# labrador results wetminster



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Congrats to all the winners

BOB- 42 Ch Salty Dog Of Tampa Bay
Breed: Retriever (Labrador)
Sex: Dog
AKC: SR 26025803
Date of Birth: March 15, 2005
Breeder: Linda H Hess
Sire: Ch Aquarius Centercourt Delight
Dam: Belquest Splash Of Covergirl
Owner: Linda Hess

BOS-18 Ch Lobuffs Puffin At Hollyridge
Breed: Retriever (Labrador)
Sex: Bitch
AKC: SN 91419808
Date of Birth: March 17, 2002
Breeder: Lisa Weiss & Julie Quigley
Sire: Ch Boradors By George
Dam: Ch Lobuff's Turtle Dove
Owner: Julie Quigley Smith & Lisa Weiss & S Rekow


Jams-
9 Ch Aquarius Centercourt Delight
Breed: Retriever (Labrador)
Sex: Dog
AKC: SN 57912301
Date of Birth: September 24, 1998
Breeder: Kathryn Sneider VMD & Sharon Parr
Sire: Ch Lobuff's Bare Necessities
Dam: Delight Aquarius Courtside
Owner: Kathryn Sneider VMD & Julie MacKinnon

32 Ch Ol Bailey It's Greek To Me
Breed: Retriever (Labrador)
Sex: Dog
AKC: SR 04003505
Date of Birth: July 30, 2002
Breeder: Lisa E Weiss-Nolechek & Ann McCall & Randy McCall
Sire: Ch Dickendall Davaron Gable
Dam: Woodloch's A'Lil Bit Country
Owner: Eileen Kelly


41 Ch Simerdown's Dr Pepper
Breed: Retriever (Labrador)
Sex: Dog
AKC: SN 86773701
Date of Birth: August 03, 2001
Breeder: Jim Ball
Sire: Ch Naiken Indian Temple MH
Dam: Jenivelles Princess Tyonek
Owner: Linda Vaughn


I hope my source got everything right


----------



## Margo Ellis (Jan 19, 2003)

Looks like Lisa Weis cleaned up with her Lobuff breedings.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Any pictures available of just how ugly those dogs may be


Mark


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Probably not yet, but Anna Nicole autopsy or pre-TrimSpa shots will suffice till they are.

MG


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Here's one of them from last year. Ch Lobuffs Puffin At Hollyridge









I don't really see the "more moderate" that we keep hearing about.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

CH. Simerdown's Dr Pepper


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

http://www.aquariuslabradors.com/buzz.htm


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

One more JAM

Ch Tabatha's Festive
Breed: Retriever (Labrador)
Sex: Bitch
AKC: SN 91096601
Date of Birth: March 12, 2002
Breeder: Carol Heidl
Sire: Ch Dickendall Davaron Gable
Dam: Ch Tabatha's Giggle
Owner: Noel Nivera


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

achiro said:


> Here's one of them from last year. Ch Lobuffs Puffin At Hollyridge
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Poor thing looks as if its panting from the run up and back on the carpet. :roll:


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Guys were arrested for as much.









Sorry, couldn't resist! :twisted:


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

achiro said:


> CH. Simerdown's Dr Pepper


Hey Russ this dog is kind of cute. What breed is it ?


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

achiro said:


> Guys were arrested for as much.


What? Did Rusty the 11-stone Lab get his green card to compete at Westminster as a tuneup for Crufts?

Or did the Labs have an eating contest at the Gah'den before conformation with ol' Russ as canine celebrity judge and you know..."roll" model?

MG


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

The video is up now.


http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/videos/largeplayer07.html?xml=wkc2007.xml&video=sport|labdoret


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

What about this pup, just turned 5 months and is 50 lbs.,any bench potential? Not the best of photos, just the only standing profile that I have of him and taken 15 minutes ago.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2007)

Here is a photo of the BOB Lab:










He really is a very moderate dog (I've been to several all-breed and specialty shows, so I've seen very very type-y Labs). He has a nice length of leg, no overdone angles front or rear; nice reach of the neck; nice level topline; beautiful head. I think he looks more like the Labs of the past than many Labs do now on both sides of the show/field divide. Whether he can get a MH or not (not even thinking about field trials), I don't know... that is the unfortunate thing.


----------



## lennie (Jan 15, 2003)

I just don't get it, if any of those dogs are 80lbs or UNDER, I'll eat a bowl of pedigree myself for supper!

They are just too fat! :shock: I don't care if they are short!


Short and fat regards, :wink: 

Earlene


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Yes, he is nice looking, but he isn't quite 2 years old. I am glad the judges chose a more moderate dog, but is he more moderate because he is so young???
Heading in the right direction regards,
sherri


----------



## goldust (May 12, 2005)

Mark said:


> Any pictures available of just how ugly those dogs may be
> 
> 
> Mark


 Now, Now, be nice. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Juris said:


> Here is a photo of the BOB Lab:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suspect he is moderate because of his age. Witness, his bone is too fine relative to his body. Age (and perhaps exercise) will likely correct that, then he won't be so "moderate."

I also dislike his head, although it is the type that wins in conformation today. His stop is too pronounced, and the planes are not parallel, and overall the lines are just too square. At least his ears are correctly sized, or he could be possibly confused with a Rottie.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2007)

> Yes, he is nice looking, but he isn't quite 2 years old. I am glad the judges chose a more moderate dog, but is he more moderate because he is so young???


That is a great point. There is a male Lab that I absolutely loved from seeing his photos of when he was around 2 years old. I saw him at a specialty when he was 4 years old and could not believe my eyes that it was the same dog. He was so overdone; and he is used as a stud by so many. Makes me wonder what his get will look like as they age and the influence on the breed.

So sad. All these threads make me sad. So many people from each side trashing the other side. And I'm sad because I'll be looking for a puppy soon, and I really don't know what to do. I don't want a Lab that is either looking like a walrus or a greyhound; I don't want a Lab that cannot make it passed JH or a Lab that is so hot that I cannot manage him because of my inexperience. If only I could go back in time and get me one of the dual champion offsping... Sorry, just feeling blue, I guess.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

achiro said:


> Now that is a CH champion if I ever saw one! Evan Graham refers to them as "Pigadors". heh, heh.


----------



## [email protected]@##? (Jan 19, 2005)

At least the Chessie that took BOB looks like he has a fighting chance to pick up a chicken someday. I think they call that a tuck up  :shock: . He is a young dog also (+/- 2 1/2). Here is his pic from the Specialty. If only a Chessie had a chance in the sporting group :evil: :twisted: 


http://amchessieclub.org/specialties/Show06Ohio/Photo_BOB/BOB_8in.jpg

http://amchessieclub.org/specialties/Show06Ohio/Photo_BOB/BOB_sit_7in.jpg


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

I had a Simmerdown (see JAM results) dog 15 years ago when we lived in Vail- a little before the looks started getting as extreme as they are today - he was nice dog, beautiful looks and coat, great family dog, but was a reluctant hunter...he'd cross country ski , hike or mountain bike for hours and he still looked 'thick' - he was 85 pounds, couldn't lean him out any further no matter what...ended up having pretty bad arthritis as he aged...


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

Mr. Booty wrote:


> What about this pup, just turned 5 months and is 50 lbs.,any bench potential?


Sorry Booty, probably not….that pup reminds me a lot of mine (see avatar). I was told he was to “leggy” and lean to be of any contention in the ring. He weighs 101# at last vet visit and those bench dogs they are showing look like they would out weigh him.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Golddust has some pretty nice conformation type labs...they are not extreme and they do have some go in the field. Recently, one of her bitches became a SH and is now getting ready to work on MH. 

