# Biggest Labrador Show in North America / Potomac



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Each year the Show breeders flock to Potomac to show who has bred the biggest Labrador, with more bone and substance and long wavy extra full coats. 

They don't care that they have 120 lb lumbering studs who couldn't do five minutes of hunting. They have created an entirely new breed of dog. 

Yes the Gap between a Field Labrador and a Show type keeps getting bigger... sadly ...

Winner at Potomac 2014 
http://delianlabs.com/Scrubs.html

BOS at Potomac 2014
http://www.blackwinglabradors.com/biss-gch-blackwing-izzy---izzy.html

Go to the linked web pages... tell me if you think Show Breeders understand the standard? So many got upset at the Westminster results because it was on TV. This is the reason. Behind the scenes those Westminster winners are peanuts compared to what gets rewarded at Potomac.


----------



## duckstruck (Nov 20, 2013)

I hope I don't get any of CH Lard Ass of Biscuits and Sausage Gravy in my dogs pedigree.


----------



## weathered (Mar 17, 2011)

I decided to flick through the rest of one of the websites. Found this nice girl under "Girls of the past" http://www.blackwinglabradors.com/biss-ch-blackwing-bramble---dusty.html

Much closer to those illustrations in the breed standard.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

Those people would hate my black Whippet.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I see the WB as way more an eyesore than the WD. (though hes also not my cup of tea-). So extreme--- to each their own. The Squatlies always reminds me of Forestt Gump when he saw Luitenant Dan the first time in a wheelchair and he says, "Luitenant Dan- What happened to your Legs?!"


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Popularity can do that to any breed. I guess the bonus to the lab is that we HAVE two separate and completely different gene pools that define two very different phenotypes, thank God. Anyone who goes to an HT (junior) and watches show labs try to get working certs know what I mean. At least with other show-based breeds they move like lightening and have a lot of desire just no skills to actually find the bird even if they stepped on it (one actually did). The show/english/fat labs, whatever you want to call them, look horrid and just go about everything in a "I hope after I get this thing I get a hot dog," way. 

A dog show basically looks like a circus to me. Why someone would participate to showcase a breed standard and leave the actual function in the garbage can is beyond me. It literally goes against the very nature of selection. These labs have no increased function as a result of this type of breeding.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Billie said:


> I see the WB as way more an eyesore than the WD. (though hes also not my cup of tea-). So extreme--- to each their own. The Squatlies always reminds me of Forestt Gump when he saw Luitenant Dan the first time in a wheelchair and he says, "Luitenant Dan- What happened to your Legs?!"


Thanks! Have to clean off, not only the keyboard, but the computer screen and surrounding desk….


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

jrrichar said:


> Popularity can do that to any breed. I guess the bonus to the lab is that *we HAVE two separate and completely different gene pools that define two very different phenotypes*, thank God. Anyone who goes to an HT (junior) and watches show labs try to get working certs know what I mean. At least with other show-based breeds they move like lightening and have a lot of desire just no skills to actually find the bird even if they stepped on it (one actually did). The show/english/fat labs, whatever you want to call them, look horrid and just go about everything in a "I hope after I get this thing I get a hot dog," way.
> 
> A dog show basically looks like a circus to me. Why someone would participate to *showcase a breed standard *and leave the actual function in the garbage can is beyond me. It literally goes against the very nature of selection. These labs have no increased function as a result of this type of breeding.


I agree there are two different phenotypes. 

I think you're mistaken if you assume the short, squatty, English style show Lab "showcases the breed standard". So are the judges who put these dogs up and the breeders who produce them. Unfortunately, I believe most of the field bred Labs also miss the boat when it comes to meeting the standard. 

A Labrador retriever can meet the standard for both conformation and performance. Some do. They aren't necessarily from show bloodlines either. But they are in the minority, which is a shame. 

Show breeders are going to continue to diverge from the standard as long as they win the prize. Field trial breeders are also going to do whatever it takes to push the envelope of performance, with no regard to the breed standard.

What I'd like to see is more breeders of hunting companion Labs working to produce dogs that are sound, healthy, and talented; and who exhibit the breed traits described in the standard, which _does_ describe a working retriever.

JMHO.

Swack


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

.44 magnum said:


> Each year the Show breeders flock to Potomac to show who has bred the biggest Labrador, with more bone and substance and long wavy extra full coats.
> 
> They don't care that they have 120 lb lumbering studs who couldn't do five minutes of hunting. They have created an entirely new breed of dog.
> 
> ...


Nice dog. All fixed.


----------



## BigKahuna13 (Mar 6, 2009)

.44 magnum said:


> Each year the Show breeders flock to Potomac to show who has bred the biggest Labrador, with more bone and substance and long wavy extra full coats.
> 
> They don't care that they have 120 lb lumbering studs who couldn't do five minutes of hunting. They have created an entirely new breed of dog.
> 
> ...


I like the look on the ones face who is standing on its hind legs "Izzy" I believe is the name of the dog. Poor thing. It looks like the last one picked for dodgeball in gym class.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Ya know, I'd be ticked if people posted links to my dogs on a public forum and started making fun of them or insulting them. It's one thing to generalize about bench vs field or whatever and use a generic photo of unnamed dogs, but picking on someone's specific dog like this is rude.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Rainmaker said:


> Ya know, I'd be ticked if people posted links to my dogs on a public forum and started making fun of them or insulting them. It's one thing to generalize about bench vs field or whatever and use a generic photo of unnamed dogs, but picking on someone's specific dog like this is rude.


As a breeder, would you want a Labrador with no front legs. The female is a BISS CH. Says alot about judges on the show side.

That is about as un- athletic look I've seen in a sporting breed. I poke no fun at the dogs. I do question why these people are breeding such poor examples of what a Labrador is suppose to look like. That is not a Labrador. In any century.Time or country.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Magnum, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

.44 magnum said:


> As a breeder, would you want a Labrador with no front legs. The female is a BISS CH. Says alot about judges on the show side.
> 
> That is about as un- athletic look I've seen in a sporting breed. I poke no fun at the dogs. I do question why these people are breeding such poor examples of what a Labrador is suppose to look like. That is not a Labrador. In any century.Time or country.


Did you mean "side show", as in come all and witness the amazing obese Labrador?


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Rainmaker said:


> Magnum, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Right I guess a sporting dog can function despite the lack of length of arm. In a dream world. My bad. Funny your dogs do have arms. Why is that?

You breed functional hunting dogs Vs Show specimens.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

mngundog said:


> Did you mean "side show", as in come all and witness the amazing obese Labrador?


Sad but true.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Magnum, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Unfortunately, Pete, I agree. 
For someone who has gone out of their way to explain over and over again on the pet forums how their own dog was placed in his home because it was too "overdone" for this same show ring, and who goes out of their way to train for hunting and promote how this type of dog can do the work, I am confused by how you are now spouting such "anti-show conformation" sentiments for Labradors. I do like you, Pete. I don't understand, however, how spiteful you've gotten when discussing the same breeders which you had defended just last year? There are dogs that can do both games and do them well. Some breeders aren't interested in doing that (conformation and field) or just don't have the funds or time, so seek a different dog with a different goal in mind...whether doing conformation, field trials, independent hunting, agility, service dog work, search and rescue, police work, etc. 

