that still look asthletic, and well sporting. My guess is many of those pigadors couldn't hnt for much more than a cookie in the next room!!


Can we stop with the cheap insults? The "pigador" thing is old, at least get some new material, please? I mean I'm glad my "pigador" is still "athletic" and not "astletic" and he can "hunt" not "hnt" for a lot more than cookies in the next room. Should I continue to poke fun at your rudeness or your ignorance, probably not since you're doing a fine job in your own posts. I forgot, the high AND the mighty all reside here at RetrieverTraining.Net.


----------



## Philip Carson (Mar 17, 2009)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Yes, DQ for height.


If Lab is 24 inches at shoulder, and 90 lbs. of fat, won't be DQ'd?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Montview said:


> This argument always makes me laugh... why only go back 20 years? Heck, I just found a 1991 calendar page at work in the back of a cabinet today, in fact. That was only 20 years ago.  Even the 1970's was VERY recent in the history of the breed. If you go _way_ back to the _very first labradors_, they are much more like today's show labs. Maybe not those who are multiple specialty (all-lab) show winners, but definitely the more moderate show dogs I still see so often in the ring. Yet so many people (whether show or field) "choose" those they prefer from the lineup of old black and white photos from back then to help argue their points. I can find just as many heavier-boned, heavier-coated labs in those old photos as I can find lighter-boned, thinner-coated labs. Especially with the _pre-show-dog __original_ labradors.


I have seen the chart with the 8 or 9 types from the early 1900's and none look like Rottys...
and actually the chart has been posted a couple of years ago on this very site...the one I chose actually was the top stud dog for a good number of years so perhaps he is more representative of what had been ....


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

No, will not be DQ'd. Won't win anything, but won't be DQ'd, either because the dog is not out of the breed standard. 
If the dog were to lose weight/tone up, it might be a nice specimen of the breed. A dog that's too tall will always be too tall.




Philip Carson said:


> If Lab is 24 inches at shoulder, and 90 lbs. of fat, won't be DQ'd?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Philip Carson said:


> If Lab is 24 inches at shoulder, and 90 lbs. of fat, won't be DQ'd?


If you want to add "DQed for fat" to the breed standard, join the LRC and get er done.
That is precisely what many of us did to correct the height problem of the 80s early 90s.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Now; why shouldn't this dog be put up?










Look at the elbow, and then read the breed standard.

"Proportion--Short-coupled; length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. *The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper.* The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long or tall and leggy in outline. Substance--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat."

Maybe the DQ needs to be added to the last sentence. ;-)


----------



## PridezionLabs (Mar 8, 2009)

SueLab said:


> No, I do not think that you can assume that...weight is not the only reason some dogs can not move freely in the field and are not fit enough to perform at a minimum standard. Trotting in the ring might be smooth but what happens when they are required to run after a bird for any distance?
> 
> Granted there are injuries with field dogs BUT most of those dogs are worked daily for months or years...A comparison to our human athletes who have injuries and arthritis that someone sitting at a desk job would never get.


That was said because the majority of the first posts were related to nothing but the weight of the dog...nothing was being said of structure.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> endlessly.
> 
> Which do you love, the breed or the sport? (that's a rhetorical "you", not aimed at you directly). A lot of people at the pinnacle of any dog sport love the sport itself, not the breed. IMO.


Really, neither more than the other. I have a lab of field and show lines and get tired of logging on and seeing these thread start up and the insults fly, the same ones over and over. I don't show and I only do a little running of local events and HRC stuff - but nowhere near as hardcore as most here. What I posted was meant to be tongue in cheek, that you don't see show people posting here in the same manner as the endless venom that gets spewed in their direction, but I guess I don't know if the show version of RTF exists where they do. I'm all for a little chest beating my sport's better, out of pride or playfulness. Even if there's validity in WHAT you say - the health concerns aspect for instance, there's NO excuse for rudeness and ignorance in regards to HOW you say it. My lab doesn't fit into the standard, but even hovering between 95 - 100 lbs, his weight doesn't come from fat. He has a huge skeletal structure and is very muscular. His hips, elbows, and cardiac tests are all good/normal. He's not going to win a track meet, but hunts alot and has never had any endurance issues. I'm sure there are instances that are the basis for the opinions posted here, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. I disagree with the insults though and apologize for my retaliation in my own previous posts.


----------



## Kevin Eskam (Mar 2, 2007)

tom said:


> If you want to add "DQed for fat" to the breed standard, join the LRC and get er done.
> That is precisely what many of us did to correct the height problem of the 80s early 90s.


The height problem? 
That was because the British dogs were winning all the time wasnt it? 
So they changed the standards or raised the heights so the british couldnt compete and the LRC and AKC were sued over this but were found innocent


----------



## Philip Carson (Mar 17, 2009)

tom said:


> "Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ 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."
> 
> Actually the standard was written this way (1994) (with the disqualification) because the show dogs were becoming to short, not to tall.


If this is reason for re-write of standard (too short) why is too tall a DQ?

Also, Standard says, in part: "The L.R. is .....dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions...." How do show judges know dog has "substance and soundness to hunt .... for long hours under difficult conditions"?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Philip Carson said:


> If this is reason for re-write of standard (too short) why is too tall a DQ?


Can't DQ one without DQing the other
Believe me, that was discussed *at length*



> So they changed the standards or raised the heights so the British couldn't compete


Did *NOT* change the height standard, only added the DQ to the existing standard.
There has always been 1 inch difference between the KC standard and the AKC standard.
BTW only the smallest (1/2 inch) of the KC standard would be DQed in the US.
But even those weren't the problem, it was the ones that were 2 maybe 3 inches under the standard that were the problem.

However, my point is a simple one, *IF* you perceive that there is a problem with the breed standard *YOU* can do something about it.


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

WALDMAN79 said:


> I wonder if the show dog people sit around and beeotch about how lanky and greyhound like some field labs are with their pointy muzzles...just sayin' I bet nobody in the show ranks who got to Westminster, the pinacle of THEIR sport gives a crap what a bunch of people who like nothing more than to beat this topic to death really thinks. Apparently the complaints listed here don't factor into their game and no amount of belly aching will fix what any of you see is wrong with their sport because it IS their sport. But it doesn't matter, when this thread ends another will pop up in its place, as usual.


The answer is yes. I have had many conversations with shorthair folks that really try to keep their breed dual purpose (the breeder of one of ou GSPs has bred 15 dual champions) and Brit was probably only DC to take Group 1 at westminster. I would show my lab in hunting class in breed but can only show in veTerans if spayed.

We have had 5 bench champions. I will not put weight on them to show I just explain to the judge that these are hunting companions too and extra weight would put them at risk for injury. Labs included. Jmo. Martha


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> Don't know how much you've been hanging out at the golden show ring, but I've spent a lot of time there rather recently as well as with the dogs getting prepped for the ring. The trend in goldens is definitely back toward the moderate, athletic dog. The dogs in the ring pretty much all look just like the dog in the photo. And most goldens ARE typically shown in hard working condition, and you can feel their ribs.
> At least in the midwest.
> Sure, there are some, especially from a couple of noted breeders, that are clunky and overdone. But that's not the overall trend in this area.
> There is no disqualification for weight, but there is for height. The standard calls for 23-24 inches for males. Any golden between 22-23, or 24-25, is to be faulted, and in a highly competitive breed major faults are typically the kiss of death. Any golden standing over 25 inches or under 22 is automatically disqualified.
> ...