What I object most to is the need to add 10-20 pounds on a dog to be successful in a sporting group class. Most of the dogs are already quite stocky without the additional weight. Unfortunately, added weight does not promote a healthy dog...


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

The Flat-Coat will probably be one of the only dogs in the sporting ring tonight with an honest to God field title behind his name (the other two are agility titles)...

Ch Quillquest Etched In Stone JH OA AXJ

Go Get Em' Cutter!


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> I suspect he is moderate because of his age. Witness, his bone is too fine relative to his body. Age (and perhaps exercise) will likely correct that, then he won't be so "moderate."


I agree. I like him at 23 months, but I am not so sure I'm going to like him at 48-months. You have to remember, an apple doesn't fall too far from the tree and his sire, Buzz, is not what I would call a moderate dog.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

As a side question, does anyone have any good articles, information, pictures concerning conformation? I mean leg lengths, angles, proportions, etc. etc. I know enough to be able to look at some of those show dogs and think it's not right and not healthy, but not enough to have a truly discerning eye. Any help would be appreciated. 

Thanks!
Kourtney


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

RemsBPJasper said:


> As a side question, does anyone have any good articles, information, pictures concerning conformation? I mean leg lengths, angles, proportions, etc. etc. I know enough to be able to look at some of those show dogs and think it's not right and not healthy, but not enough to have a truly discerning eye. Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!
> Kourtney



The Labrador Retriever Club has put together an illustrated version of the Labrador retriever standard. Very nicely done and information on how to order is available on their website.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> The video is up now.
> 
> 
> http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/videos/largeplayer07.html?xml=wkc2007.xml&video=sport|labdoret


Holy crap some of those dogs look way over weight!

FOM


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Donna Kerr said:


> Sorry Booty, probably not….that pup reminds me a lot of mine (see avatar). I was told he was to “leggy” and lean to be of any contention in the ring.


IMHO your dog is better looking than the dog that won BoB. Your dog is what Labs looked like up until the '60s when show people broke away with their own type.

I have said this a hundred times, and I feel I must say it again --

Show judges are now allowed to use wickets in the Lab ring to measure height and DQ dogs that are over.... 

*The cure to the size of show Labradors is as easy as allowing judges to use weight scales in the show ring and DQ dogs that are over! *

....but you and I both know the show people would never allow it. :evil:


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2007)

> As a side question, does anyone have any good articles, information, pictures concerning conformation? I mean leg lengths, angles, proportions, etc. etc. I know enough to be able to look at some of those show dogs and think it's not right and not healthy, but not enough to have a truly discerning eye. Any help would be appreciated.


I like "The Dog in Action" and "K-9 Structure & Terminology." These books don't address any breed specifically, but have great information on conformation in general. Conformation is much more than which dog wins in the conformation ring. I love the above books because they tell how form and function relate to each other.

I would recommend Mary Roslin-Williams' books ("Advanced Labrador Retriever Breeding" and "Reaching for the Stars") as more Labrador-specific. Both books are still great to anyone interested in dogs in general. MRW also has some great rules of thumb for conformation which I love. For example, the Labrador tail should be of enough length that when a dog curles down, the tail covers and keeps the nose warm.

You might also look into some horse conformation books. Many many dog conformation terms came from the horse world. Also, most conformation principles that apply to a horse would apply to a dog.

For pictures, you can go to different kennel websites and can find pictures there. The dogs that have CH titles would be the examples of what wins in the conformation ring. Remember that no dog is perfect and you can find fault with any dog. Also, the pictures are not always accurate representations of dogs, so keep that in mind.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Juris said:


> Here is a photo of the BOB Lab:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Past as in when? :shock: and can you provide us with some pics of CH dogs in the "past" that look like that?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Here is the Top Producer in History until his son took the honors...Shamrock Acres Light Brigade

What does he look like...wish bench dogs looked like him. I would be looking for a nice Conformation dog for field work!!!

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


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2007)

> Past as in when? Shocked and can you provide us with some pics of CH dogs in the "past" that look like that?


Dual Champion Banchory Bolo:









AFC Can CH Shed of Arden:









FC Decoy of Arden (she would most likely be called fat by today's field people):


----------



## Susan Young (Apr 13, 2004)

As far as dogs in the sporting ring with working titles, of the ten Tollers entered at Westminster today, four have JH after their names, two of them with additional agility or obedience titles. Two others entries, including the Best of Breed winner, have earned WC's. Maverick, the Best of Breed dog has earned WCs and CDs in both the US and Canada, and has one leg towards his AKC CDX, all earned before he was 14 months old. 

While these may only be entry level field titles, I'm still pleased to see that 60% of my breed's entry have earned letters after their names by retrieving ducks.

Congratulations to Maverick's owners and breeders, and to his "northern connection" who trained and handled him to his performance titles.

Susan


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Before this gets too far gone, I just think its fun to see how this board just goes in circles. Many of us that have been around a while just don't get involved a whole lot any more in the fray. BTW, Shayne was a lot more fun before his business prevented him from offending people. :twisted: 

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=390&postdays=0&postorder=asc&

I wish the pics were still there. I think amiable had a series of pics that compared the Ch of the past to the new Ch dogs, then showed some current field bred dogs. Seeing the results are really amazing. Juris, you mentioned something about field dogs looking like greyhounds, I disagree. There may be some that fit that description but my experience is that most field dogs have some "width" to them. Anyway, the pics you posted look more like field bred dogs to me.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Juris, you are being selective with your pictures. I have the LRC performance books that go back to 1931, and there are better pictures of the dogs in their prime and at working weight, than what you are presenting.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2007)

> uris, you are being selective with your pictures. I have the LRC performance books that go back to 1931, and there are better pictures of the dogs in their prime and at working weight, than what you are presenting.


I'm at work and can only show what I can find online. I also don't have books like you do.


----------



## Cleo Watson (Jun 28, 2006)

Get out your calculator and figure up just how many years it has been since there was an Dual Champion Lab. That's when the show people took over.

I left the ring to others over 20 years ago when a judge asked me if Gator Point's Mr. T, JH, was a working dog. I proudly replied he was and was working on his Senior title. The judge shook his head and said I am going to give him the point (this made 9 points) but he will never be a CH. I asked why and he told me it was because his muscles were too defined and he needed another 10 pounds to be competitive in the majors. I thanked him and said we won't be back. No point in wasting time and effort when my heart was in hunting and so was his.


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Booty, that dog of yours is a shoe-in for BOB. He looks great!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Here you go for pics -- CLICK HERE.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2007)

> Here you go for pics -- CLICK HERE.


Thanks, the photos are great.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

What is so perplexing about the show ring is the fact they are crowning dogs BOB that run so contrary to attributes to do top level field work. WTF. I wouldn't have a problem with it _if_ they put them in the "Used to be a Sporting Breed" category. Give me a dog that is born to run any day. Stand pretty Slugo, stand pretty.


----------



## Chuck N (Mar 21, 2006)

Booty, that is one awesome looking pup!!!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

blabman said:


> Booty, that is one awesome looking pup!!!


Thanks Chuck, he kind of looks like his mamma in the face but, he has those Lean Mac ears even though he doesn't have any Lean Mac in him. :? 

Don't let his size fool ya, he can cover a lot of ground quickly.

Hopefully, this apple doesn't fall too far from the tree! :wink:


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

I don't like the dog that won - and even though the dog that went BOS is a big winner, I think she's overdone. 

If we're going to talk about disqualifying show dogs for being overweight, should we disqualify field dogs who don't have correct coat and otter tails? 

BTW, I DID see a field dog with an honest to God otter tail the other day - the first one I'd ever seen. 

I've got a male now that has 3 started passes with little formal training - I still have hope, though it is fading fast. 