For what it's worth and so everyone doesn't go and slam the American judges yet again, the dog judge at the Potomac this year was from Italy and this show is not just the largest in North America but the largest specialty show (any breed, not just Labradors) in the WORLD. Breeders exhibit dogs from Europe, Asia, New Zealand, S. America, etc. etc. etc. each year. Just a bit of background.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Im not a fan of the show ring at all but I have grown quite fond of the little guy in this video. He actually moves very well. True he cant keep up with some of my field bred labs but he also out hustles one or two of them. Trying to talk his owner into more advanced training as he is capable of it.
One pet peeve of mine is that some people insist on calling the short fat conformation dogs " English Labs". That is not fair to the fine English bred field bred Labradors.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwzK6UQUlw4&list=UUNsjoiWjxhDt2tsedfrqyAg&feature=share&index=5


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Sorry ad editing of spelling


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Montview said:


> Unfortunately, Pete, I agree.
> For someone who has gone out of their way to explain over and over again on the pet forums how their own dog was placed in his home because it was too "overdone" for this same show ring, and who goes out of their way to train for hunting and promote how this type of dog can do the work, I am confused by how you are now spouting such "anti-show conformation" sentiments for Labradors. I do like you, Pete. I don't understand, however, how spiteful you've gotten when discussing the same breeders which you had defended just last year? There are dogs that can do both games and do them well. Some breeders aren't interested in doing that (conformation and field) or just don't have the funds or time, so seek a different dog with a different goal in mind...whether doing conformation, field trials, independent hunting, agility, service dog work, search and rescue, police work, etc.
> 
> For what it's worth and so everyone doesn't go and slam the American judges yet again, the dog judge at the Potomac this year was from Italy and this show is not just the largest in North America but the largest specialty show (any breed, not just Labradors) in the WORLD. Breeders exhibit dogs from Europe, Asia, New Zealand, S. America, etc. etc. etc. each year. Just a bit of background.


You have the right to not agree with me or anything I say. It is America. As Mary Roslin Williams says, a Lab will try in spite of what breeders have done to him.

Does that make a Champion dog to be rewarded at shows for future breeders., Each individual breeder has an ethical position on even taking a Labrador to a show if it does not conform to standard. Why keep breeding terrible traits to be passed on to offspring. 

It is terribly sad when judges have no eye for *BALANCE* no matter what country they come from. It's horrible for the entire breed. The dog is a GUN DOG, not a couch potato waiting for its next snack.

Inspite of the size of my dog, he is 24 inches tall , with 12 inch front legs. Exactly what the breed standard calls for, as well as from the shoulder to the tail he is 24 inches long.(short coupled) His issue is his watermelon head. If he had a proper head piece I would never as a pet owner have had a chance to own him. She will not show improper Labradors or breed them. 

The reason why he can hunt . I keep him in optimum condition. he hunts in spite of his giant squash . He will never pass on any of that poor trait because he won't be bred. Its called respecting the breed you love. You do not breed poor specimens. Period.


Poke fun at my big happy Lab.. I love the breed more than any one dog.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

.44 magnum said:


> Right I guess a sporting dog can function despite the lack of length of arm. In a dream world. My bad. Funny your dogs do have arms. Why is that?
> 
> You breed functional hunting dogs Vs Show specimens.


You miss my point. I don't care about the ring, I don't care about anything besides field, I have just as much tunnel vision as anyone. What I find rude and mannerless is people using someone's specifically named dogs to bash. It would be classier to keep it anonymous, like your own name (though many of us know it now), to make your point, vs pulling someone's websites to do it. When you're in a gallery, (though you don't show up on EE or anywhere else field-related, so you may not understand), it is rude to make demeaning comments publicly about someone else's dog. 

Bashing show, whatever, been done to death over and over and over on here. If you want to change it, or field for that matter, then breed, judge and/or run events, put your money where your mouth is. Gets old, people who apparently do nothing complaining so long and loudly about those that actually do stuff. In any venue.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Rainmaker said:


> You miss my point. I don't care about the ring, I don't care about anything besides field, I have just as much tunnel vision as anyone. What I find rude and mannerless is people using someone's specifically named dogs to bash. It would be classier to keep it anonymous, like your own name (though many of us know it now), to make your point, vs pulling someone's websites to do it. When you're in a gallery, (though you don't show up on EE or anywhere else field-related, so you may not understand), it is rude to make demeaning comments publicly about someone else's dog.
> 
> Bashing show, whatever, been done to death over and over and over on here. If you want to change it, or field for that matter, then breed, judge and/or run events, put your money where your mouth is. Gets old, people who apparently do nothing complaining so long and loudly about those that actually do stuff. In any venue.


Some people have to work for a living... and do you really think the Show breeders care what I have to say. I am just venting my displeasure that the breed is split so bad . It just sucks.

If a breeder has a web site it is open season to post their links for reference. They open themselves up for criticism by those who understand function. 

As Mary Roslin Williams says... at the least a Labrador should do is *LOOK LIKE A LABRADOR *


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Interesting thread for me because Monday my mother inlaw dropped of a book she had bought for me at a garage sale, that I had never read " The Labrador Retriever the dog that does it all" one of the first chapters is "The history of the Labrador" below are a few pics that I scanned looks like back in the early days they really were some good looking dogs, then see the progression and finally the front cover.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

.44 magnum said:


> Some people have to work for a living... and do you really think the Show breeders care what I have to say. I am just venting my displeasure that the breed is split so bad . It just sucks.
> 
> If a breeder has a web site it is open season to post their links for reference. They open themselves up for criticism by those who understand function.
> 
> As Mary Roslin Williams says... at the least a Labrador should do is *LOOK LIKE A LABRADOR *


Lots of people have to work for a living. Kinda think many on RTF here have a job now and then. My husband and I both have worked since we were teenagers. If you want something badly enough, you find a way to do it. 

No, I doubt the show cares any more than the field does what you or pretty much anyone else thinks about their dogs. Again, that isn't the point. It's having some manners about someone's dog. Period. Be a sportsman and lead by example.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Rainmaker said:


> Lots of people have to work for a living. Kinda think many on RTF here have a job now and then. My husband and I both have worked since we were teenagers. If you want something badly enough, you find a way to do it.
> 
> No, I doubt the show cares any more than the field does what you or pretty much anyone else thinks about their dogs. Again, that isn't the point. It's having some manners about someone's dog. Period. Be a sportsman and lead by example.


Absolutely right. Nobody has any right to criticize the way the breed has split. Understand you are doing the exact same thing to me. Saying I've no right to think breeders have an obligation to breed a Labrador that looks like a Labrador.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

.44 magnum said:


> Absolutely right. Nobody has any right to criticize the way the breed has split. Understand you are doing the exact same thing to me. Saying I've no right to think breeders have an obligation to breed a Labrador that looks like a Labrador.


Are you really that obtuse? I don't care if you bash show, or criticize the breed split. I said, get this straight, linking someone's site on a public forum then bashing them/their dogs, is rude. Try it with a field person, let's see what happens. Pick some RTF member with field accomplishments with a website, post it up and dissect their dogs here, tell everyone what you think is wrong with them, how they are ruining the breed. Let's see, there's a sponsor right on here with some FC's and a website, start there, see what happens. Shoot, start with mine if you want.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Todd Caswell said:


> Interesting thread for me because Monday my mother inlaw dropped of a book she had bought for me at a garage sale, that I had never read " The Labrador Retriever the dog that does it all" one of the first chapters is "The history of the Labrador" below are a few pics that I scanned looks like back in the early days they really were some good looking dogs, then see the progression and finally the front cover.