Agree-- the GRs I see out here are NOT clunky and overdone at all, and several of the handlers handle both GRs and Labs and will tell you the show Labs are fat by comparison. They have a not very flattering term for them.  I have yet to put my hands on a show Lab that I felt the ribs but I have done w/ a show Golden. Other than the difference between coat and often temperament, there is not the split in that breed that I am seeing in Labs.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

WALDMAN79 said:


> I wonder if the show dog people sit around and beeotch about how lanky and greyhound like some field labs are with their pointy muzzles...just sayin' I bet nobody in the show ranks who got to Westminster, the pinacle of THEIR sport gives a crap what a bunch of people who like nothing more than to beat this topic to death really thinks.


I am involved in both venues as well as multiple others, and I haven't heard nearly the same degree of complaints coming from the show people as those involved with agility or field events regarding other "types" of labs. They may not like them, and may agree that there is still not the same degree of health clearances being done with regard to elbows or Optigen in the other "types" out there but on the primarily show breeder forums I've been on, this just isn't a topic that comes up over and over again to the same degree (and with the same venom) that it does among the field folks I hang around with or "meet" through this forum. 
I find it refreshing that versatility is still regarded as important to many, too, and there are still many who like to see the all-around dog, myself included. I hear warm congrats from both sides when anyone excels in any venue with their dogs though- nice to be a part of a group with that degree of sportsmanship at least! I think that part is great!


----------



## retrieverman (May 20, 2009)

They sure didn't look like they missed a meal. They all had nice tails and a great wag. Now I can see why they will never win best in show at Westminster. Too bad for the breed. What can be done about it?


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Can we stop with the cheap insults? The "pigador" thing is old, at least get some new material, please? I mean I'm glad my "pigador" is still "athletic" and not "astletic" and he can "hunt" not "hnt" for a lot more than cookies in the next room. Should I continue to poke fun at your rudeness or your ignorance, probably not since you're doing a fine job in your own posts. I forgot, the high AND the mighty all reside here at RetrieverTraining.Net.


Wow, touch a nerve and now you feel that you need to be the show ring protector and get personal insulting people directly calling them ignorant, and rude, classy! If you don't like a comment/opinion that is fine, but really? Since we are on the topic, "yes" typing on a small laptop is difficult with big fingers, and I still feel show bred labs are only good for thier game, walking around a carpet covered show ring waiting for another hand found cookie!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

For those that are defending the poor trod upon show dogs, terms like "pigadore", "kegs on Legs", etc would not be out there if they were not so painfully apt! Personally I can not understand how anyone can close their eyes to what has happened to a noble breed by catering to fashion. Fat is fat, dull is dull, and I see absolutely nothing left to defend in these caricatures of labs being shown on national television. It is certainly not a case of being "pro" one type of dog more than another. I admire all breeds that are shown in the condition they are supposed to thrive in. 

I was in the vets office with my new pup on Wednesday. Two folks were in with their pet labs. One of them was a nice looking yellow but easily 20#'s overweight. He lay on the floor and panted while waiting his turn. I asked what the old guy was here for. His owner told me, "Oh, Chip is only 3, but he has a lot of trouble with his hips". Now it may be true that displasia strikes anywhere, but did no one ever let this woman know how much harder it was for her dog to carry that weight? It would be tough to convince her anything was wrong with it when the "best of the breed" on tv look just like that.

So no, we that like the field dogs are not being venomous or critical of another's "game". I think most of us just truly love dogs and want the best for all of them.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> I wonder if the show dog people sit around and beeotch about how lanky and greyhound like some field labs are with their pointy muzzles...just sayin' .


Sure they do, I have heard it for myself as a participant at past JH & WC events after thier show bred labs blew up on the test! The difference I see in the whole show verces field debate/fued is that most all show bred labs look the same, short, heavy etc.. while the field bred lab lines still have many, many "classic" looking dogs, they are not all greyhounds.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

2tall said:


> For those that are defending the poor trod upon show dogs, terms like "pigadore", "kegs on Legs", etc would not be out there if they were not so painfully apt! Personally I can not understand how anyone can close their eyes to what has happened to a noble breed by catering to fashion. Fat is fat, dull is dull, and I see absolutely nothing left to defend in these caricatures of labs being shown on national television. It is certainly not a case of being "pro" one type of dog more than another. I admire all breeds that are shown in the condition they are supposed to thrive in.
> 
> I was in the vets office with my new pup on Wednesday. Two folks were in with their pet labs. One of them was a nice looking yellow but easily 20#'s overweight. He lay on the floor and panted while waiting his turn. I asked what the old guy was here for. His owner told me, "Oh, Chip is only 3, but he has a lot of trouble with his hips". Now it may be true that displasia strikes anywhere, but did no one ever let this woman know how much harder it was for her dog to carry that weight? It would be tough to convince her anything was wrong with it when the "best of the breed" on tv look just like that.
> 
> So no, we that like the field dogs are not being venomous or critical of another's "game". I think most of us just truly love dogs and want the best for all of them.


Very good post...........well said. 

Allowing any dog to get fat or out of shape is animal abuse in my book. 

To purposly fatten a dog up for a $3 dollar ribbon is disgusting.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Misty Marsh said:


> Sure they do, I have heard it for myself as a participant at past JH & WC events after thier show bred labs blew up on the test! The difference I see in the whole show verces field debate/fued is that most all show bred labs look the same, short, heavy etc.. while the field bred lab lines still have many, many "classic" looking dogs, they are not all greyhounds.


Even amongst us field event people we are sometimes critical of looks within our dogs. Whippet, coyote, grey hound, ect are some of the derogatory terms you'll hear at a field trial or hunt test. But all that goes out the window if the dog is a great performer, that's when people's standards drop on who they will breed their dog to.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Not everyone who owns show bred labs have "pigadors" living in their house. At the same time not everyone who owns a dog from an FC/AFC sire has a "greyhound" living in their house. Look at my aviator. Are either of those 2 boys out of standard? They are exactly 9 months apart in age. At the current ages of 5 and 6 they are 3 lbs apart in weight and 1/2 inch apart in height. Both have a CC.( conformation certificate). They weigh 75 (24 inches)and 78 lbs (23 1/2inches).


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Pete said:


> If form follows function then it is obvious why show dogs look the way they do and why field dogs look the way they do. The function of a show dog is to prance around a ring and look pretty. So the show dog functions better in the ring than the field dog. He has been bred for that exact reason.


So, you are saying the labrador retriever is bred to look pretty and prance around?

The Labrador Retriever was not developed to "look pretty" and "prance around". It is in the sporting group. It is a retriever breed. It's stated function is retrieving game in the field.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Don't worry the chessies were not far behind the labs in thickness. Both breeds had the same judge. Judges are the first problem. People show dogs that judges will put up for a ribbon. I think the chessies will go the way of the lab. More dangerous for chessies since our field numbers are so small. They should require show judges to either attend a certain number of hunts, hunt tests or field trials to better understand what they are really bred to do which is not run around a ring and get exhausted. Conditioning is definitley not in the show program.


----------



## PridezionLabs (Mar 8, 2009)

Pete said:


> No
> I said the SHOW labrador was built to prance around the ring and look pretty
> That function has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the field.
> 
> ...


That's a bit stereotypical...  My SHOW Labradors were not "built" in the first place, but they were bred to hunt 
They were bred to move correctly for hunting, correct shoulders, length of leg, reach of neck, tailset, turn of stifle, topline, correct coat...etc.. These ALL pertain to movement and function for my dogs to hunt and I show them to direct attention to that. Your last statement is entirely untrue...because mine prove to do both... as they should


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Pete said:


> No
> I said the SHOW labrador was built to prance around the ring and look pretty
> That function has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the field.
> 
> ...