So I got an American Water Spaniel.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Merrymaker said:


> If we're going to talk about disqualifying show dogs for being overweight, should we disqualify field dogs who don't have correct coat and otter tails?
> 
> So I got an American Water Spaniel.


Otter tail, gay tail, incorrect tail...let's just dock them and then there is no problem with a tail issue...


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

I actually had an AA dog who was very tall, built for the field, but had an otter tail. 

I also have trained with Houston and Cropper, both of whom actually looked more like those (gasp) show dogs in regards to their build.

Do't know what my point is, but I just can't watch that dog show any more. . . :lol:


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

How about this guy? (OK, I'm prejudiced...I bred him....and he does have a grandmother who was a CH and MH, but other than that he's all field lines, including Rascal and Candlewood's Cash On The Line) I'm trying to convince his owners to try showing him.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Not enough "bone" - the phrase that is quite popular; too leggy; head not "blocky" enough (or doesn't look enough like a rhottie). And finally, the tail is not enough otter like... :lol:

Oh I forgot, about 15 pounds would make him in show condition...


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Frank, I'm with you, the apple is going to stay in the orchard. I'm sure happy with Bridger, and the weather is finally letting us get back to work. 

I'm sure he's fast; his relatives sure are!

They are particulary nice looking boys, too, aren't they? Seriously, they have nice balance and pretty good angulation. Don't know about T-boy, but Bridger does like those birds!


----------



## Devlin (Jan 19, 2006)

I don't like fat...or stumpy-looking...or chunky...or short-muzzled Labs. Can't help it...personal bias, I guess. The Westminster Labs are not, in my incredibly biased opinion, representative of the breed. Now, my Sadie on the other hand (even when she's wet...maybe even more so when she's wet...and she's wet in 3 of the pix below) is my idea of the right looking Lab!

I might also show a little more bias: a Lab ought to be..._BLACK!!_ :wink: 

I'm not askin' for agreement, I'm just sayin'...


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> What is so perplexing about the show ring is the fact they are crowning dogs BOB that run so contrary to attributes to do top level field work. WTF. I wouldn't have a problem with it _if_ they put them in the "Used to be a Sporting Breed" category.


I have long said the conformation type of Labrador should be moved to the non-Sporting group along with that other useless (most of them) retriever the poodle. 



Merrymaker said:


> If we're going to talk about disqualifying show dogs for being overweight, should we disqualify field dogs who don't have correct coat and otter tails?


That is nonsensical. Field-bred and show-bred Labs should be judged by the same standard according to the venue in which they are competing or being exhibited. My point remains the same, if there is going to be a measured DQ for height, give the judges a measurement for DQ in weight and a scale to measure the dogs by.



> BTW, I DID see a field dog with an honest to God otter tail the other day - the first one I'd ever seen.


EVERY field-bred Labrador I have put my hands on had an "otter-tail." It is _felt_ -- you put your hand on the tail and feel the shape, just like the judges did when I was first active in showing labs in the late '70s. 

What you are talking about is a _visible_ otter-tail. If you look back at the show champions when the Standard was written, none that I have seen had a visible otter-tail like in the show ring today. Yet that is what was called for even back then.

What we are talking abut here is another exaggeration, like most conformation interpretations of the Standard. It is quite simple to understand really. You have beauty versus utility. When you have American beauty pageants, the women have exaggerated features to make them visually more beautiful -- thin, big hair, large breasts, large ratio of waist to hip, long legs. While gorgeous and desirable, this physique is not optimal for work. They would not have survived when we were settling this country. The women who survived had a more utilitarian physique. And if you look back at the pictures that exist of them, you have to admit, they are not very attractive.

Now, I am not advocating that the wiry and hound-like Labs with gay-tails become the standard! I am simply saying that the conformation people need to remember their own Standard --

_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*._

-- I bold those texts not to say they should mean "more" than the rest, but rather they should mean "as much." That is to say, the conformation people have done a good job of keeping the Lab "strongly-built," "medium-sized," and "well-balanced," etc. It is time to also make them "athletic" and built to "hunt for for long hours under difficult conditions."


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Show and Field. Best friends in this house. Oh the show dog weighs 73 lbs while the field lab weighs 78lbs at last check.


----------



## Devlin (Jan 19, 2006)

Devlin said:


> I don't like fat...or stumpy-looking...or chunky...or short-muzzled Labs. Can't help it...personal bias, I guess. The Westminster Labs are not, in my incredibly biased opinion, representative of the breed. Now, my Sadie on the other hand (even when she's wet...maybe even more so when she's wet...and she's wet in 3 of the pix below) is my idea of the right looking Lab!
> 
> I might also show a little more bias: a Lab ought to be...BLACK!! :wink:
> 
> I'm not askin' for agreement, I'm just sayin'...


p.s.: My Sadie weighs in at 68 lbs. "fighting weight" (meaning "hunting weight!").


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Those of you with those gorgeous field labs should definitely show them. It's the only way the judges will see the difference between a "working" lab and a "non-working" lab....
Keep at it....


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Eleanor and Juris, thanks for the information and suggestions. 

Kourtney


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

I'll take my lean-mean-duck-retrieving-machine any day. These things look like ticking time bombs to me.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

LOL! I think they look like my old fat Bullmastiff. We used to call her ChubChub Chewy! She too was a show dog..... Are all show dogs chubby? Or just labs..... :roll:


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

Merrymaker said:


> I don't like the dog that won - and even though the dog that went BOS is a big winner, I think she's overdone.
> 
> *If we're going to talk about disqualifying show dogs for being overweight, should we disqualify field dogs who don't have correct coat and otter tails? * (emphasis added by Bente)
> 
> ...



Dogs in the SHOW ring should be disqualified for being OVERWEIGHT because* they are being judged to the BREED STANDARD *which lists a weight range (MAXIMUM and minimum).

In Hunt Tests they are being judged to a PERFORMANCE STANDARD and, as a rule, they ARE dropped if they fail to meet THAT standard.
In Field Trials their PERFORMANCE is being judged against the other dogs' and the one with the BEST PERFORMANCE (as a rule) wins.

Doesn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH Otter tails or coat (thank God, IMO)!


Long whippy curly tail, lots of up-tuck, retrieving fool regards,

Bente and the dogs (with special regards from the little black dog)


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

> Long whippy curly tail, lots of up-tuck, retrieving fool regards


I've noticed that your dogs have similar attributes as well.

Just trying to help out in the worst way regards

Bubba


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Bente said:


> Doesn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH Otter tails or coat (thank God, IMO)!
> 
> 
> Long whippy curly tail, lots of up-tuck, retrieving fool regards,


That's the big problem, too many retrievers that don't look like retrievers. They may act like ones but they don't represent the breed well. Not that today's bench dogs are doing a better job of it.

Does anyone really think that it isn't important to maintain the intergrity of the breed?

The goal should be not to improve or not to create a seperate breed but, to maintain what so many have come to love and that is the integrity of the Labrador Retriever!

Real Desire, Superior Intelligence and Working Comformation!
My Trinity.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Booty,

My thinking on the question you asked is. 
Most people do not understand what a good one should be. 
Either in form or function. 

Ironwood Tarnation, Midknight Code Breaker, 2 of my personal favorites.
Great working ability, enough SUBSTANCE to have eye appeal, and overall good conformation, working conformation.

Most people do not raise Labradors, for the integrity of the breed. 
They raise/breed, trial dogs, hunting dogs, show dogs, that just happen to be Labradors. 

There are lots of dogs out there in both arena's that are close to the standard, but ya gotta go find em. Don't make generalizations "all show dogs are fat"

Wendy Pennington's show dog with an AA win is not fat !!!!!
And that has not been done in years.