Great pictures. And I like the Labrador of past greatly. I do not except the way some are breeding Labs with alligator front legs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I'd like to see some of these show-dogs shaved down; they got way too much coat how can I tell if they are truly fat or Husky-over Fluffy; I'm not sure how you can see angles or anything else for that matter with that Newfoundland coat distorting everything. Sure the standard was adjusted to allow for a slight_*wave*_ but these dogs have oceans of hair; Long hair has a tendency to hold water not shed it, I'd bet I'd be cutting off ice-clumps; as most other long-haired breeds if they were hunted in extreme weather.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)




----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

I agree with Rainmaker, bashing individual dogs is not in the best interest of anybody.
I am really bored with this field versus show subject. I have seen some very nice show labs that I think would make wonderful pets.

Gotta run out to the farm to start training my field labs, three days off 

JT


----------



## IdahoLabs (Dec 21, 2011)

They're not kids. Why should it be wrong to critique someone else's dog? Bashing, certainly not, but we shouldn't have to be so PC that we can't say we dislike an animal and the reason.


----------



## BigKahuna13 (Mar 6, 2009)

BigKahuna13 said:


> I like the look on the ones face who is standing on its hind legs "Izzy" I believe is the name of the dog. Poor thing. It looks like the last one picked for dodgeball in gym class.


Withdrawn. Guess nobody has a sense of humor anymore.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

IdahoLabs said:


> They're not kids. Why should it be wrong to critique someone else's dog? Bashing, certainly not, but we shouldn't have to be so PC that we can't say we dislike an animal and the reason.


Go for it. If you have a website, post it here and let others feel free to post here exactly what they don't like about your dogs. Pretty sure you'll find at least some of it as rude. I don't understand why you guys can't just post photos that don't have the owners or dogs' names attached and have at it. We aren't supposed to post names of trainers or breeders or judges or anyone else we have objections to, I don't see this as any different.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

.44 magnum said:


> Inspite of the size of my dog, he is 24 inches tall , with 12 inch front legs. Exactly what the breed standard calls for, as well as from the shoulder to the tail he is 24 inches long.(short coupled) His issue is his watermelon head. If he had a proper head piece I would never as a pet owner have had a chance to own him. She will not show improper Labradors or breed them.
> 
> The reason why he can hunt . I keep him in optimum condition.


So you believe that your dog would be a top winning show dog if it weren't for his head?

I would say that there are many dogs who can't hunt in spite of being kept in top working condition. The fact that yours can hunt in spite of not being primarily bred to do so, to me, speaks volumes about the instinct and trainability retained... If the breeder takes these traits into account when making breeding decisions, halleluia! I'm seeing that more and more these days, thankfully! If, however, it comes naturally and the breeder couldn't care any less about perpetuating those traits, then it leaves me shaking my head (because they are supposed to be sporting dogs and retrievers!) but makes me think perhaps our breed isn't in as much danger with regard to hunting abilities as one would think reading many of these threads regarding "show dogs"...


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Go for it. If you have a website, post it here and let others feel free to post here exactly what they don't like about your dogs. Pretty sure you'll find at least some of it as rude. I don't understand why you guys can't just post photos that don't have the owners or dogs' names attached and have at it. We aren't supposed to post names of trainers or breeders or judges or anyone else we have objections to, I don't see this as any different.


I agree, Kim. With regard to specific people, trainers, kennels, or the specific things they are so proud of, "if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all." It's different to disagree with a breed split or ethics or whatever, or to contact people privately regarding experiences with a trainer for instance, but to constantly harp on someone's specific dogs... There's far more to life to get truly balls-to-the-wall upset about. Look at what's going on in our government or in the world right now!

I also find it somewhat amusing that the same person with such strong opinions on so many pet/breeder/field forums has yet to compete in any of our venues, whether show or field. Sorry but that to me is equal to being yet another armchair quarterback. Why should your opinion mean anything more to me than the next guy? Go out there and DO something to help prove your rants are true!

And yes, my husband and I hunt too (in addition to my own participation in hunt tests, the conformation ring, obedience/rally and even taking beginning agility classes....and we both work. FULL TIME). We were just up in Central CA (sans dogs) hunting pigs and turkeys this past weekend. With the dogs, we have hunted mostly dove, quail, and pheasant.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I'd like to see some of these show-dogs shaved down;


This was the home club of the late George Bragaw who was a real historian of the breed and a Best in Show judge and an avid hunter ... in addition to being a good friend.

http://www.lrcp.com/georgebragaw.shtml

George was noted for one time taking his dog hunting in the area and shooting the limit of Canadas. Then, he went straight from the blind to the show, brushed the dog out and entered the ring as a Special. I asked if he took one of the geese with him and he chuckled and said that he didn't have that much courage and afterall, was hoping to win.

I remember one story that shows his quick wit. George got for his SO, a Golden that had been retired from field trials. The dog (Tamarac's .....?) had developed an aversion, shall we say, to male trainers holding collar remotes. The dog could be with a male trainer or even with females holding the remore but a male trainer holding the remote....nah. Anyway. George and Mary had had the dog for a week and George thought he'd go to the local NAHRA test and enter started just to see whether the dog would pick up birds. Mind the dog was All-Age and had a few points but ... George wanted to know. 

As he told the story, when walking to the line he was convinced the dog was a wash-out ... poking along, smelling the daisies. The got to the line and George sat the dog, said, "Mark" and as he described it, the dog dropped into a sprinters starting position. The bird went up, the judges said dog, and George took the bird from the dog. The did that twice more for a total of about 15 seconds in the field. As they left the line one judge asked, "Where did you get that dog George?" George admitted he was completely astonished but had the sense to say, "He's been trained to got out and pick up the morning paper and we thought we'd try this"


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:


> As he told the story, when walking to the line he was convinced the dog was a wash-out ... poking along, smelling the daisies. The got to the line and George sat the dog, said, "Mark" and as he described it, the dog dropped into a sprinters starting position. The bird went up, the judges said dog, and George took the bird from the dog. The did that twice more for a total of about 15 seconds in the field. As they left the line one judge asked, "Where did you get that dog George?" George admitted he was completely astonished but had the sense to say, "He's been trained to got out and pick up the morning paper and we thought we'd try this"


What a great story!


----------



## Steve Thornton (Oct 11, 2012)

duckstruck said:


> i hope i don't get any of ch lard ass of biscuits and sausage gravy in my dogs pedigree.


lmao!!!!!!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> Ya know, I'd be ticked if people posted links to my dogs on a public forum and started making fun of them or insulting them. It's one thing to generalize about bench vs field or whatever and use a generic photo of unnamed dogs, but picking on someone's specific dog like this is rude.


I agree with Kim. 

The janitor


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

.44 magnum said:


> Some people have to work for a living... and do you really think the Show breeders care what I have to say. I am just venting my displeasure that the breed is split so bad . It just sucks.
> 
> If a breeder has a web site it is open season to post their links for reference. They open themselves up for criticism by those who understand function.
> 
> As Mary Roslin Williams says... at the least a Labrador should do is *LOOK LIKE A LABRADOR *


44 Magnum, I am here to tell you "Yes" those breeders absolutely do care what you write on the world wide web. 

What you "say", among your own pals, or among your own private email groups - probably not so much.