Wrong! My show bred dog was bred to look proper and do what a lab was meant to do which is hunt. Sire is an Am/Cn CH MH, CD. Dam is a JH daughter of a show bred MH who is a littermate of a CH/SH.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Quote:
That's a bit stereotypical... :wink: My SHOW Labradors were not "built" in the first place, but they were bred to hunt :grin:
They were bred to move correctly for hunting, correct shoulders, length of leg, reach of neck, tailset, turn of stifle, topline, correct coat...etc.. These ALL pertain to movement and function for my dogs to hunt and I show them to direct attention to that. Your last statement is entirely untrue...because mine prove to do both...:grin: as they should 
NO they were not!!!! They were bred to move well in the ring.:grin:


I have seen few show labs move well at top speed nor do they glide over the terrain . Sorry. Its not their fault,,,they were made to glide in the ring.:smile:
Form follows function

Pete

For the show crowd to maintain the show labs, by and large, do well in the field is self delusion. Sure there is the occasional exception to the rule, an occasional MH. But a dual Champion? A Clydesdale as soon win the Kentucky Derby. I've seen too many show labs that had little or no talent, and struggled to earn a JH. Westminster has done a great injustice to the Labrador. If they had a clue they would remove the Labrador from the Sporting Group and place it between the Pugs and Bulldogs. Those trains left years ago heading in opposite directions.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Losthwy said:


> Quote:
> That's a bit stereotypical... :wink: My SHOW Labradors were not "built" in the first place, but they were bred to hunt :grin:
> They were bred to move correctly for hunting, correct shoulders, length of leg, reach of neck, tailset, turn of stifle, topline, correct coat...etc.. These ALL pertain to movement and function for my dogs to hunt and I show them to direct attention to that. Your last statement is entirely untrue...because mine prove to do both...:grin: as they should
> NO they were not!!!! They were bred to move well in the ring.:grin:
> ...


Come out someday and watch my show dog mark. You might just change your mind. Before you say I know not what I speak of, he lives with a Nitro son.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> Conditioning is definitley not in the show program.


Oh really!









(covers eyes) you'r not suppose to notice that he's "pacing"

Conditioning is a huge factor *IF* you want to do anything past the breed ring.
Come rabbit hunting with me if you think my show dogs are not well conditioned (me thinks it will be you that will be needing to take a brake)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Come out someday and watch my show dog mark. You might just change your mind. Before you say I know not what I speak of, he lives with a Nitro son.


Well, he did say there was the occasional exception to the rule. Are you saying your dog is a typical show dog and that the average show dog could fly out there and pin marks as your dog does, or is your dog that exception to the rule?

John


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I have given up on this topic. Split the breed and be done with it and move on. 

On a second note lets not get to high and mighty about how long our trial dogs can hunt. A number of years 2 of us took our trial dogs out to pick up birds at a tower shoot. We had 8 or so dogs between us. The shoot was in the morning and was very easy and the dogs were rotated and were plenty rested for the afternoon clean up. We went out and hunted with one of the local pro guides and he had 2 pointers. We hunted about 4 hours and stopped to rest and swap out dogs. He just gave his dogs water and a stake out for a 10 minute rest. Our dogs were spent and his dogs still were hunting hard. After the hunt I asked how old the dogs were 12 and 15. I could not believe those old dogs ran our into the ground. Not only that they are kennel dogs that are never exercised and fed low quality food. None of our dogs were over 8.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Come out someday and watch my show dog mark. You might just change your mind. Before you say I know not what I speak of, he lives with a Nitro son.


What are you running with your dogs?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

John Robinson said:


> Well, he did say there was the occasional exception to the rule. Are you saying your dog is a typical show dog and that the average show dog could fly out there and pin marks as your dog does, or is your dog that exception to the rule?
> 
> John


Honestly I do not know the answer to that question. But how much of that answer would be based on a show dog of a certain age vs that same dog in a different environment as a puppy? 
I grew up around true dual purpose labs. The dogs of my childhood were Whygin and Shamrock Acres. I assume any lab that walks thru my door will meet certain goals.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

We still always end up at the same place; you either breed for both, and train for both, or there is no way that you will get both!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Steve Amrein said:


> I have given up on this topic. Split the breed and be done with it and move on.
> 
> On a second note lets not get to high and mighty about how long our trial dogs can hunt. A number of years 2 of us took our trial dogs out to pick up birds at a tower shoot. We had 8 or so dogs between us. The shoot was in the morning and was very easy and the dogs were rotated and were plenty rested for the afternoon clean up. We went out and hunted with one of the local pro guides and he had 2 pointers. We hunted about 4 hours and stopped to rest and swap out dogs. He just gave his dogs water and a stake out for a 10 minute rest. Our dogs were spent and his dogs still were hunting hard. After the hunt I asked how old the dogs were 12 and 15. I could not believe those old dogs ran our into the ground. Not only that they are kennel dogs that are never exercised and fed low quality food. None of our dogs were over 8.


You're right, the reality is that though our dogs are in extremely good shape, lean, muscular and able to run at full speed on multiple 300-400 yard marks, the way we train, pulling our dog off the truck every two to three hours to run a set-up, makes them more sprinters than endurance runners. When hunting season comes around in the fall, it takes my boys a few weeks to get back into hunting shape.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Honestly I do not know the answer to that question. But how much of that answer would be based on a show dog of a certain age vs that same dog in a different environment as a puppy?
> I grew up around true dual purpose labs. The dogs of my childhood were Whygin and Shamrock Acres. I assume any lab that walks thru my door will meet certain goals.


My honest opinion is that there really is a wide split in build and structure between the typical, competitive Field Trial and Show Lab or Golden. Those of us on the field side believe that the show side has deviated farther from the original dog than the field side has. I don't know how to settle that argument, or as some have said, is it even necessary. I applaud those of you who are trying keep the working ability in the show dogs and good looks in the field dogs, but it seems to me that despite your good intensions, you are bucking the tide on this. I hope you keep at it and show judging comes around to appreciating the few really good looking FT or HT dogs that are out there. 

Ron Wallace, Judy Rasmussen's husband told me a humorous story once, about how Judy tried to compete with one of her early FC-AFC Goldens who happened to be a very handsome dog. Ron was sitting in the gallery when Judy trotted her dog out into the ring. There were very clear audible gasps from the gallery as in there opinion this dog was too hideous to even comprehend. That was the last time Judy, a very competitive person tried that game.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> I grew up around true dual purpose labs. The dogs of my childhood were Whygin and Shamrock Acres. I assume any lab that walks thru my door will meet certain goals.


Sally (Shamrock Acres) still has very moderate dogs. She never went for the overdone look and held to her values of a good dog should look like. I recently went and looked at some of her studs, some CH, and they all had nice heads, were longer in the leg and had athletic bodies. I would use them if I didn't have a good looking field champion close-and she does EIC, which many conformation people won't do.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Misty Marsh said:


> Wow, touch a nerve and now you feel that you need to be the show ring protector and get personal insulting people directly calling them ignorant, and rude, classy! If you don't like a comment/opinion that is fine, but really? Since we are on the topic, "yes" typing on a small laptop is difficult with big fingers, and I still feel show bred labs are only good for thier game, walking around a carpet covered show ring waiting for another hand found cookie!


Don't say ignorant and rude things and you won't be called ignorant and rude, pretty simple concept. Your points can be made without the insults. And I did think what I posted was out of line and posted an apology. 

And, I wasn't trying to be "the show ring protector", just pointing out the irony that this topic keeps popping up on hunting dog site. And that if what you consider to be these horrific examples of labradors made it to Westminster - that is their game and they could probably care less about the opinions posted here. 