Rant & Rave Regards,

John
________
og kush marijuana strain


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

SueLab said:


> Not enough "bone" - the phrase that is quite popular; too leggy; head not "blocky" enough (or doesn't look enough like a rhottie). And finally, the tail is not enough otter like... :lol:
> 
> Oh I forgot, about 15 pounds would make him in show condition...


   OK, I'll tell them to overfeed him for another 15 lbs (but that would put him at 90# instead of 75#), and also take some hairspray and backcomb that tail from the end back about 2/3 so it looks fluffed out like the show dogs do (kinda like the way the hair on a squirrel's tail makes it look thicker than it really is), plus do a a little creative trimming on the end to enhance the blunt look. He's got plenty of bone...his legs look like tree stumps compared to most labs, but I'll bet if he carried more weight and that brought his belly closer to the ground instead of having a tuck-up, his legs would look even heavier. :wink: :wink: :lol:


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> SueLab said:
> 
> 
> > Not enough "bone" - the phrase that is quite popular; too leggy; head not "blocky" enough (or doesn't look enough like a rhottie). And finally, the tail is not enough otter like... :lol:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: 
Now you got it! Personally I think you little dog is quite nice...


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2007)

> OK, I'll tell them to overfeed him for another 15 lbs (but that would put him at 90# instead of 75#), and also take some hairspray and backcomb that tail from the end back about 2/3 so it looks fluffed out like the show dogs do (kinda like the way the hair on a squirrel's tail makes it look thicker than it really is), plus do a a little creative trimming on the end to enhance the blunt look. He's got plenty of bone...his legs look like tree stumps compared to most labs, but I'll bet if he carried more weight and that brought his belly closer to the ground instead of having a tuck-up, his legs would look even heavier. Wink Wink


I think he has plenty of bone and plenty blocky head and not too leggy and his tail does not bother me. He probably won't do well at a specialty, but can do fine at an all-breed show. What I see as his faults are straight pasterns (can make him less stable on uneven survaces), high rear possibly because of straight stifles (can make him prone to ACL tears but should help him turn around fast), and cow hocks (can give him more stability but slow him down). However, the angle of the photo is not great to see the dog well, so I might be mistaken. 

I also have a theory as to why and how the whole put exra 10-15 pounds on the dog to show it came about, which I think was a misunderstanding that got carried away and now became a standard. I think it's wrong.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: just don't know*



DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Booty,
> 
> There are lots of dogs out there in both arena's that are close to the standard, but ya gotta go find em.
> 
> John


That's what I did on my newest addition, except I went with all top Field lines to get a dog with physical and mental substance. I'm not too high on cross-breeding(Field to Show) so, I restricted my search to a cross-breeding within Field dogs to find the three over-all quailities I was aiming for. I've said before that one can find the correct type within the Field ranks, if one looks hard and smart enough.


----------



## LH (Jan 24, 2006)

hhlabradors said:


> RemsBPJasper said:
> 
> 
> > As a side question, does anyone have any good articles, information, pictures concerning conformation? I mean leg lengths, angles, proportions, etc. etc. I know enough to be able to look at some of those show dogs and think it's not right and not healthy, but not enough to have a truly discerning eye. Any help would be appreciated.
> ...



Scroll down almost as far down as you can get in this blogpage and there are pics of the original Lab:

http://kennelmeadowlark.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Booty, You did a good job...hopefully he can run with the rest of your dogs in regards to working ability.
________
Honda CR480


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

This whole thing about tails is funny. We see otter like tails all the time on our dogs, we don’t see them on most show labs. The standard says: 
The tail is a distinguishing feature of the breed. It should be very thick at the base, gradually tapering toward the tip, of medium length, and extending no longer than to the hock.
Poor otters, they are wondering when someone is going to come along and bob their tails so Labs meet the standard!


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Goll Darn! 

It looks to me that the one otter has a "Gay Tail"! Wonder if that legitimizes all of the GT labs?

:lol:


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I found some interesting thoughts in a book I'm reading - "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by Lindsay. The section is called, "Origins of Selective Breeding."

He mentions that the Greeks understood the importance of selective breeding, but the also recognized the danger of breeding that displaces function for the sake of appearances.



> The rise of breeding for the sake of appearances alone is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of dogs, coinciding with the appearance of organized dog showing and efforts to standardize the various breeds. This new enphasis and interest appeared shortly after the banning of dog fighting and bull baiting in England in 1835 - an event closely associated with the founding of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824. With the loss of these traditional forms of canine "entertainment," the public turned its attention toward other venues for the enjoyment of dogs.
> 
> These various cultural changes moved dogs out of the hands of the lower working classes and placed them (after a transition of "proper" breeding) on a "higher" social level. The Victorian bourgeoisie adopted the dog as a newfound status object with which they could proudly display their refined taste in the form of breeding and pedigree. Along with this preoccupation with status came an effort to standardize the various breeds - a process based largely on appearances, with an inevitable neglect of function.


He goes off on another track, then comes back with this:



> Undoubtedly, appearance has always played an important role in the selection process, but it was rightfully subordinated to the far more important goals embodied in utilitarian function, health, and temerament. Many experienced breeders have lamented the genetic fact that form and function rarely interact in felicitous proportions - good working dogs are more often than not "ugly" according to breed standards of beauty. With an eye set rigidly on the arbitrary appeal of appearances and beautiful form, the qualities of intelligence and function inevitably degrade over time.


Which is what I think we're seeing in the show ring today, especially since they are taking these dogs to a place based on a warped interpretation of the breed standard. :evil:


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

Buzz said:


> I found some interesting thoughts in a book I'm reading - "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by Lindsay. The section is called, "Origins of Selective Breeding."
> 
> 
> 
> > Undoubtedly, appearance has always played an important role in the selection process, but it was rightfully subordinated to the far more important goals embodied in utilitarian function, health, and temerament. Many experienced breeders have lamented the genetic fact that form and function rarely interact in felicitous proportions - good working dogs are more often that not "ugly" according to breed standards of beauty. With an eye set rigidly on the arbitrary appeal of appearances and beautiful form, the qualities of intelligence and function inevitably degrede over time.



damn that's good...


Besides I think RFTN is full of nice looking dogs. In this edition, Little Bit Dangerous, the 2006 NDC (who I've seen in real life at two derbies) and Rubie Begonia, #3 Am dog (from her picture), were two blk lab bitches I thought were very nice looking but don't look anything like the bitches winning in the show ring...
Rather, they look like athletes. 

I'm NOT knocking the show Labs. I just prefer the working Lab. 

Really, they've become two different breeds (same w/ the Goldens). That's ok w/ me. Each are bred to excel in their venue. So let them. To try to bring them together now risks a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none..


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bente said:


> damn that's good...


As you can imagine, I was smiling when I read it. I'll take function over form every time.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Bente said:


> [
> (
> Bente (who thinks we probably like the same things in a Lab when it comes right down to it.. especially as you signed off w/ "Real Desire, Superior Intelligence and Working Confirmation..)


That's the intergity I'm talking about maintaining. At some point, there has to be a line that says, this is good and this is bad. Eliminate any one of the three and what you have is compromised integrity. It is about the total Lab, not just one aspect.


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

oops... I deleted my post because I keep repeating myself..

I was looking at the other Westminster thread w/ the show v working cocker.. I don't know how you can keep a high level of working ability and compete in the show ring at that same level too..

Maybe what happens is that the show ring starts to specialize w/o reference to working abilities.

My preference would be for show to be subordinated to working ability for the reasons that Buzz's quote from Lindsey's book spells out.