When you post a true business, or a true breeder, with their actual web address and condemn them personally for doing wrong, you better believe they care. It is no different than a restaurant, or other service provider being concerned when they get ratings that are less than stellar.

44 Magnum, I have had personal contact from breeders, referenced (most frequently by folks posting under handles, and not even showing the courage of divulging their true identity) in un-flattering terms, who have their websites come up in google searches - with negative commentary posted about them on RTF.

I think you discount the web traffic RTF generates, and the potential impact on ones' search engine visibility with unflattering, defamatory commentary.

I am fully in support of what Kim wrote.

I have had breeders hire lawyers to come after me to undo stuff that pops up on search engines, mostly from folks posting under handles defaming them.

Please use the golden rule. You don't even put yourself out there by your true name on this resource. So it is not really fair for you to use this resource to slam others, attaching their commercial business web addresses with potentially defamatory commentary.

Chris Atkinson (my real name)


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

You mean that's not Tom Selleck? I'm crushed.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

2tall said:


> You mean that's not Tom Selleck? I'm crushed.


Carol, it's Jesse Stone.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

I have been busy getting my kids through high school for the past few years. Within the last couple of months have been perusing RTF again in anticipation of getting back into the sport. Well, I guess RTF is never done with this tired old topic. We've been at this subject since the inception of this board. It would be nice if we could all just support what everyone does with their dogs whether it be show, field, dock diving, fly ball, agility... I am thankful for all those who take the time (and money) to enjoy activities with their dogs.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Sherri, I agree, that is why I tried to lighten things up a little. I think the reason it will never go away is because we field dog owners are embarrassed by what is displayed to the public as "proper" Labrador retrievers. Our sports don't have the equivalent of a Westminster that is televised for all the world to see. And it is hard, time after time, after time explaining that no, your gorgeous, lean, fit Competitive athlete of a dog is not a lab mix. So we rant and rave here among our compatriots who at least know the differences in the two types. So pointless.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

2tall said:


> You mean that's not Tom Selleck? I'm crushed.


If it is, Higgins (Chris) might just take away the Ferrari!!


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Of course, if you are going to run down the show breeders, you should try to get your information correct. The dogs being shown at Potomac and Westminster are one and the same. Do you think there are two different sets of show labs? You apparently don't have a clue. maybe you should actually try READING the information at the links you were so willing to post. On the page that you sent everyone to regarding the winner at Potomac you will find:

In 2009 Scrubs won an Award of Merit under respected breeder judge Nancy Arbuckle at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club dog show.

So, you are obviously completely misinformed.

It is such a shame to here one set of labrador breeders running down another set. Don't we have enough other people running down dog owners/breeders now-a-days? is it really necessary to run down one another? So show labs aren;t your cup of tea. Is someone telling you that you have to have one? I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

labbie_lover said:


> I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.


HAHA Yeah right; the hyper-active, temperamental, (lack of type/No type); improper/nonfunctional double coat, flat/No-butt, too tall, skinny, grey hounds, have their critics as well. Here you hear the complaining about the fat Show lab, other places ya here the complaining about the field lab. Then there are the brave "insane" ones that try to bridge the gap who get to hear it from both. Don't fool yourself there's venom is on both sides.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> HAHA Yeah right; the hyper-active, temperamental, (lack of type/No type); improper/nonfunctional double coat, flat/No-butt, too tall, skinny, grey hounds, have their critics as well. Here you hear the complaining about the fat Show lab, other places ya here the complaining about the field lab. Then there are the brave "insane" ones that try to bridge the gap who get to hear it from both. Don't fool yourself there's venom is on both sides.


No, sorry, I have NEVER once heard it from a show breeder. We don't really care what the field breeders are doing. My dogs are of moderate size and capable of doing either, but my interests are more towards showing. When I get a call from someone who wants me to explain the difference between the two, I just explain the difference - no criticisms. Like I said, I NEVER here this dribble from anyone I know in the show world. They really aren't that concerned about what field breeders are doing or producing. If someone asked me for a reference for a field breeder, I could actually only name one off the top of my head to point them to. Like I said - really not concerned with what you are doing...


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

labbie_lover said:


> No, sorry, I have NEVER once heard it from a show breeder. We don't really care what the field breeders are doing. My dogs are of moderate size and capable of doing either, but my interests are more towards showing. When I get a call from someone who wants me to explain the difference between the two, I just explain the difference - no criticisms. Like I said, I NEVER here this dribble from anyone I know in the show world. They really aren't that concerned about what field breeders are doing or producing. If someone asked me for a reference for a field breeder, I could actually only name one off the top of my head to point them to. Like I said - *really not concerned with what you are doing*...


And that's the problem! If you don't care to comprehend what a Lab should do in the field, what you are trying to do in the show ring is a waste of time!

The standard was written to describe a working retriever (according to Countess Lorna Howe, the secretary of the LRC/UK when the first standard was written in 1916). If you as a show Lab breeder ignore this fact you're missing the point!!!

Welcome to RTF regards.

Swack


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

"Form follows function." Biological law.

Think about it folks. When the function is to win a beauty contest, the extremes in form will be aesthetic. When the function is to win at work/sport, the extremes in form will be athletic.

Simple! We must decide what is the primary function of the Labrador Retriever? To win beauty contests or to work!

It truly is that simple. Find beauty in the dog that can do the work.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

labbie_lover said:


> I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.


Wow. I sure have! When our field-bred lab took fourth in an Open class of five dogs at licensed dog show, the lady who didn't win a ribbon went up to the judge and read him the riot act. When we entered our field-bred Labs in conformation at the National Specialty in order to qualify for the "Dog for All Reasons" award we were snickered at to our face and laughed at behind our backs.

I started showing Labs in the late 1970s, and have heard more criticism from show breeders toward field breeders than visa versa.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

labbie_lover said:


> No, sorry, I have NEVER once heard it from a show breeder.


I have heard it from both sides relatively consistently. The proof is in the pudding. 
If the show dogs can work then get them in the field and prove it. 
If the field dogs have the looks, get them out to a UKC show or even a CC evaluation, if not an AKC lab specialty show and enter "hunting retriever" to prove it. 
The whole argument gets old, on both sides, and neither side is innocent. To say so is ignorant.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.


Well I have many times. Had the FC/AFC sired guy with me at a show. Walking around the grounds with both the CH/MH sired and the field kid in tow, many overheard comments that the yellow(field) was either a BYB or a rescue! Well he is far from either.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Montview said:


> I have heard it from both sides relatively consistently. The proof is in the pudding.
> If the show dogs can work then get them in the field and prove it.
> If the field dogs have the looks, get them out to a UKC show or even a CC evaluation, if not an AKC lab specialty show and enter "hunting retriever" to prove it.
> The whole argument gets old, on both sides, and neither side is innocent. To say so is ignorant.