Critique the lack of adherence to the standard all you like, they still made it to their "Super Bowl", paraded around the carpet, looking for cookies but on national tv - exposure that largely eludes the field trial/hunt test sports. So when yet another show vs. field thread pops up right after Westminster was on tv it could be interpreted as less concern for the sporting dog breeds portrayal and more like jealousy. And before I get burned at the stake for suggesting that, there is not an insult meant here. But when 12 pages of posts pops up after somebody says hey did you see the labs at Westminster and then there's a link and pictures posted for all to poke fun at, complain about, or insult...doesn't it look like that could play into the mix?

I'll be the first to admit that I resent the insults because my dog has a show/field bloodline, and that I don't know the ins and outs of either sport. And that stereotypes expressed here on RTF have some basis in fact. But if we must debate this topic over and over again, can we do it without the insults?


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

The standard specifies heights and weights. 

Do they measure and weigh the dogs before they get into the ring, or is the judging wholly subjective?


----------



## troy schwab (Mar 9, 2010)

The standard only specifies height..... the weights are "approximate"....... At least thats how I read them.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

dixidawg said:


> The standard specifies heights and weights.
> 
> Do they measure and weigh the dogs before they get into the ring, or is the judging wholly subjective?


 
Height is a DQ but weight is not. A dog can be DQ'd for height but they are not measured when they enter the ring. The judge can call for a dog to be measured as can another competitor. It is rare that handler will call for the wicket on another dog. They would then have everyone calling for their dogs to be measured at every show.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Do they weigh them to see how "approximate" they are to the standard?


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

Easy answer! 
If all of the people who responded to this post became "show judges" the problem would be taken care of.

It's easier to type on the key board than it is go out there and do it.
Hence the lack of participation.

P.S. There is no horse left to beat. 


Just saying


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Don't say ignorant and rude things and you won't be called ignorant and rude, pretty simple concept.


 So what your saying is that because I expressed a general opinion about show bred labs that has now unknowingly insulted your dog it's OK to attack someone personally? And you’re not playing the show ring protector here? Just thought you would resort to personal insults/attacks, and go onto let everyone know that they should respond to this thread without insults after telling us "field" people we are just jealous? Thanks for the back handed apology that I must have missed also! If you’re too sensitive to take criticism of your show bred dog skip the thread.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

dixidawg said:


> Do they weigh them to see how "approximate" they are to the standard?


NO, there is no weigh in. Personally I would be happy with a scale. I might take my fit lab in more often!


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Height is a DQ but weight is not. A dog can be DQ'd for height but they are not measured when they enter the ring. The judge can call for a dog to be measured as can another competitor. It is rare that handler will call for the wicket on another dog. They would then have everyone calling for their dogs to be measured at every show.


Might not be a DQ, but can it be a factor in the judges opinion?

Seems to me a lot of the criticism could be avoided if they actually enforced the few objective standards that are measurable.

Could a judge ask all entries to step on a scale and go through a wicket before entering the ring?


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)




----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

troy schwab said:


> The standard only specifies height..... the weights are "approximate"....... At least thats how I read them.


You are right. So, if a majority of the dogs in the show are above the weights set forth as approximations, are the majority of the dogs within the standard?

_



Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ 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

Click to expand...

_.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Misty Marsh said:


> So what your saying is that because I expressed a general opinion about show bred labs that has now unknowingly insulted your dog it's OK to attack someone personally? And you’re not playing the show ring protector here? Just thought you would resort to personal insults/attacks, and go onto let everyone know that they should respond to this thread without insults after telling us "field" people we are just jealous? Thanks for the back handed apology that I must have missed also! If you’re too sensitive to take criticism of your show bred dog skip the thread.


How is the "pigador" and carpet and cookie comments considered "general opinions" and shouldn't be considered insults? You don't resort to name calling and then call it "unknowingly insulted". General opinions would be referencing the standard/lack of adherence to the standard or the health concerns, legit debate points. So based on your logic, I expressed a "general opinion" that people who post derogitory comments and resort to name calling are rude and ignorant. And I didn't say the field people were jealous, I just tried to point out that under the circumstances by taking the opportunity to have this conversation under the excuse that Westminster was just on tv could overshadow any legit point made - especially when you throw in the name calling and come off as just sour grapes that so much attention was paid to their sport and not the field sports. There IS a difference between honest criticism with a basis in fact and using insults to criticize. You can say to a show person "hey, your dog doesn't fall under breed standards because he is too heavy" - that's honest criticism based in fact. Throw a "pigador" or the cookies on the carpet comment into that statement and it becomes an insult.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Really, neither more than the other. I have a lab of field and show lines and get tired of logging on and seeing these thread start up and the insults fly, the same ones over and over. I don't show and I only do a little running of local events and HRC stuff - but nowhere near as hardcore as most here. What I posted was meant to be tongue in cheek, that you don't see show people posting here in the same manner as the endless venom that gets spewed in their direction, but I guess I don't know if the show version of RTF exists where they do. I'm all for a little chest beating my sport's better, out of pride or playfulness. Even if there's validity in WHAT you say - the health concerns aspect for instance, there's NO excuse for rudeness and ignorance in regards to HOW you say it. My lab doesn't fit into the standard, but even hovering between 95 - 100 lbs, his weight doesn't come from fat. He has a huge skeletal structure and is very muscular. His hips, elbows, and cardiac tests are all good/normal. He's not going to win a track meet, but hunts alot and has never had any endurance issues. I'm sure there are instances that are the basis for the opinions posted here, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. I disagree with the insults though and apologize for my retaliation in my own previous posts.


Since you missed it, Misty Marsh, I figured I'd repost - wouldn't want it to seem so back handed and have you think I didn't really apologize to those I'd offended by lowering myself to posting insults that I myself object to.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Since you missed it, Misty Marsh, I figured I'd repost - wouldn't want it to seem so back handed and have you think I didn't really apologize to those I'd offended by lowering myself to posting insults that I myself object to.


You were good enough to single me out and call me rude, point out my spelling mistakes etc.. but not actually single out an apology, like I said classy! I NEVER singled out you, or your dog, you placed that on yourself and choose to respond as you have. I did not know your dog was a show bred dog, you choose to take it personally and resort to a indiviual insult, grow some thicker skin. I'm done wasting time!!!! This and british threads, I should know better bye now?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Jeeeeeze- can't you 2 take this slap fest to PM?

Enough already regards

Bubba


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Years ago I thought I had a great looking ,big headed,chocolate lab.A customer of my seafood market told me there was a dog show going on at the Baton Rouge Centroplex,so I loaded up ole T Boy ,cut a piece of yellow rope off an oyster sack for a leash,and showed up at the dog show with my wife beater T shirt,dirty jeans,white shrimper boots .They actually let me in....but in a few minutes, security came and told me to leave because there were complaints about my dog being to close to the show dogs.I was asking around as to how to put him in the show ! Talk about a "seating on a duck" scenario !


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Misty Marsh said:


> You were good enough to single me out and call me rude, point out my spelling mistakes etc.. but not actually single out an apology, like I said classy! I NEVER singled out you, or your dog, you placed that on yourself and choose to respond as you have. I did not know your dog was a show bred dog, you choose to take it personally and resort to a indiviual insult, grow some thicker skin. I'm done wasting time!!!! This and british threads, I should know better bye now?