..either that, or accept that you're going to develop two different breeds (witness Irish Setters/Red Setters, Cockers, and now what is happening w/ Labs and Goldens.. rather what has happened..)


Bente


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Buzz said:


> I'll take function over form every time.


Interestingly, we see the dichotomy, most of the show people I talk to don't.

They think their dogs are still "functional," it is just we have taken the games to levels their dogs cannot attain.

It is always our (field-lab fanciers) fault. We breed indiscriminantly about conformation; We have increased the complexity of the games beyond the level of their dogs (that according to them combine form and function), we are changing the breed and ruining it, we are the cause of the divide.

I am in my late-forties. My parents had Labs and were active in AKC obedience since I was born. I have witnessed the change and the schism grow, and it isn't the field-lab that has changed, it is the show dogs. 

Although, quite correctly, the level of difficulty of our field games has increased exponentially. Yet is a remarkable testimony of the greatness of our field-bred animals that their abilities have increased as well. We have yet to reach the end of their field-work potential. Remarkable.

Yet, the end of the field-work potential of, generally speaking, show-bred Labs was reached over a decade ago. :? 

If form follows function, what is the function of the average show Lab? Not to do field-work.  

On the obverse, what is the function of a field-bred Lab? Not to win in conformation competitions (read "beauty pageants"). And I am okay with that. :? 

But I shouldn't be.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

What a great post! My dog iis a pure field bred dog and I love him to death. But again, why, has the standard of the breed been allowed to rule? My pup has funny ears, an extra fold in there, and is at least one inch above the standard measurement, hence my avatar "Too Tall" . He is extremely talented in marking, style and drive. Why are the show dogs allowed, and yes I mean that, allowed, to be a standard for the breed? I looked and looked at websites, before I bought this dog, and can not understand why a casual family would choose the show type over the correct type. Are they in fact easier for a family to raise??? My sister in law owned one of the show types, and it was a "Marley and Me" dog.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

2tall said:


> Why are the show dogs allowed, and yes I mean that, allowed, to be a standard for the breed?


The current dogs being shown are not The Standard for the breed. They are just the only ones being shown. Judges can only put up, what people bring to the event. The Show and the Field folks are equally quilty of loosing focus for maintaining the integrity of the breed. 

Field breeds for Field winners, period. What you gain in trying to improve the breed for that purpose, you loose in other aspects of the Total Dog. Not enough total balance. 

On the other hand, I agree that many of the Show dogs looks like a Vienna Sausage with legs. Terrible heads with that short muzzle and dramatic stop the the front skull slope. I also see way too much tail feathering on Show Labs, they should have none or very little. A dog that looks like it would get tired easily.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> The Show and the Field folks are equally quilty of loosing focus for maintaining the integrity of the breed.
> 
> Field breeds for Field winners, period. What you gain in trying to improve the breed for that purpose, you loose in other aspects of the Total Dog. Not enough total balance.


Booty, if you go back and read the first quote from my prior post, the author talked about how when folks were "standardizing the breed, the historical focus on function was lost. All the focus went toward form.



> Along with this preoccupation with status came an effort to standardize the various breeds - a process based largely on appearances, with an inevitable neglect of function.


I'm having trouble understanding how adhearing to a standard that ignores function has anything to do with preserving the breed. I think that adhearing to this is the best approach:



> Undoubtedly, appearance has always played an important role in the selection process, but it was rightfully subordinated to the far more important goals embodied in utilitarian function, health, and temerament.


If field folks are guilty of anything, it would be ignoring health and temperament in breeding for performance. That is harmful to the integrity of the breed. But I don't see how breeding an ugly talented dog with good health and temperament should be a threat to anyone - let alone the breed.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Buzz said:


> I'm having trouble understanding how adhearing to a standard that ignores function has anything to do with preserving the breed. I think that adhearing to this is the best approach:


The Standard doesn't ignore function. In fact, it addresses it. The great majority of Show Lab breeders are ignoring that function. I'll bet very few have any real desire. Desire that would be impressive to watch.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> I'll bet very few have any real desire. Desire that would be impressive to watch.


When I got my pups eyes CERF'd, the vet was in town to examine a bunch of bench dogs at a show in Sioux Falls. He commented how nice it was seeing smart active young labs. He said that when he does the show lines, it's obvious in dealing with the dogs that there is no one home... Dumb as a bag of rocks. That's pretty much a quote.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> The current dogs being shown are not The Standard for the breed. They are just the only ones being shown. Judges can only put up, what people bring to the event. The Show and the Field folks are equally quilty of loosing focus for maintaining the integrity of the breed.


Who do you think the judges are? I know someone who raises the very dog that will take first at the bench shows (and does). Guess what? This breeder is a judge and becoming more active as we speak. Do you really think that this judge would put up anything other than what he/she produces??? It is not as easy as bringing field dogs to the ring since a judge can refuse to put up any dog if it is deemed to not meet the standard as interpreted by the judge....


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Who do you think the judges are? I know someone who raises the very dog that will take first at the bench shows (and does). Guess what? This breeder is a judge and becoming more active as we speak. Do you really think that this judge would put up anything other than what he/she produces??? It is not as easy as bringing field dogs to the ring since a judge can refuse to put up any dog if it is deemed to not meet the standard as interpreted by the judge....


No one said it would be easy. Maybe the right Field dog might get some judges thinking. If not, then I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

[quoNo one said it would be easy. Maybe the right Field dog might get some judges thinking. If not, then I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing.te][/quote]


It's not easy showing any Lab in working condition. But we will continue to show that way. Too many decades of working Labs in my family genes for me to take a fat lab in the ring. The standard says they should be shown in working condition. Guess we will rack up those back end titles long before the CH because of 15 lbs.


----------



## wetdogs (Feb 13, 2003)

Sorry folks but not all conformation people like an overdone dog. While the BOB was moderate, he's very upright in the shoulder (IMO of course).

I breed moderate show dogs that hunt. I've got 4 in WY that work the legs off the field bred dogs there. Here are littermates at 3 months











Here are the two older ones after a days hunt with the young pup 










Some of us are very proud that our Labradors look like Labs yet can still do what they are suppose to do.....RETRIEVE.

I've used Roger's CH/MH Laddy in the past and was very happy with the pups both conformation wise as well as ability.

Some of us want a total dog and have devoted our breeding programs to achieving that.


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> They think their dogs are still "functional," it is just we have taken the games to levels their dogs cannot attain.



I've stayed out of this thread until now, but have to call BS on this line.


If I, a ******* part time amateur who cares more about hunting than titles can still manage to get HRCH, UH, and SH titles (with a few master passes) on my own, then any of these folks who are putting money into the show ring (which costs ALOT more) can do it.

What's more - I've been playing the HT game for a fair amount of time (since the late 1980's). The game has not changed much, despite the protestations of some to the contrary.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> They think their dogs are still "functional," it is just we have taken the games to levels their dogs cannot attain.


 :lol: 

Bert


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

The problem of the split in the breed is that you now have two trains running in opposite directions from each other. Very few breeders view themselves as protectors of the breed standard. Why should the breed standard be protected? A breed standard describes what a breed is. Otherwise, all we have are mutts.

How many breeders or puppy buyers, from either train, consider the breed standard when choosing a sire or dam? Many go with the "hot" dogs. Some are trying to build a certain pedigree. How many field breeders compare a dogs conformation to the breed standard? How many show breeders seek out high performing dogs?

It takes work and doesn't always make puppies easy to sell in a tough puppy market. Some big winning field dogs are successful despite poor conformation. Some big winning show dogs have never exhibited any desire or ability to retrieve. When the goal is to produce a winning dog in what ever venue the breed standard is often forgotten.