I agree - there are a lot of show bred dogs that can do the work-but if you dont train your show lines dogs and continue the instincts, there is no way to prove it. Have to get them out there- not in a FT- but at least train for some basic field level. Its helping to preserve the complete Labrador.
This debate doesnt get old to me because there are always others perspectives on it.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> Of course, if you are going to run down the show breeders, you should try to get your information correct. The dogs being shown at Potomac and Westminster are one and the same. Do you think there are two different sets of show labs? You apparently don't have a clue. maybe you should actually try READING the information at the links you were so willing to post. On the page that you sent everyone to regarding the winner at Potomac you will find:
> 
> In 2009 Scrubs won an Award of Merit under respected breeder judge Nancy Arbuckle at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club dog show.
> 
> ...


Both live in my house and the FC/AFC sired and CH/MH sired are exactly 9 months apart in age. They are not youngsters anymore at almost 9 and 10. I can tell you that I have had the field one bashed many times by the show world, and he has a CC. I can also say that many if not most show dogs are FAT.I can walk over from the ob ring to watch conformation and I see it wiggle and jiggle. Thats why I quit showing mine after he aged out of puppy classes even though he never got dumped.
I can remember the first time I saw Buzz in person and all I thought was FAT and no way Magic was going to get that way. I was disgusted. He was in a battle for #1 in the country. I played your game with a dog that could do it. The worst was getting your number around a bunch of untrained dogs.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

To the non-show people: Many show labs have a decent length of leg and are more moderate than those specialty winners (which are the same that go to Westminster). Specialties, tend to have "breeder judges" as opposed to all breed judges and breeder judges tend to be those that show/win a lot so they go with their preference which is the overdone, short legged, short-muzzled type. I went to that Potomac show once a few years back since our CBR National show was being held at the site; the Labs happened to be showing the day I went. Having shown my own CBR, I'd seen Labs in the rings at the all breed shows and seen many of the more moderate dogs put up so I wasn't prepared for seeing all those overdone kegs on legs in one place. In fact when I got there, I was surprised to see people moussing and sculpting their dogs' coats into Chessy-like waves! One exhibitor was happy to point out a dog that she swore had part of its tail amputated so it would be shorter and thicker! It is possible, but probably not easy, to finish a moderate dog without showing it at specialties, because of how many dogs you need to defeat to earn enough points for majors (you need 2 majors, which are determined by dog numbers) among the 15 points to earn the CH title. Those numbers mean you pretty much have to go to specialties to get the points. And that is hard for a moderate looking dogs because the specialties are the ones with breeder judges that put up what they like. And from what I saw, it's not the moderate ones that actually look as if they might not sink in the water.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

When the standard was re-written in the 1990's, my friend George Bragaw was at the center of the group that disputed the new standard and went to court about it.

George was a real historian of the breed and once took a month to visit the UK simply to read the history and talk to breeders. No visits to the Tower or Madam Toussads. He was there to learn about Labrador Retrievers.

He felt the group backing the revised standard grossly misrepresented the aims of his group. He made two points. First, the standard committee should have consulted with both sides in preparing the re-written standard. He was a member of the standard committee but was not even told when they were meeting. Secondly, he feared that the re-written standard would simply widen the split yet further. He went so far as to suggest that the new standard really envisioned two varieties ... the Labrador Retriever and the American Field Retriever as he called it.

It's interesting to watch his argument unfold. For instance, do any of you know how the revised standard on height came to be? In fact, when the issue came up at the standards committee, no one knew any of the history of the breed as it related to height. So ... the committee went out to the host's kennel and measured his dogs, 4 in number as I recall, and that's the standard!


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Eric Johnson said:


> When the standard was re-written in the 1990's, my friend George Bragaw was at the center of the group that disputed the new standard and went to court about it.
> 
> George was a real historian of the breed and once took a month to visit the UK simply to read the history and talk to breeders. No visits to the Tower or Madam Toussads. He was there to learn about Labrador Retrievers.
> 
> ...


Eric,

Thanks for sharing some of your knowledge from "the old days". I appreciate Labrador history and would love to spend some time in Great Britain researching the breed. IMO, the crown jewels are probably in Sandringham kennels instead of the Tower of London!

However, I think you are mistaken concerning what you call "the revised standard on height" in the 1990's. I compared the Labrador standard from Dorothy Howe's *1984* book entitled _The Labrador Retriever_ with the current AKC Standard, approved February 12, 1994, effective March 31, 1994. The height for dogs was 22.5" - 24.5" and for bitches was 21.5" - 23.5" in both standards, pre-1994 and post-1994. They were the same. They didn't change _at all!_ The only change made with regards to height was the disqualification of Labs a year of age or older that were more than .5" above or below the standard heights for their gender. 

* That isn't changing the height standard. That's enforcing the existing height standard!
*
You may make an argument for changing the height standard to fit your preference or argue that the height standard disqualification should be enforced in both field and show events and that's fine. But to state that the Labrador standard for height was _changed_ isn't an accurate statement. Further, to state that it was changed based on the height measurement of just four Labs is inflammatory and only adds to the confusion and ill wills surrounding this often controversial subject. 


Swack


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Montview said:


> ....There are dogs that can do both games and do them well.....


 There are not. At least not Labs anyway.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Montview said:


> If the show dogs can work then get them in the field and prove it.
> If the field dogs have the looks, get them out to a UKC show or even a CC evaluation, if not an AKC lab specialty show and enter "hunting retriever" to prove it.....


 Breeding selection is 100% about picking your priorities and selecting for them.

The Conformation folks don't care that their dogs can't perform in the field. As long as they can win in the ring.

The Field folks don't care what their dogs look like, as long as they can win in the field.

If you really want to win in either world, you have to not care about the other.
You have to ONLY care about the world that matters.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Swack-

The events surrounding the standard in the 1990's are fairly complex. The standard was rewritten and went to AKC for approval. The Board approved it and when it went to the Delegate body they said, "Whoa." I forget all the issues that were raised but the lawsuit played into the situation plus there was a very suspect vote on the standard by the LRC membership. The LRC was then required by the Board to withdraw their standard as presented and to re-accomplish the vote. When the standard was finely adopted, there was some disconnect about the height that sent all the conformation judges to the wicket for about 6 months. Maybe it was the minimum height? Dunno.

There was also some question on coloration that would have affected yellows. Here I'll say it was a long time and 5 mini-strokes ago but I think the issue related to words to the effect that Labs had to be a solid color and judges were questioning whether darker ears and patches on the elbow and hock joints had to be that way. If so, a lot of yellows would be toast.

I don't know all of the ins and outs but there was a period that really had the conformation folks in a tizzy. As I said, George often said that they should just have two varieties ... the Labrador Retriever and the American Field Retriever ... and be done with it. I also know the story about the setting of the height to be what he said though I maybe confusing then 1994 version for the earlier version.

And that's about all I can contribute.

Eric


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Eric Johnson said:


> Swack-
> 
> The events surrounding the standard in the 1990's are fairly complex. The standard was rewritten and went to AKC for approval. The Board approved it and when it went to the Delegate body they said, "Whoa." I forget all the issues that were raised but the lawsuit played into the situation plus there was a very suspect vote on the standard by the LRC membership. The LRC was then required by the Board to withdraw their standard as presented and to re-accomplish the vote. When the standard was finely adopted, there was some disconnect about the height that sent all the conformation judges to the wicket for about 6 months. Maybe it was the minimum height? Dunno.
> 
> ...