You're right, I didn't single you out for an apology. I shouldn't have made my point the way I did. And you're not the first to make those comments that I object to, and I took it out on you like you were. For all that, I AM sorry. I shouldn't have used your lack of proper spelling to make the point that insults have no place in the debates that take place here. I should not have called you ignorant. But I don't aplogize for pointing out the rudeness of making statements such as the ones you made. It has nothing to do with the thickness of my skin, my dog's breeding, or anything else but the fact that people come here to interact with dog people and when you post you don't know who's going to read it. Throw all the facts into your opinions you can, support them. I can respect that, even if I disagree. BUT you can never justify insults, even the unintentional ones, and anytime you resort to using name calling you run the risk of offending someone. I offended you by calling you ignorant to describe your spelling, when that in itself doesn't make you that as all people who can't spell are necessarily ignorant. No more than you can be sure that those dogs at Westminster are cookie munching pigs. Would you post a reply to a picture of a heavy person as saying they were fat or a pig looking for their next cookie? I know that's a stretch, but throwing out general opinions in public forums isn't always wise.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

WALDMAN79, I've been to a fair number of dog shows and a fair number of field trials and hunt tests. If you watch the WKC clips of the labs, how many handlers have/use food? Most of them are baiting and feeding in the ring. It is habit I have NEVER seen at a field trial or hunt test. Gee, I don't know where the idea of cookies on the carpet could have come from.

Just sayin'


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

gsc said:


> WALDMAN79, I've been to a fair number of dog shows and a fair number of field trials and hunt tests. If you watch the WKC clips of the labs, how many handlers have/use food? Most of them are baiting and feeding in the ring. It is habit I have NEVER seen at a field trial or hunt test. Gee, I don't know where the idea of cookies on the carpet could have come from.
> 
> Just sayin'


So back to my question - can the show handlers teach their dogs to stack, etc without all the extra goodies?

We can teach these dogs amazing things without treats....what percent of show handlers bait?

FOM


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

gsc said:


> WALDMAN79, I've been to a fair number of dog shows and a fair number of field trials and hunt tests. If you watch the WKC clips of the labs, how many handlers have/use food? Most of them are baiting and feeding in the ring. It is habit I have NEVER seen at a field trial or hunt test. Gee, I don't know where the idea of cookies on the carpet could have come from.
> 
> Just sayin'


Well I bait -- with food -- in the show ring in order to create a desired expression. Just can't seem to figure out why my show dogs aren't fat because of it as you suggest!

See the expression we are looking for? The bait is used to get the dog to focus where we want it to.
In the pic she has the bait next to her nose, this lengthens the dogs neck upward, next she will move the bait to her right hip which will level the dogs head, looking slightly outward to give the judge a nice greeting as he passes by. There is a lot more to the proper use of bait than you would think.









Was that Deerhound fat? They used food to bait with.

Got news for ya, exibitors get their dogs to the desired condition long before they ever set foot in the show ring with a cookie.
Those Labs have excess weight on them only because their owners want it there.
And, if you think your field bred lab can run with that "show" Beagle, bring it on!! because you are in for one hell of a surprise.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

FOM said:


> So back to my question - can the show handlers teach their dogs to stack, etc without all the extra goodies?
> 
> We can teach these dogs amazing things without treats....what percent of show handlers bait?
> 
> FOM


My dogs can stack without food but I do ob with mine. The problem is at a show there are 2 huge distractions. The food is everywhere and we all know our labs love food. The other issue is bitches in heat. I find having food helps for those reasons. Heck our field lab even knows how to play show dog, think he was gonna miss out on treats?


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Tom, I was just addressing the "cookie on the carpet" issue. The individual found the comment insulting. I was just pointing out that to folks who play active games with the dogs, the continuous use of food just seems odd. To the show folks, it has the same effect as field use of the e-collar. It is a quick and effective means to an end.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Excuse me???????



Pete said:


> Lets face it show dogs have a choppy gate at full tilt. Thats what I am talking about. Or they cannot efficiantly move when the pedal goes to the metal. Not that they cant run wide open,,,they just look awkward when they do.
> 
> Relax don't get upset,,its not that big of a deal
> 
> ...


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

<~~~ Is looking for an old pic I have somewhere of that show dog "choppy gait" ROFL


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

gsc said:


> Tom, I was just addressing the "cookie on the carpet" issue. The individual found the comment insulting. I was just pointing out that to folks who play active games with the dogs, the continuous use of food just seems odd. To the show folks, it has the same effect as field use of the e-collar. It is a quick and effective means to an end.


Yeah, but there is no bitches in heat distraction in the field. Try getting the full attention of an intact male while bitches in heat are all around.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

FOM said:


> So back to my question - can the show handlers teach their dogs to stack, etc without all the extra goodies?
> 
> We can teach these dogs amazing things without treats....what percent of show handlers bait?
> 
> FOM


The show ring is boring. Treats are used to keep the dog "up" and happy. I often use small toys as well and do little tosses, have them catch, quick tug, just have fun with the dog. 

You can absolutely teach a dog to stand without treats, but at very best you're going to make them "too serious" about it, which equals little to no expression and no tail....not good in the lab ring. The dog is going to look it's best when it's on it's toes excited or happy about something. 

I don't know any handler that doesn't have a treat or toy or some sort of bait on them. 

Not to be a smart ass, but what do you use to train your dog? You don't use any sort of reward?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Nicole said:


> The show ring is boring. Treats are used to keep the dog "up" and happy. I often use small toys as well and do little tosses, have them catch, quick tug, just have fun with the dog.
> 
> You can absolutely teach a dog to stand without treats, but at very best you're going to make them "too serious" about it, which equals little to no expression and no tail....not good in the lab ring. The dog is going to look it's best when it's on it's toes excited or happy about something.
> 
> ...


The traditional reward for field dogs is the retrieve. It is such a part of their breeding that they live or die for the retrieve. It is what allows the dogs with a lot of drive to withstand some of the heavy pressure we put on them in training, they know if they put up with the pressure and respond accordingly, they will get to retrieve a bird.

That said a lot of us use treats when training small puppies early basics.

John


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

Thanks, John. I should have specified training something other than field work. I absolutely agree that the retrieve is the true reward for these guys...even for the show dogs here! When teaching free baiting with puppies, I will "mark" the their proper position (with a "yes") and then throw something for them. Their desire for me to throw the dang toy, gets them to learn the whole stand pretty thing very quickly. Unfortunately, you cant throw things around in the ring, so the reward has to change a bit as you progress.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> That said a lot of us use treats when training small puppies early basics.


Not just puppies John.

I share the house with a couple of middle aged black bitches that think training for treats is dang good.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Howard N said:


> Not just puppies John.
> 
> I share the house with a couple of middle aged black bitches that think training for treats is dang good.


Maybe I ought to open my mind a little bit; with the great success you've had, the treats seem to work.

John


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

hahahahaha a little levity is always appreciated 



Pete said:


> [QUOTEExcuse me???????
> 
> ]


There is no excuse for you I'm sorry I always wanted to say that


Pete[/QUOTE]


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Misty Marsh said:


> My guess is many of those pigadors couldn't hunt for much more than a cookie in the next room!!


It was the context of that comment and the cheeseburger comment made earlier by someone else, not that treats are used that ruffled my feathers. I shouldn't care, I know but it's still wrong. 

I hear it at events, til my Duke runs and puts the stereotypical comments to rest by his ability. There's nothing I love more than having those same people come up to me after an event and say that they never thought a dog that big could perform as well as he can. But you can't do that here. And as I said before, I've not done any harecore trialing, these are dog club and charity fund raiser events - I'm just getting into the HRC stuff now. But it's still a nice gesture for someone who's made those kind of comments within earshot of me at an event to at least say "hey, that stuff I said, I was wrong to say that about your dog".