Tom


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

wetdogs, I have a hard time believing those dogs of yours could "work the legs off the field bred dogs"


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

twall said:


> How many breeders or puppy buyers, from either train, consider the breed standard when choosing a sire or dam? Many go with the "hot" dogs. Some are trying to build a certain pedigree. How many field breeders compare a dogs conformation to the breed standard?
> 
> Tom


How many know what good layback is or a well-angulated rear or "well balanced fore and aft" or good turn of stifle? How many know what the 'landmarks' are on a dog for evaluation of front or rear angulation? How many can tell you off the top of their heads what the proportion of leg to height is supposed to be, or height to length? From what 'landmarks' are these measurements made?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

hhlabradors said:


> How many know what good layback is or a well-angulated rear or "well balanced fore and aft" or good turn of stifle? How many know what the 'landmarks' are on a dog for evaluation of front or rear angulation? How many can tell you off the top of their heads what the proportion of leg to height is supposed to be, or height to length? From what 'landmarks' are these measurements made?


You are correct, Eleanor. Most of us do not know the terminology or the measurements to fulfill the breed standard. 

Even without that knowledge, many of us can look at a dog moving and see that it does not have enough reach in the front to stand a hard day in the field, or that it's gait is quite out of sync and not an easy, smooth movement, or it trots quite well (for the ring) but cannot run.

Performance is all about how the dog moves. If it is not put together well, it won't move well.

Now, desire is another story...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

hhlabradors said:


> twall said:
> 
> 
> > How many breeders or puppy buyers, from either train, consider the breed standard when choosing a sire or dam? Many go with the "hot" dogs. Some are trying to build a certain pedigree. How many field breeders compare a dogs conformation to the breed standard?
> ...


I posted this earlier in the thread, but I don't think it can be repeated too many times. Because, in my own little uneducated way of looking at things, I believe it's the single most important point for those concerned about maintaining the integrity of the breed in relation to selective breeding programs.



> Undoubtedly, appearance has always played an important role in the selection process, but it was rightfully subordinated to the far more important goals embodied in utilitarian function, health, and temerament. Many experienced breeders have lamented the genetic fact that form and function rarely interact in felicitous proportions - good working dogs are more often than not "ugly" according to breed standards of beauty. With an eye set rigidly on the arbitrary appeal of appearances and beautiful form, the qualities of intelligence and function inevitably degrade over time.


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

Buzz said:


> > Undoubtedly, appearance has always played an important role in the selection process, but it was rightfully subordinated to the far more important goals embodied in utilitarian function, health, and temerament. Many experienced breeders have lamented the genetic fact that form and function rarely interact in felicitous proportions - good working dogs are more often than not "ugly" according to breed standards of beauty. With an eye set rigidly on the arbitrary appeal of appearances and beautiful form, the qualities of intelligence and function inevitably degrade over time.


You may be right for those who want to breed good, generic retrievers, but a Labrador retriever has to be a Labrador. One need not (indeed SHOULD NOT) focus on ANY one factor (not conformation, not ability to win field trails) to the exclusion of all others. A good breeder keeps all the plates spinning.

I used to get just livid when people talked about splitting the breed (formally) Now, I don't see any way around The Labrador Retriever and The American Field Bred Retriever. 

I asked recently about Golden retrievers and got similarly disheartening responses, but one of the reasons I am so thrilled with the breeders of young Hannah (one of many) is that I was upfront that I show dogs and that I would be looking for type and structure. They were upfront that show dogs were not expected in the litter. That's OK, I don't want a show Golden, and I'm not even looking for a breeding prospect. But they understood why I look at conformation as well as aptitude and even sent photos to show me before I flew down and picked up the pup.




























It wouldn't kill "field" Labrador breeders to become this knowlegeable and to try to get structure like this in addition to working ability in their dogs.


Owner of both show and field regards,


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Your pup is beautiful...


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

hhlabradors said:


> I used to get just livid when people talked about splitting the breed (formally) Now, I don't see any way around The Labrador Retriever and The American Field Bred Retriever.


I agree and stated on an earlier post that one should look at the total dog and that balance is important. But, I have to ask; Which camp gets to call them Labrador Retrievers and which camp gets to call them The American Field Bred Retriever? Both camps in my book have strayed from The Standard.

If show judges are using tape measures to measure angulation, then they should also bring a scale and weight dogs and bitches.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Beautiful pup Eleanor!

A little off topic but it always puzzles me when field people exclaim over how perfect their dog is and then show a picture of it sitting. SHow me its wheels! You can't tell a thing about how a dog's put together when it's sitting. About all you can tell is if it has a nice head or not. I wish the owners of stud dogs would show the dog standing instead of the ubiquitous sitting with ears perked pose. Oh by the way Franco, your pup looks very nice as well and thank you for showing a picture of him standing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2007)

> If it is not put together well, it won't move well.


This phrase is music to my ears. How true.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

hhlabradors said:


> How many know what good layback is or a well-angulated rear or "well balanced fore and aft" or good turn of stifle?. . . .


I can. But in a different lifetime (almost three decades ago) I was active in conformation.



> I used to get just livid when people talked about splitting the breed (formally) Now, I don't see any way around The Labrador Retriever and The American Field Bred Retriever.


I was thinking the Labrador Retriever (Sporting Group) and the American Show-Bred Retriever (Non-Sporting Group).


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Performance is all about how the dog moves. If it is not put together well, it won't move well.


When was the last time anyone ever saw a winning show Lab single-track? 1980?!


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2007)

Here is a photo of a specialty BOB who can sigle-track (unless we understand single-tracking differently, of course). Whether he will retain the ability as he matures, I don't know. (sorry for a large size).


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> SueLab said:
> 
> 
> > Performance is all about how the dog moves. If it is not put together well, it won't move well.
> ...



Labradors don't single track. They converge toward center, which is not the same thing.


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

Thank you for all the nice comments on Miss Hannah. I'm pleased as punch with this puppy. 

I honestly wasn't sucking up for puppy compliments, though. :wink: I just think if "non-show champion seeking" *Golden* breeders can pay attention to type and structure, so can their counterparts as *Labrador* breeders.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

hhlabradors said:


> AmiableLabs said:
> 
> 
> > SueLab said:
> ...


My point was when was the last time you saw a show-winning Lab not crab?


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

hhlabradors said:


> twall said:
> 
> 
> > How many breeders or puppy buyers, from either train, consider the breed standard when choosing a sire or dam? Many go with the "hot" dogs. Some are trying to build a certain pedigree. How many field breeders compare a dogs conformation to the breed standard?
> ...



Tom: I think you do not give many of the field breeders enough credit. The top field breeders have created a dog that is a wonderful animal to work with. That they do not win in the show ring does in NO way detract from them.

This is what gets me irritated. These field dogs deserve our utmost respect. NOT our derision because they don't look like the bulked out dogs that win in the show ring (fine w/ me if you like that type and want to go that route.. all the power to ya.. just don't be saying my field bred bitch isn't good enough because I'll tell you.. well, I won't because I don't want to disappoint my upbringing..)


Eleanor: I have sat and listened to breeders talk about how their dogs are put together perfectly for field work and then watched these same dogs as they pawed at the water's edge refusing to get in to retrieve a duck on a simple single in a WC. You want perfect angulation, fine. 

But in my mind a true thing of beauty is to see the almost manic desire to retrieve in a dog that can swim 300 yards through crap and cold and bring back the bird.

THAT is what the Labrador Retriever is all about. 

bp


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

BP,

I don't think I derided field bred labs. I simply asked asked how many breeders consider conformation, according to the breed standard, when choosing a sire. How often does that come up in any discussions on this board when someone is asking about which sire to use? You have narrowed the group by stating "top field breeders". I still wonder how many choose a sire because he throws more angulated rears? Or, better coats? Those are not usually topics in the discussion of which sire to choose.