 I was actively showing two dogs during this period. The uproar was because of disqualifications. I was made an example of at the specialty in Raleigh one year ( my dog was) She was a beautiful yellow bitch that had specialty placements previously. Sam was DQ'd for thoroughly lacking pigment . She had a pink winter nose (show was in November in those days) her nose never fully got black after she was 3, BUT she had black eye rims that people would have sworn I used a liner pencil on. That is not a dog that is thoroughly lacking pigment. (Dudley dogs are thoroughly lacking pigment)
I, of course was shocked and mortified that we were disqualified and excused from the ring and immediately started questioning what happened . I was told by several people that my bitch was being used as an example of why the disqualifications in the standard were not a good thing......THAT was the beginning of my lack of love for the show ring....


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

The original intent of showing was to judge your breeding stock against others in the same breed. The Labrador was a everyman and women dog. No longer. That is sad. 

A breeder who has a moderate show dog can't win today with what gets put up for victory in the States. A moderate show dog can't compete in the Field Trials for victory either. 

At the least the Field Trial dogs still perform their function. At the weights the Show dogs are being shown they can't. That is not to say they can't hunt, but they are not being shown in working condition. They are out of breath just trotting around a ring. And I just can't get over the lack of leg. That is just terrible breeding.

The idea of todays Show Labradors being in the Sporting/ Gun dog class is a joke. Mary Roslin Williams is not walking through the door. My apologies for the thread, it's just an old timer wanting Labradors as they were just 20 years ago. Let alone 50. When you get old, you forget times are always changing. It may not be for the better, but it is a big waste of time longing for the past.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I personally have a hard time understanding the breeding for looks thing, if we breed for performance whether it be for FT,HT or just gun dogs and it doesn't fit your expectations it can always be sold to someone who has lower expectations allowing the dog to still perform what it was breed for at some level, say one of the dogs issues may be his marking ability, well he may never be a great marker there are things that can be done to enhance this and he may become a good marker over time, but if the whole intent of the breeding is looks, well either you got it or you don't, not much can be done after that.. Seems strange to me but what do I know or really care for that matter..


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> Breeding selection is 100% about picking your priorities and selecting for them.
> 
> The Conformation folks don't care that their dogs can't perform in the field. As long as they can win in the ring.
> 
> ...


What happens if both worlds matter?
NO ugly labs in this house! I'd rather be dumped in both worlds than rewarded in one!


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Bridget-

After a night to think about it, I came to the same conclusion. The issue that I was talking about that caused all the uproar on size was the new DQ for being not meeting the height standard. This was the aspect that the committee went to the backyard and measured the 4 (?) dogs of the owner and came up with the wording for the standard. 

Rather than a DQ, they could have just put a minimum height in the standard and then just left it at that for the judges to deal with.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

I feel the best way to look at it is there are show labs and field labs. One is not better than the other. If you want to do hunt tests, get a field lab. If you want to do AKC breed ring events, get a show lab. The divide is to great to expect an all purpose lab, meaning field and show. Yes, there are exceptions, which I am sure someone will pointe out to me. But generally speaking, chose your game, then chose your lab.

It is futile to try to change show breeders opinions, as well as guys like me that like field labs.


JT


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

The conformation ring does nothing but destroy the genetics of good working breeds. 
History has borne this out time and time again.

The traits that they select for, and consequently exaggerate, are both absurd and irrelevant.
A functional Retriever, bred for what it can *DO* is a beautiful and healthy animal.

A modern day show bred Lab is a disgraceful abomination. It's the opposite of attractive.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I agree, a lot of them are as you said but there are others that are not. I normally have field trial dogs but dabbled in show dogs as well and found some good ones. I bred one show litter that produced 2 master hunters - one is an HRCH MH and youngest dog to make it to the 2nd or 3rd series of the ESPN super dog trials (remember - even with field trials dogs running he was the youngest to make it that far) and one of the master hunters has 8 show points with a best of breed win and one boy I am messing with - nice dog just slow trainer (me) has 2 senior legs on him but would be farther if I actually trained more. I love to train with this boy! He is a bundle of energy and has a lot of go. The sire of these boys is a GRCH CH Can CH MH UD dog and mom was show pointed. Yes, you can find them.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I looked at the one picture you linked... that is one LOOOONG little doggy.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

SPEED said:


> .....Yes, you can find them.


 Why would you want to try so hard, to find something that doesn't matter?

What it takes to win in the ring, is not what I consider attractive. 
Trying to make it work in the field, just equates to a lot of extra effort and expense, for nothing of value in return.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I originally started looking at good working show dogs with chocolate behind them because I thought the field trial chocolates were getting too... not so pretty. If you look behind some field champions that are better looking you will occasionally find show champions not too far back in the family tree. NFC Rascal is one but there are others.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

SPEED said:


> I originally started looking at good working show dogs with chocolate behind them because I thought the field trial chocolates were getting too... not so pretty. If you look behind some field champions that are better looking you will occasionally find show champions not too far back in the family tree. NFC Rascal is one but there are others.


Selecting for color, is just as silly and destructive as selecting for conformation.

Color is irrelevant. 
But, if you make it a priority, you are then forced to select against other things that really are important.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> Selecting for color, is just as silly and destructive as selecting for conformation.
> 
> Color is irrelevant.
> But, if you make it a priority, you are then forced to select against other things that really are important.


Gotta love those that talk just to hear themselves apparently vs those that actually do something. Julie's produced a whole lot more than you ever have or will, including FC AFC CNAFC CFC He's Czar Nicholas, FC AFC Suncrest Quinoa and a bunch of other HT, agility, OB, titles, narcotic, service dogs, etc. Her breedings are neither silly nor destructive.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> ....including FC AFC CNAFC CFC He's Czar Nicholas, FC AFC Suncrest Quinoa....


 They weren't produced by selecting for conformation. Nor for color.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> They weren't produced by selecting for conformation, nor for color.


You have no freaking idea.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> You have no freaking idea.


 These are the pedigrees.

http://www.huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp?id=13212
http://www.huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp?id=13197


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Thank you Kim. You are too kind. Just for giggles look up AFC Northstar's Bitter Sweet Business MH - double header winner female and chocolate as well. Bred by me - yep - chocolate... I like all colors but I must say I do have something for chocolates.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Eric Johnson said:


> Bridget-
> 
> After a night to think about it, I came to the same conclusion. The issue that I was talking about that caused all the uproar on size was the new DQ for being not meeting the height standard. This was the aspect that the committee went to the backyard and measured the 4 (?) dogs of the owner and came up with the wording for the standard.
> 
> Rather than a DQ, they could have just put a minimum height in the standard and then just left it at that for the judges to deal with.


Eric,

You're right, it was the DQ that drew their anger. The standard DID have a minimum height and a maximum height, but nobody paid any attention to them. So, the LRC gave the standard some teeth with the DQ; AND they even gave people a half inch leeway, plus or minus. What's the problem? If show breeders were breeding to meet the standard there should be no problem! If they aren't they shouldn't be given an award. Where's the issue?

Do I understand that wickets are no longer used? Are the judges no longer following the standard? (Did they ever?)

Swack


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> What happens if both worlds matter?
> NO ugly labs in this house! I'd rather be dumped in both worlds than rewarded in one!


Me Too! So neither world matters. We do what we believe is right and let the rest do their own thing.

Swack


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> They weren't produced by selecting for conformation. Nor for color.