I hate the pig and keg comments, period. There are people I met thru this site and my breeder whose dogs prove these comments to be false. My breeder has had dogs at Westminster, and to her it was a tremendous accomplishment. Even though I have no show aspirations, I see no reason to do anything but respect her achievement. It was just in the Retriever Journal a few issues back that there's a movement where show breeders are doing more trialing to produce more dual champions. Duke's grandfather was a dual champion. Kenny Girot, who I met here has Kerrybrook"s Vince who's very accomplished in the field and ring is related, although somewhat distant, to Duke. When I take offense these comments, it's not just for my dog - it's the others I know too. I concede that I don't have the time or resources to take Duke to that level of competition, but I know they have AND it still pisses ME off.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Jason Glavich;752266 like they have never retrieved anything but a cheeseburger[/QUOTE said:


> That's just silly, I doubt any dog would ACTUALLY retrieve a cheeseburger. If you can get your dog to do that, you've achieved something waaaay beyond force fetching. Sorry, I had to try to see some humor in all of this.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Nicole said:


> The show ring is boring. Treats are used to keep the dog "up" and happy. I often use small toys as well and do little tosses, have them catch, quick tug, just have fun with the dog.
> 
> You can absolutely teach a dog to stand without treats, but at very best you're going to make them "too serious" about it, which equals little to no expression and no tail....not good in the lab ring. The dog is going to look it's best when it's on it's toes excited or happy about something.
> 
> ...


You're right Nicole.. In a big class how long is a dog supposed to stand there and look interested in anything but the rear end of the dog ahead of them in line??? Hmmmm....

Standing waiting to show your dog to the judge is about as exciting as watching paint dry when there are a lot of dogs in your class... But it happens..

Hey,,, how about this? Maybe all of you need to show up to a dog show and see how it's done? It's real easy to bad mouth and throw stones when you don't know what you're talking about... I love how everyone is an "arm chair quarterback" after watching Westminster or Eukanuba.

How about learning something about what your condemning???

There's a thought???

Angie

Ignorance is bliss.....


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Cause I look like hammered $hit in a dress and I'm more than fat enough for the both of us.

Still and all- I'm thinking that my Labrador ought not to look like the fat baskirds that the show folks are telling me are just "Big Boned"

Cartman regards

Bubba


----------



## fishdogs (Sep 14, 2009)

Many UKC judges do not allow bait in the ring. We had a "no bait" judge who shook a tin of mnts to get the dog's expression. it was pretty funny when he dropped it and the mints went all over the ring!

I have a friend who took her moderate hunting lab in the ring, and stuck a duck wing in her armband...don't think the judge even noticed she wasn't using bait...but someone else did, and asked her if the wing was because the dog was on a raw diet!

One major problem with AKC conformation is that the judges are allocated a VERY small amount of time for each dog...I believe it's something like 2 minutes. That includes getting the dogs in the ring, sending them around once, then going over each dog, watching the dogs gait, and then evaluating the group, making an initial cut, and choosing a winner... I love it when a judge pulls two dogs to gait against each other, but realistically, there just isn't enough time.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

tom said:


> We still always end up at the same place; you either breed for both, and train for both, or there is no way that you will get both!


Hear hear! 



> That's just silly, I doubt any dog would ACTUALLY retrieve a cheeseburger. If you can get your dog to do that, you've achieved something waaaay beyond force fetching. Sorry, I had to try to see some humor in all of this.


I've seen several dogs retrieve a hot dog. Can dig up videos if you like.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

I did it-jumped in the Foo Foo ring. I said it before: foo foo people as a whole are mean and unhappy. Maybe its all the standing around chewing on liver. BUT I think its those hideous shoes. Obviously they don't fit right and their feet must hurt, so that's why they look like they are constipated. And the labs I took pictures of were not big boned, they were freakin fat. I know fat when I see it. Heck they were so fat they were lumpy. I could have hidden Weezie in some of those fat folds. I didn't bring any treats in the ring with me, I brought a bumper. If we had a huge class I was planning on going with the duck wing taped to my leg. When she gets bored I just flash some ankle and do a jig. Course this would have been so much better in the ho outfit. <sigh>

See my sig line? I think Angie may be on to something. Perhaps we should bombard the show ring with our field type dogs and let the chips fall where they may.........


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> If we had a huge class I was planning on going with the duck wing taped to my leg


Think you would have had an ankle biter then?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

yep! I had a plan Howard, I was going to pad my leg with diapers and tape the duck to the outside. That way when she got hold of it and did the terrier kill I would be safe. 

never a dull moment.....


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Bradley is currently using his leftovers/drops to train the dogs to stand near his high chair.

Does that count as training with treats/baiting? they give him the same look while waiting for a slobbered up Goldfish to fall from his tray that they give me when theyare waiting for me to throw a bumper or give cast........


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Yeah, but there is no bitches in heat distraction in the field. Try getting the full attention of an intact male while bitches in heat are all around.


I consider that a training issue. If you don't train your boys around girls in heat, yes they might act like dorks! But they certainly can learn to work in the presence of hormonal distraction. I always encourage the presence of bitches in heat when I train my boys! Thankfully the flyball, agility & competition obedience classes I use here will all allow bitches in season, and I take full advantage of that!

One of my best proofing exercises ever with one of my Toller studs, was sending him across the training building to retrieve his dumbell, which was a foot away from a Toller bitch (that Tango already knew and "loved") who was in full standing heat. Tango made the right choice, he grabbed the dumbell and brought it straight back to me with hardly a glance at the girl sitting there. As a reward, he got to breed her after the class LOL (BTW, this boy was not force fetched, he was totally clicker trained for his retrieve)


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> The dogs of my childhood were Whygin and Shamrock Acres.


Gosh how cool. Is Sharmock Acres around nowadays? McGuffy from them, rings a bell??. Sandylands Tan???


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

WALDMAN79 said:


> That's just silly, I doubt any dog would ACTUALLY retrieve a cheeseburger. If you can get your dog to do that, you've achieved something waaaay beyond force fetching. Sorry, I had to try to see some humor in all of this.


One of my buyers taught her Toller to retrieve a wiener - it took one training session of just a few minutes long. She has a video on facebook, but you have to be on her friends list to see it, otherwise I'd post it here. The dog is not force fetched, and the owner is primarily "just a pet owner", they have done some rally but retrieving is just for fun.

I think the hardest part of fetching a hamburger would be getting to burger to not fall apart when the dog went to pick it up. Can we zip tie the burger shut? ;-)


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Aussie said:


> Gosh how cool. Is Sharmock Acres around nowadays? McGuffy from them, rings a bell??. Sandylands Tan???


She was co-owner of "Super Tanker" along with Mary Howley (hard to believe that was 20 years ago tho)


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Tollwest said:


> One of my buyers taught her Toller to retrieve a wiener - it took one training session of just a few minutes long. She has a video on facebook, but you have to be on her friends list to see it, otherwise I'd post it here. The dog is not force fetched, and the owner is primarily "just a pet owner", they have done some rally but retrieving is just for fun.
> 
> I think the hardest part of fetching a hamburger would be getting to burger to not fall apart when the dog went to pick it up. Can we zip tie the burger shut? ;-)


Don't know about a cheeseburger, but my Lab retrieved an Arbys last night (just didn't deliver it fit for the table) ;-)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

tom said:


> She was co-owner of "Super Tanker" along with Mary Howley (hard to believe that was 20 years ago tho)


Totally wrong. Joyce Williams was the owner of Tank. Sally is very much around and breeding. Her daughter does the showing.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Totally wrong. Joyce Williams was the owner of Tank. Sally is very much around and breeding. Her daughter does the showing.