I don't feel most show breeders are doing any better! 

I also tried to couch my comments with the idea of breeders as being protectors of the breed standard. How many breeders know the breed standard? I'm not critizing, or singling out field breedres, when I ask this.

Ultimately, there are traits the show dogs posses that field dogs need and vice versa. But, who is willing to take the time and energy to bring the two together? And, who wants the dogs they breed? 

Some have suggested changing breeds to achieve dogs that look like their breed standard and perform in the field. The problems is that a Labrador Retriever should be both.

I am not attacking or singling either side of this discussion.

Tom


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

Sorry Tom, for sounding a bit screetchy. Didn't mean to. I just really appreciate the field bred Labs and perhaps am a bit over sensitive.

Maybe the English bred Labs are that balance between field and show. 

But personally, I like what the American field breeders are producing. I am not a big fan of confirmation for the reasons (as previously stated.. repeating myself.. again) that Buzz posted w/ his quote from Lindsey.

But I also appreciate the hard work and dedication that the show breeders put into their dogs.

I just don't like comparing them against each other because they are being bred to win in two totally separate venues.

Which is fine w/ me. I can appreciate them both. I simply prefer the field venue.


Bente


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Juris said:


> Here is a photo of a specialty BOB


Sorry, but he looks more like a Rott
than a Lab.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Show Labs = Beauty Pageant Contestants

Field Bred Labs = Athletes


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I watched a movie a few weeks ago that I had seen as a kid. Big Red, about a show bred Irish Setter. The owner of the dog has a pretty neat "excuse" but non-the-less explains that the "show" had bred the "will" out of the dog. We have all seen it in more than one sporting dog breed. This is why I don't understand why there is even a debate here. The conformation folks have literally ruined working breeds to achieve what THEY think is important. Oh, they SAY that form=function but when you don't make function important you lose it. Why anyone would think that a "conformation junkie" would know anything about doing what is good for a working breed AS IT IS INTENDED I don't know. The track record speaks for itself. When you show me that you know what the hell you are doing, you might have a case. :wink:


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

achiro said:


> When you show me that you know what the hell you are doing, you might have a case. :wink:


LOL! I think the *exact* same thing! :wink:


----------



## wetdogs (Feb 13, 2003)

smillerdvm said:


> wetdogs, I have a hard time believing those dogs of yours could "work the legs off the field bred dogs"


Then I'll give you the email of their owner and they'll tell you that themselves.


----------



## wetdogs (Feb 13, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> My point was when was the last time you saw a show-winning Lab not crab?


Just last weekend.  Not all crabbing is due to poor structure. Some of it is habit and some is due to the handler. In 30 years of being in Labs I've had ONE dog who was a crabber. It was pretty easy to breed out and her grandson is one of the best moving dogs out there right now. 

If anyone is really truly interested in structure, there are a lot of good books out Rachel Page Elliot for instance, that deals with it.


----------



## wetdogs (Feb 13, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> Show Labs = Beauty Pageant Contestants
> 
> Field Bred Labs = Athletes


0


Gee my agility dogs who are show bred and who regularly beat the border collies will be interested to know they are not athletes.


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

wetdogs said:


> Gee my agility dogs who are show bred and who regularly beat the border collies will be interested to know they are not athletes.


Not sure where you are located, but if you are close to me (and I am sure Achiro would agree to do the same as well) I'll pay your athlete's entry fees in the next AKC FT near me. You finish, and heck, I'll buy a show dog to run!

Not meaning to start anything; just an offer. :wink: 

Sondra


----------



## zoomngoldens (Nov 11, 2004)

wetdogs said:


> Gee my agility dogs who are show bred and who regularly beat the border collies will be interested to know they are not athletes.


What is your dogs YPS?

Not all border collies are created equal regards.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> wetdogs, I have a hard time believing those dogs of yours could "work the legs off the field bred dogs"


Save your breath on the challenge. Every year on the Westminster thread, this gets posted followed by the same dozen pictures of dogs running with a bird or 6 trophy birds, and the same excuses for not competing. Can't just say I have conformation dogs that hunt, no they hunt better than field dogs. yada, yada, yada and she's gone until next year.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Why does the show / field debate continue on this website??

I know the answer and understand the reasons for debate.

This is however a retriever taining forum. A very few lab conformation dogs go to Hunt tests or agility. Why do we debate with these people on training forum when those dogs are just trained to sit and heel. Field bred labs are bred that way for results. Look a Lean Mac. Look at the lines. If you want a FC, then get a dog breed from a good breeding.


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

pafromga said:


> Why do we debate with these people


Oh, *ISH*. *Not* "these people....."


There goes the neighborhood....


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

HEY KNUCKLEHEADS :x 

There are dogs out there from total show pedigrees that are MH, QAA, AA points and one with an AA win. They are not ALL fat and stupid.

The one that are fat and stupid are strictly the fault of the owners.
The ones that have bad temperments, are out at the elbow, and bark constantly are also the fault of the owner.

I would not choose to own most of them on either side of the so called divide.

For the "show" people there is Absolutely no reason not to breed to one of the Champion MH's or the dogs from conformation line that are not titled that have solid working accomplishments, MH, liscensed trial placements.

For us "field" people there is no reason not to learn why a dog is structered a certain way and how we can pick dogs to try and improve structure (conformation) Would it really hurt your program of breeding an HRCH x HRCH If you instead bred to a CH HRCH MH ???????????

John, who is one of the few who has handled to placements in both AKC trials & shows.
________
 herbalire vaporizer review


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

John, thanks for that small bit of sanity.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm in 100 % aggreement with Drakehaven.
It's the owners .It always is.  
Sue


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

The problem John is that the "big time shows"(westminster, specialty, etc) are not putting up the more moderate dogs. BUT the winners then are the dogs that the majority want to breed


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

achiro said:


> The problem John is that the "big time shows"(westminster, specialty, etc) are not putting up the more moderate dogs. BUT the winners then are the dogs that the majority want to breed


I am the knucklehead that got everybody going a while back.

But in defense of alot of the guys competing in conformation. If they want to win, they try to get a puppy from a dog that wins. If I was doing conformation, I would try to get a puppy that would win.
The same goes for the trial and hunt test people. 
I am not saying that is the only thing to consider, but you know its one thing we all consider.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Seems to me a "Chicken or egg?" question: "Owners or judges?".

Russ, you've struck on something this Chessie fan's wondered about. Will our breed see greater divide as bench breeders and judges look to those put up at Westminster for example? As it stands, it appears relatively easy to put a Dual on a FC, because there are plenty of smaller shows where Chesapeake competition isn't too stiff, but that could change if the judging pendulum swings much farther in the direction it seems to be going.


----------



## hhlabradors (Mar 18, 2005)

pafromga said:


> If they want to win, they try to get a puppy from a dog that wins. If I was doing conformation, I would try to get a puppy that would win.
> The same goes for the trial and hunt test people.
> I am not saying that is the only thing to consider, but you know its one thing we all consider.



THAT is the problem. Not the judges, not the shows, not the dogs. Human nature. If everyone had a blueprint in their mind of the ideal and bred for that rather than blue ribbons, and used the testing in competition as part of the feedback needed, rather than the be-all, end-all, the breed would be in much better shape.

Labrador retrievers were not developed to win conformation championships OR field trials.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

hhlabradors said:


> THAT is the problem. Not the judges, not the shows, not the dogs. Human nature. If everyone had a blueprint in their mind of the ideal and bred for that rather than blue ribbons, and used the testing in competition as part of the feedback needed, rather than the be-all, end-all, the breed would be in much better shape.
> 
> Labrador retrievers were not developed to win conformation championships OR field trials.