And you know this how? Do you have first hand knowledge of, or photos showing the structure of the sires and dams? Didn't think so.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Sharon Potter said:


> And you know this how? Do you have first hand knowledge of, or photos showing the structure of the sires and dams? Didn't think so.


Sharon,

Even if he had photos, how could he know on what traits the breeder based the selection of sire and dam? 

Swack


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Swack said:


> Sharon,
> 
> Even if he had photos, how could he know on what traits the breeder based the selection of sire and dam?
> 
> Swack


Agreed.  Evidently that information is unimportant? 

Sometimes the need for argument and negativity, masked as an attempt at knowledge, overcomes common sense and respect.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

You're right Sharon. 
Those pedigrees are chock full of dogs that could have walked into the ring and won any show they were entered in.

There isn't a breed split. 
It's all in my head.

We really can have it all. Dual Champion Labs, in any paint job we wish.

There is no performance penalty inherent in selecting for conformation or color.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Swack said:


> Do I understand that wickets are no longer used? Are the judges no longer following the standard? (Did they ever?)
> 
> Swack


No. Of course they're still in use. However, most judges have a sense of where on their leg a dog should come up to so they don't generally use the wicket. I've seen many a judge stride up to a dog and pause at the withers. He's measuring the dog.

In my breed, we have words, direst quote, ... "Whiskers must be present." From time to time we see a pro handler who has removed the whiskers. However, we didn't make it a DQ (you are allowed only 3 DQ as I recall) and the standards committee didn't want to waste one so they worded it in the positive like I quoted. However, that leaves an opening from the judge to say, "Even with the whiskers removed, this was the better dog." and you can't argue about it ... I've tried. This really frosts me because without the whiskers, the dog has a terrible time with the wind in the field so their removal goes against the phrase of "working condition."


----------



## 1NarlyBar (Jul 10, 2008)

Wow. I haven't even poked around here for quite a while and I see this immediately. 

I just hope that you all are thankful the that the retriever community has not yet seen the vast division between Field and Show lines like the Setter people have seen. It is really sad when you take two dogs that are from the same breed and one its more than 6-8 inches taller with about 8 inches more length on the coat. 

And you know what's really funny, although I have not been playing with pointers very long, I have not had a single client bring me a "Field" bred Setter. They are all huge, long coated goobers. Half of them are birdie and OK. The other half, well, why did they(the owners) even bother to drive an hour and a half just to spend money on a lesson when the dog would rather chase butterflies over birds. 

Please don't let this happen to any retriever breed. And yes, I have already seen the beginning of it.

RG


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> You're right Sharon.
> Those pedigrees are chock full of dogs that could have walked into the ring and won any show they were entered in.
> 
> There isn't a breed split.
> ...


Possibly if you understood the terminology. Conformation refers to a dog's structure, doesn't have anything to do with whether a dog is show or field-bred. Many field Labs have good structure, some people even care that their Labs look like Labs, and yet have zero interest in the show ring. Breeding a snipey faced Lab with a tail curled over its back and aggression issues solely because it wins in FT could be considered just as narrow a view as breeding for a particular color. Both can have less than desirable consequences for the breed, overall, if you look at it objectively. We are usually not objective about our breed. 

Breeding isn't simple, whatever one's goals. There are many factors to consider and every breeder has their own criteria, including color and "looks". Having a color or "look" preference in a particular breeding doesn't mean one is destroying a breed, if there are other things like health, ability, etc, also in the mix. Like training, it's called balance. Too much pressure, too much focus on one thing, or vice versa, too little, throws everything else out of wack.

FWIW, I don't believe there will be a true Dual Champion in Labs for a very long time, if ever again. I very seriously dislike the "Specialty" type Lab, the "kegs on legs", though I don't think they have much leg, for that matter. Maybe it is the excessive weight and coat and maybe there is a working dog under there somewhere, can't tell from photos. I have zero interest in the ring, they do their thing, I do mine, as long as the dogs are cared for and I'm left alone, I just don't care what they do. FT tend to be all-consuming, if you are serious about getting an FC/AFC. Even trying for a CH/MH takes more resources than I'd care to spend, for something in which I have little interest. Those that do, good for them, they are doing SOMETHING, which is more than some, who just remain anonymous while passing judgment by publicly calling out individuals. So, I'd agree, you pick FT or bench, but not both, not if you want to win at one of them. They are pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum for Labradors as a breed. I choose performance first, but, I don't want an ugly Lab either. It still happens, I hardly have a houseful of gorgeously perfect Labs, but, none of us are perfect. Part of the motivation is the trying.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:


> Bridget-
> 
> After a night to think about it, I came to the same conclusion. The issue that I was talking about that caused all the uproar on size was the new DQ for being not meeting the height standard. This was the aspect that the committee went to the backyard and measured the 4 (?) dogs of the owner and came up with the wording for the standard.
> 
> Rather than a DQ, they could have just put a minimum height in the standard and then just left it at that for the judges to deal with.


Goldens have had a DQ for size as long as I can remember, and it has not really made a difference. Rarely have I seen a show Golden who is under-sized, but have seen those who are over-sized. There may be some field-bred Goldens who are undersize. Don't know of many that are oversize. I have produced a couple of Goldens (males) that were over 25" ... and yet, those pedigrees were primarily of field genes  Go figure! I had been told that there was an old-time field Golden, Major Drum**, who was 26". He was the sire of Tigathoe's Chickasaw***.

I believe it was that minimum size DQ that worried the show people. At field trials I could see the variation. Some very small field Labs, and then others, like that of a friend, who had a male that looked like a smallish Great Dane in size. From a pragmatic standpoint, I can see why height (and, generally, size) could be a legitimate factor for functional purpose. 

In conformation, Goldens also have had a period of shortening of legs and people began to complain that they were getting to look a bit too much like Clumber Spaniels ... whose functional purpose was not the same as the Golden. People began to consciously move away from the short legs (which also had some impact on creating longer bodies). When the issue became very obvious, Golden breeders began to veer away from the shorter legs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

On the chocolate tangent; most of chocolate coloration was brought in from the show side. If you look at most field chocolates, there will be show in their pedigree 3-5-7 generations back. Most of this color was _removed_ from field stock early on, the show side choose to bring it back. However it was brought back when field and show labs were still pretty much the same dog; when there was still DC's (as most of those chocolate carrying dogs were DualChamps) so perhaps the point is mute >


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Swack said:


> And that's the problem! If you don't care to comprehend what a Lab should do in the field, what you are trying to do in the show ring is a waste of time!
> 
> The standard was written to describe a working retriever (according to Countess Lorna Howe, the secretary of the LRC/UK when the first standard was written in 1916). If you as a show Lab breeder ignore this fact you're missing the point!!!
> 
> ...



It is a bit presumptuous of you to assume that I don't care to comprehend what a Lab should do in the field. I just said that MY interests lie with showing. I also said that I breed moderate sized labs capable of doing both. Just because I said that I am not interested in competing in the field doesn't mean that I don't breed labs for their intended purpose. My husband hunts with our dogs. Does that not count? I actually believe that is what labs are REALLY intended for.