You are right, my bad.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

wouldn't you like to throw a dead duck out in the middle of the ring to see what happens?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Here's my theoretical plan for showing goldens in AKC (would apply to labs for the most part, too).
1. Release a small group of them to mingle in the ring. Any dog who gets snarky with another dog is DQ'd.
2. Have them trot around the ring at a brisk pace for 15 minutes. Any dog showing excess fatigue is DQ'd.
3. Have them jump into a pool conveniently set up ringside. Any dog that hesitates or refuses is DQ'd.
4. While they are still wet, judge their structures and coats.
5. Release a live shackled duck across the ring and send each dog to get it. Any dog that doesn't retrieve the bird is DQ'd.
6. Release a small shackled/dizzied pigeon or dove across the ring and send each dog to get it. Any dog that harms the bird in any way is DQ'd.
7. Fire a gun from across the ring. Any dog that shies is DQ'd.

May the best dog win!




pat addis said:


> wouldn't you like to throw a dead duck out in the middle of the ring to see what happens?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

My dog will retrieve a hot dog in a bun without munching it. I've had him carry my hotdog around dog shows when my hands are full, and he knows he'd best not put a tooth mark on it. (Yes I eat it after he carries it, I know, ewwww. He does get to share it when we get back to my chair.) 



tom said:


> Don't know about a cheeseburger, but my Lab retrieved an Arbys last night (just didn't deliver it fit for the table) ;-)


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's my theoretical plan for showing goldens in AKC (would apply to labs for the most part, too).
> 1. Release a small group of them to mingle in the ring. Any dog who gets snarky with another dog is DQ'd.
> 
> Whew!!!! You had me scared. Then I noticed that you did not include the chessies in that group;-)
> ...


! Thanks for posting that, what fun to imagine!


----------



## fishdogs (Sep 14, 2009)

This is not a reply to anyone's previous post but an observation that I have made with many people. 

I hear a lot of owners with dogs I consider to be overweight, brag about how "solid" their dogs are. I'd like to point out that fat on a dog doesn't feel "soft" like fat on a person. If you firmly stroke the side of a dog that is 10-20Lbs overweight, it may indeed feel "solid" but if you put your fingers into them and can't feel the ribcage they are JUST FAT!

If you think of a dog that "should" weigh 80Lbs but it actually weighs 100Lbs, the dog is 25% overweight.

If you do the same thing in a person, someone who "should" be 150Lbs, but is actually 200Lbs, is also 50 LBS (25%) overweight. But picture the two in your mind. Would you say the 200LB person is "solid"?

And if you could "lay your hands on the 200 pounder (without getting punched) would they feel solid?

I'm only 15% overweight (yes, I know this is unhealthy), and believe me, I don't feel "solid" even when I did have good muscle tone. (I can probe with my fingers and still find my ribs, so I guess I'm not fat, right?). Tuna is actually 6 Lbs heavier (or 11%) than her best looking weight (58Lbs), and believe me she feels pretty darn solid, and she has a lot of muscle. But she is too fat, and needs to lose those 6 pounds.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I didn't include Chessies because I'm not very familiar with their standard (sorry). The golden standard specifically calls for them to be social with humans AND other dogs, I don't think that's part of the Chessie standard  . I listed it first because it's really a pet peeve of mine to see dog aggressive goldens. That's so incorrect in the breed.
"....Temperament
Friendly, reliable, and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility towards other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character...."


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's my theoretical plan for showing goldens in AKC (would apply to labs for the most part, too).
> 1. Release a small group of them to mingle in the ring. Any dog who gets snarky with another dog is DQ'd.
> 2. Have them trot around the ring at a brisk pace for 15 minutes. Any dog showing excess fatigue is DQ'd.
> 3. Have them jump into a pool conveniently set up ringside. Any dog that hesitates or refuses is DQ'd.
> ...


I know you're joking, but I've often thought about how fun doing something like this for a "non-regular" class at specialty would be.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I'd like to add to this that dogs typically don't gain weight over the rib "slabs" unless they are very obese. It's a common misconception that you can run your hands over the dog's sides and tell if he's overweight. The proper place to feel for the ribs is about 1 to 1-1/2 inches off the spine bone, which is where dogs gain weight long before they gain it on their ribs.



fishdogs said:


> I hear a lot of owners with dogs I consider to be overweight, brag about how "solid" their dogs are. I'd like to point out that fat on a dog doesn't feel "soft" like fat on a person. If you firmly stroke the side of a dog that is 10-20Lbs overweight, it may indeed feel "solid" but if you put your fingers into them and can't feel the ribcage they are JUST FAT!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

it really would be, wouldn't it?




Nicole said:


> I know you're joking, but I've often thought about how fun doing something like this for a "non-regular" class at specialty would be.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Got me laughing!
Just couldn't help but wonder what would happen if you turned a rabbit loose in the Hound group ring.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

RaeganW said:


> Hear hear!
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen several dogs retrieve a hot dog. Can dig up videos if you like.


BUt are they labs?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Tollwest said:


> I consider that a training issue. If you don't train your boys around girls in heat, yes they might act like dorks! But they certainly can learn to work in the presence of hormonal distraction. I always encourage the presence of bitches in heat when I train my boys! Thankfully the flyball, agility & competition obedience classes I use here will all allow bitches in season, and I take full advantage of that!
> 
> One of my best proofing exercises ever with one of my Toller studs, was sending him across the training building to retrieve his dumbell, which was a foot away from a Toller bitch (that Tango already knew and "loved") who was in full standing heat. Tango made the right choice, he grabbed the dumbell and brought it straight back to me with hardly a glance at the girl sitting there. As a reward, he got to breed her after the class LOL (BTW, this boy was not force fetched, he was totally clicker trained for his retrieve)


No bitches in heat are allowed in the building of the ob club I am a member of. They are also not allowed in any class outside the building such as tracking. That being said Magic q'd for his RA title in 2nd place with bitches in heat showing in the next ring and walking by the side of the ring. But his head was turned toward the bitches and his nose was going the whole time. He q'd because of his ob training but a dog straining his head for a wiff is not paying attention and looking his best.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> BUt are they labs?


Just had my specialty winning CH JH bitch retrieve a hot dog. She thought I was nuts, but did it...let me know if you want to see the video, lol It's a slow morning around here


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Aussie said:


> Gosh how cool. Is Sharmock Acres around nowadays? McGuffy from them, rings a bell??. Sandylands Tan???


Shamrock Acres is still around. Funny story from my childhood. The first american lab in my life was a Whygin bitch. She was bought as the family dog but my parents entered her in what they thought was just our local dog show.
Mom had her in conformation and Dad had her in Novice ob. Well the search back then for a nice yellow bitch had resulted in a Whygin girl. So there we are doing what was kinda the norm for a scottish show that was the world that my mom had grown up with. Family outing day, bring your blanket and picnic lunch. Meanwhile pro handlers are walking around (outdoor show early 70's) in mad search for the Whygin dog. Who knows how many times they walked past the family with their pet dog commenting among each other that they were in search of the dog they were walking past!
You should have seen the look on their faces when she eventually went in the ring. Winners bitch and first leg of her CD that day.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

3. Have them jump into a pool conveniently set up ringside. Any dog that hesitates or refuses is DQ'd.
4. While they are still wet, judge their structures and coats.

From the pictures I have seen of shows, I don't think the judges in their tuxes or cocktail dresses are going to appreciate this much.


Way back in the day at summer outdoor shows they used to have kiddie wading pools set up for the retrievers keep cool while waiting to show.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

<~~ Remembes an outdoor show in a snow storm all too well. The city wasn't all that happy about the dammage done by the cars parked (stuck) on the grass either.

Shown a lot of wet dogs in the past regards Tom


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> That's just silly, I doubt any dog would ACTUALLY retrieve a cheeseburger. If you can get your dog to do that, you've achieved something waaaay beyond force fetching. Sorry, I had to try to see some humor in all of this.