Best advice I've read on this thread! 8)


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Mr Booty said:


> hhlabradors said:
> 
> 
> > THAT is the problem. Not the judges, not the shows, not the dogs. Human nature. If everyone had a blueprint in their mind of the ideal and bred for that rather than blue ribbons, and used the testing in competition as part of the feedback needed, rather than the be-all, end-all, the breed would be in much better shape.
> ...


Nicely put..


----------



## Travis R. Bullock (May 11, 2005)

*Re: not listening*



DRAKEHAVEN said:


> HEY KNUCKLEHEADS :x
> 
> There are dogs out there from total show pedigrees that are MH, QAA, AA points and one with an AA win. They are not ALL fat and stupid.
> 
> ...





hhlabradors said:


> THAT is the problem. Not the judges, not the shows, not the dogs. Human nature. If everyone had a blueprint in their mind of the ideal and bred for that rather than blue ribbons, and used the testing in competition as part of the feedback needed, rather than the be-all, end-all, the breed would be in much better shape.
> 
> Labrador retrievers were not developed to win conformation championships OR field trials.


I have held back from posting on this topic so far, I don't like to get into the Show vs. Field bashing! Both of these posts are very well put, thank you.

Take Care,

Travis R. Bullock


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

> THAT is the problem. Not the judges, not the shows, not the dogs. Human nature. If everyone had a blueprint in their mind of the ideal


Isn't that "ideal" called a "Breed Standard" and supposed to be what the judges you're holding harmless abide by?


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

*Re: not listening*



DRAKEHAVEN said:


> HEY KNUCKLEHEADS :x
> 
> There are dogs out there from total show pedigrees that are MH, QAA, AA points and one with an AA win. They are not ALL fat and stupid.
> 
> ...




Ignorance is a training issue, stupid is inherited.


FC/AFC lines are a big performance leap up from HRCH/MH.


bp


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Well Bente, whats the leap ? is it the genetics or the training ?
What would be the result be if some of the CH MH dogs were put in the most capable hands (Lardy) ? 

The vast majority of dogs from conformation lines are not put in capable hands (opinion) training wise. Most likely because they are the only ones willing to take them. The few instances where the owners sought qualified help in regards to a Pro the results have been very good.
CH Topform Edward QAA MH trained by those guys in Centerview MO.

John
________
Mondeo


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

John,

We are speaking in generalities here. And of course generalities are only true "in general" and never true about individuals.

Having said that have you ever field-trained with Labs from show lines? I have. Regularly.

It is not just an issue of who is on the end of the leash training the dog. Show breeders, in general, are breeding the desire to work out of the dogs.

I am sure you can find an individual show-bred Lab, or maybe even a dozen, that could be competitive FT dogs. Just as I am sure you can find an individual field-bred Lab, or maybe even a dozen, that with an extra fifteen pounds of fat could be competitive show dogs.

But the individuals are not the concern here. It is the breed in general. And in my experience, the majority of show-bred Labs can't even earn a SH. They lack the desire.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

For the most part, even the best trainer will have problems getting to higher levels of competition if they have desire, but implode with pressure. If you are thorougly patient and have all the time or money in the world you may get somewhere but you take 2 steps back in the progeny when you breed back to conformation lines. There are rare exceptions. Most field dogs are selected from lines that have 5 generations under their belts of responding to pressure and can handle pressure better than those from show dogs who are cookie trained and you have to walk on eggs. It's just too much work.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Nancy -- you are so right!

I completely forgot about pressure.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Kevin,

Yes I have. Unfortunately the ones I have had dealt with have come down with later developing genetic disorders. So continuing to spend time and money would have been wasteful. 

Nancy, 

I understand the pressure issues. There is a huge difference in being willing to do the work and being willing to do it when DEMANDED to.

My personal opinion is the uniformed can speak in generalities. So those of us who know what dogs are out there doing respectable work and also being shown should not add to the stereotype. But rather we should embrace to accomplishment of those who are trying to protect the integrity of breed.

This issue is really a dead horse until the people in the trenches are willing to spend the weekend at a show not a trial & will make selection of breeding stock based on conformation among other traits.

In return those at the other end stop getting offended when they are told their dog is not a quality working animal. Then come to the mind set that a JH title on a 4 year old does not mean you dog shows excellent working ability.

Hopeless...... day off of work, I'm done training. Gonna BBQ some wild Boar ribs and have a cold delicious or 2 or 12

John
________
iolite vaporizer


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I had a wonderful golden that was my wife and my first dog. I had been hunting for years but we still wanted a golden. We found a local breeder that had all confirmation dogs with at least with her dogs no field backround . Knowing what I know now I would not have bought the dog. This dog had the brains and drive to do the work we just did not know how to train the dog to do anything. The woman that we got the dog from is now a big time show person and has nice dogs. The thing I think is interesting is I am sure that if I had the dog now the dog would or could achieve QAA status and more than likely MH. I know that more than a couple of her litter mates went on to CH which we never did anything show related to the dog either. I think one of the major stumbling blocks to the dual Ch thing is time and money. I think that some of the trial dogs are show worthy but folks that have trial dogs are either training or trialing and the 2 or 3 percent of the dogs that make it to AFC or FC status would never take the time to even try it in the confirmation ring. One thing in my mind is the lab or golden that becomes a dual Ch is going to have to do it in the field 1st. I am going to atleast try personally to get my young female a certificate of confirmation.


----------



## Bente (Dec 3, 2004)

*Re: Ideal*



DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Well Bente, whats the leap ? is it the genetics or the training ?
> *What would be the result be if some of the CH MH dogs were put in the most capable hands (Lardy) ? *
> 
> *The vast majority of dogs from conformation lines are not put in capable hands (opinion) training wise.* Most likely because they are the only ones willing to take them. *The few instances where the owners sought qualified help in regards to a Pro the results have been very good.*
> ...



John: I too have watched show bred Labs and Goldens in training for many years. As Kevin said, there's always an exception to any rule, but what I have seen is what Nancy pointed out.. they do not respond well to pressure GENERALLY. 
Or, to put it in other words, they tend to do the work when they want to, under their own terms. Put pressure on them to do it when and how the trainer wants, and they tend to "pig out". Not a pretty sight.

You can't put that overwhelming "will", aka desire, in a dog. That's genetics. You can take a mediocre dog and make them a Master dog (I've seen that done), and maybe even place in a Qualifying if all the stars are aligned, but making them into a FC/AFC, I don't think even Lardy could do that. 

Nor do I think he'd spend his time trying. From what I can tell, quality FT trainers won't waste their time w/ dogs that will not work with you, take the pressure and keep the style and drive. And that "WILL" to do the work, the desire to get the bird under any terms.. even the trainer's terms, is what I see distinguishes a stylish field dog from dogs not bred for field.

As stated, there are certainly exceptions to the rule. And there certainly are a lot of dogs bred for field trials that get washed out too (same as w/ confirmation obviously). 

Note that I know a woman who has trained two CH dogs to MH and passed 2006 Master National with them. 
But if you're looking to get an AA dog, then you're talking a whole 'nother ballgame and that's the ballgame I'm talking about, field trials, not hunt tests..

"It takes just as much time to train a good dog as a bad one, so might as well work a good one."


I'm just talking from what I've observed. I'm sure there are many here who know a heck a lot more than I do (doesn't take much)
In the meantime, hope you had fun w/ the BBQ. After popping in on the computer for a sec after training the mutts, I'm off for a run in the rain. FUN!! :wink: 

Bente


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Bente, couldn't agree with your post more!!


----------