Just cause I think we all need to lighten up and take a deep breath...here is the one and only Flash of Mischief with a hamburger - he is an awesome hunting dog who is now retired, he is not over weight, but he sure loves his McDonalds double cheese burgers, hold the pickles (and yes if you ordered them with pickles he would eat around them).

And he wants everyone to know he loves the idea of retrieving cheeseburgers....he knows darn well I don't want it back for too long....he thinks it's a yummy trick to know!


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> My dog will retrieve a hot dog in a bun without munching it. I've had him carry my hotdog around dog shows when my hands are full, and he knows he'd best not put a tooth mark on it. (Yes I eat it after he carries it, I know, ewwww. He does get to share it when we get back to my chair.)


That has YouTube written all over it!!!


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> 3. Have them jump into a pool conveniently set up ringside. Any dog that hesitates or refuses is DQ'd.
> 4. While they are still wet, judge their structures and coats.
> 
> From the pictures I have seen of shows, I don't think the judges in their tuxes or cocktail dresses are going to appreciate this much.
> ...


The shows on tv are big deals and they dress accordingly, the huge majority of handlers you see on tv are professional handlers. The attire at specialties is quite casual...thank god! There are always kiddie pools and/or hoses around and dogs are often shown wet, either from that or rain which also doesn't stop the lab ring


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

when we showed outdoors and it was threatening to rain, or raining, my handler always told me "bring it on!". The boy shows great soaking wet. You can tell a golden's true structure when the poofy products are washed out of their coats. 
At a UKC show I showed him immediately after dock diving. I was as wet as he was. (he won, btw).




tom said:


> <~~ Remembes an outdoor show in a snow storm all too well. The city wasn't all that happy about the dammage done by the cars parked (stuck) on the grass either.
> 
> Shown a lot of wet dogs in the past regards Tom


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

FOM said:


> Just cause I think we all need to lighten up and take a deep breath...here is the one and only Flash of Mischief with a hamburger - he is an awesome hunting dog who is now retired, he is not over weight, but he sure loves his McDonalds double cheese burgers, hold the pickles (and yes if you ordered them with pickles he would eat around them).
> 
> And he wants everyone to know he loves the idea of retrieving cheeseburgers....he knows darn well I don't want it back for too long....he thinks it's a yummy trick to know!


That is just amazing! How many cheeseburgers did it take to train for that?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

especially since he's full AKC breed ring groomed when he does it, and we all know what people think of *show goldens* 

".....That has YouTube written all over it!!!


Originally Posted by hotel4dogs 
My dog will retrieve a hot dog in a bun without munching it. I've had him carry my hotdog around dog shows when my hands are full, and he knows he'd best not put a tooth mark on it. (Yes I eat it after he carries it, I know, ewwww. He does get to share it when we get back to my chair.) ...."


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

great photo! 



FOM said:


> Just cause I think we all need to lighten up and take a deep breath...here is the one and only Flash of Mischief with a hamburger - he is an awesome hunting dog who is now retired, he is not over weight, but he sure loves his McDonalds double cheese burgers, hold the pickles (and yes if you ordered them with pickles he would eat around them).
> 
> And he wants everyone to know he loves the idea of retrieving cheeseburgers....he knows darn well I don't want it back for too long....he thinks it's a yummy trick to know!


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> That is just amazing! How many cheeseburgers did it take to train for that?


None....he's a natural! And I tease him plenty with regular milk bones that transitioning him to a burger was easy....btw he held it for two minutes before I let him have it. I was seeing if I could make his drool reach the ground - mistake! When I took the burger from him he shook his head! I was able to slow his head shake down so he didn't fling the drool all over the hotel room, but I paid the price! God I love that dog!


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

FOM said:


> None....he's a natural! And I tease him plenty with regular milk bones that transitioning him to a burger was easy....btw he held it for two minutes before I let him have it. I was seeing if I could make his drool reach the ground - mistake! When I took the burger from him he shook his head! I was able to slow his head shake down so he didn't fling the drool all over the hotel room, but I paid the price! God I love that dog!


He will deliver a string cheese stick from one person to another on command. He can also sit with a treat on his nose, until released, at which time he tosses it in the air and catches it. He once sat that way for 10 minutes waiting for a friend to sink a ball in pool.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Lainee, if you can show me how to teach that to Indy I will personally nominate you for the GDGHOF!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

FOM said:


> None....he's a natural! And I tease him plenty with regular milk bones that transitioning him to a burger was easy....btw he held it for two minutes before I let him have it. I was seeing if I could make his drool reach the ground - mistake! When I took the burger from him he shook his head! I was able to slow his head shake down so he didn't fling the drool all over the hotel room, but I paid the price! God I love that dog!


So how fast did it go down when you finally "gave" it to him for real? I do the same thing with my old guy except I put treats on the table and move them toward him taunting him. He eventually looks away because he can't stand the tension but moves his eyes to make sure someone else gets it until I say "OK". I think they love the game. He loved poison birds too in training because he knew he would get the bird if he was good.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Erin,

When he delivered it to me, I broke it up in pieces for him, otherwise he would attempt to swallow it whole! All I know is I made sure my fingers were out of the way. 

One way I teach my dogs "easy" is by harassing them when I give them treats. I hold a treat out and when they go to take it from me I will turn my hand so they grab at my fingers/knuckles (A "mean" trick I learned from my Dad which he did to us as kids) and scream "Ouch!" and then calmly say "easy" - I start this as puppies with them and they learn to pay attention when they take something from a human - whether my young nieces or grandma. Now I harass Flash this way relentlessly  he will eventaully not look at me, but do the eye thing like you described! hehehehe I love picking on my poor boy, he is such a good sport...

FOM


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Shamrock Acres is still around. Funny story from my childhood. The first american lab in my life was a Whygin bitch. She was bought as the family dog but my parents entered her in what they thought was just our local dog show.
> Mom had her in conformation and Dad had her in Novice ob. Well the search back then for a nice yellow bitch had resulted in a Whygin girl. So there we are doing what was kinda the norm for a scottish show that was the world that my mom had grown up with. Family outing day, bring your blanket and picnic lunch. Meanwhile pro handlers are walking around (outdoor show early 70's) in mad search for the Whygin dog. Who knows how many times they walked past the family with their pet dog commenting among each other that they were in search of the dog they were walking past!
> You should have seen the look on their faces when she eventually went in the ring. Winners bitch and first leg of her CD that day.


Thankyou all. I found their web site. Great history page also. Link to page two. 

http://www.shamrockacreskennels.com/history02.html


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

Cool photo! 
Martha


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

I think Flash and his cheeseburger should have their own thread and not be buried in the show field debate.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> I think Flash and his cheeseburger should have their own thread and not be buried in the show field debate.


That's okay...I posted it cause this thread needed it's jets cooled.

A universal truth, you can insult the person, but not their dog 

Show vs. Field dogs will rage until the end of time, we are all too passionate at times and it color blinds us to our dog (breed) and what we perceive as the ideal dog. Until we can meet in the middle with level heads and checked emotions I think we will all have to agree to disagree.

FOM


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

We all fatter on TV and in photos. 

I live in a country where there is a huge percentage of bench line looking labradors, compared to UK and US working. 

Nearly ready to drop another 30 thousand or so, to import...this time semen. All for the sport models!!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

FOM said:


> That's okay...I posted it cause this thread needed it's jets cooled.
> 
> A universal truth, you can insult the person, but not their dog
> 
> ...


 OK then instead, take away those nasty green eyes on Flash and put him up with his cheeseburger! Much nicer pic of a senior! I just think it is a great pic that those who don't read these threads should see.:razz:


----------