I just spoke up to correct the completely incorrect postings by the original poster about how dogs shown at Westminter are different than those shown at Potomac. And I assure you that I spend more time at dog shows than the people who claim to hear all the bad mouthing at them about field breeders and I have never heard it. Sure there are examples out there, I suppose. I know there are lots of breeders that compete in the field and have on their websites that life is too short to hunt with an ugly dog. But, I guess that just proves my point all that much more. These are breeders breeding hunting dogs that are bad mouthing field breeders - not breeders breeding for the show ring. I have never seen any such language on a show breeder's site. I compel anyone on this forum to find such an example on a show breeder's site.

Maybe field breeders feel they are being attacked, but I believe they are being attacked by their own, not from where I sit. I know that I would never bad mouth a field breeder. I have no issue with what you are doing. You are breeding your dogs how you see fit. They are different than what the show breeders breed, but they still share a lot of similarities also. They have the same great temperaments. They all have the desire to please and retrieving instincts and they all love the water. I have no issue with the differences. Field labs are bred to "specialize" in what is needed for field competition, but show labs (most anyway - I agree some are overdone, but it is a minority), are perfectly capable of spending a day out hunting, so I just don't understand what the big issue is.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Julie R. said:


> To the non-show people: Many show labs have a decent length of leg and are more moderate than those specialty winners (which are the same that go to Westminster). Specialties, tend to have "breeder judges" as opposed to all breed judges and breeder judges tend to be those that show/win a lot so they go with their preference which is the overdone, short legged, short-muzzled type. I went to that Potomac show once a few years back since our CBR National show was being held at the site; the Labs happened to be showing the day I went. Having shown my own CBR, I'd seen Labs in the rings at the all breed shows and seen many of the more moderate dogs put up so I wasn't prepared for seeing all those overdone kegs on legs in one place. In fact when I got there, I was surprised to see people moussing and sculpting their dogs' coats into Chessy-like waves! One exhibitor was happy to point out a dog that she swore had part of its tail amputated so it would be shorter and thicker! It is possible, but probably not easy, to finish a moderate dog without showing it at specialties, because of how many dogs you need to defeat to earn enough points for majors (you need 2 majors, which are determined by dog numbers) among the 15 points to earn the CH title. Those numbers mean you pretty much have to go to specialties to get the points. And that is hard for a moderate looking dogs because the specialties are the ones with breeder judges that put up what they like. And from what I saw, it's not the moderate ones that actually look as if they might not sink in the water.


I have NEVER heard of of seen someone putting mousse on a show labs coat. That is just plain ridiculous. Half of them don't even get baths before a show. At all breed shows, stewards say the judges hate to judge the labs because they think they are "dirty". So, I would love to know where you saw mousse applied. I would also like to know when a Chessie show was held on the grounds of the Potomac show. I go to Potomac every year and have NEVER seen that happen. I have also NEVER heard o a lab's tail being amputated. It would actually make the dog ineligible to compete. They are not allowed to be altered through surgery in any way. Also, lab entries at all breed shows are plenty big enough to get your majors. I went to an all breed show 2 weekends ago and there was a labrador entry of 72. No problem getting majors at the all breeds! I just wish that more of the info that I read on this forum was accurate!


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

I have a question brought on by a comment I read on this thread. It was mentioned that dogs meant to be shown in the speciality class are "overdone". What is different about these labs as opposed to regular show labs?

I am a complete novice when it comes to showing labs, mine are from what I have been told whippets.


JT


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

::::raising hand::::

I have a question. 

Has anyone here ever heard a strictly show breeder say that they breed for the extreme rather than moderation? It seems every one I've heard/talked to claims moderation.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Mousse... I have known people to do it. If you have a dog with too soft a coat - mousse them and it hardens up the coat. Not something I would care to do because you are misrepresenting your dog. I just give them a bath about a week before the show or brush off the mud before we go into the ring. I do spray on a mixture of Listerine and water to get a better sheen on my dogs coat. (I do prefer field but since I do have a couple pretty dogs I might as well show them). I have seen people mousse the tail as well to get it to look fuller. You can buy shampoo that makes the coat more wiry, black stuff made specifically to put on your dogs nose if your dog has dudley nose. All kinds of things... I have a friend who spent hours getting his golden ready for the ring and had all kinds of different colored powders to highlight her face. Kind of interesting... A whole different world. He even took a class on how to trim your dog to hide faults. A whole different world.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Jeffrey Towler said:


> I have a question brought on by a comment I read on this thread. It was mentioned that dogs meant to be shown in the speciality class are "overdone". What is different about these labs as opposed to regular show labs?
> 
> I am a complete novice when it comes to showing labs, mine are from what I have been told whippets.
> 
> ...


I disagree that dogs meant for the specialty classes are overdone. As I said before, the same dogs show in all breed shows and specialties. I show in both as well. There is a HUGE variation in labs of all kinds. You can see this at any show. Some are really big (overdone). And if you look at all the dogs from these breeders, they are all that way. It is that breeder's preference. But I believe that is the exception, not the rule in show dogs. It is easy to grab a few examples of show labs that are too big and then criticize the whole lot, but there are plenty of very athletic show labs. It is really a matter of people's preferences that causes the differences. I like the English lab look better than the American lab look, but I had someone come to see a puppy over the summer that brought their American lab with them and he was drop dead gorgeous. So, I really try not to generalize about one group or the other. It is really all breeder specific, and we all have our own idea about what looks or functions best. I think show breeders need to make sure they breed dogs that can spend a day out in the field, but I believe that most can.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Sharon Potter said:


> ::::raising hand::::
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Has anyone here ever heard a strictly show breeder say that they breed for the extreme rather than moderation? It seems every one I've heard/talked to claims moderation.


No, those breeders probably like what they are breeding and see it as "correct", or they would not be breeding it. Can't say I have ever heard a field breeder say that they breed for the thinnest build or head they can. What's your point?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

labbie_lover said:


> I have NEVER heard of of seen someone putting mousse on a show labs coat. That is just plain ridiculous. Half of them don't even get baths before a show. At all breed shows, stewards say the judges hate to judge the labs because they think they are "dirty". So, I would love to know where you saw mousse applied. I would also like to know when a Chessie show was held on the grounds of the Potomac show. I go to Potomac every year and have NEVER seen that happen. I have also NEVER heard o a lab's tail being amputated. It would actually make the dog ineligible to compete. They are not allowed to be altered through surgery in any way. Also, lab entries at all breed shows are plenty big enough to get your majors. I went to an all breed show 2 weekends ago and there was a labrador entry of 72. No problem getting majors at the all breeds! I just wish that more of the info that I read on this forum was accurate!


Please remember that your experience doesn't speak for the whole world...it just speaks to what you have personally experienced. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 

I have personally had my hands on three show Labs that had very blunt ends to their tails rather than a taper...and all three were missing the very tip of their tails (maybe an inch). The scar tissue was obvious when I looked through the hair. It happens when people confuse an otter tail...meaning wide at the base and tapering to the tip....with a blunted, thick club.

I have seen moussed Labs as well, again with the tail thing being primary. Make that hair stand out so it looks even thicker. While it may not be common/everybody doing it, it is done. 

And not every show is going to have huge Lab entries....making a major is not always easy. Different areas of the country can vary widely as to entries.

I read Julie's post as saying she went to the Potomac show because the Chessie specialty was going to be held *on those grounds*. Sounds like she just wanted to see the show grounds prior to attending the specialty.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

SPEED said:


> Mousse... I have known people to do it. If you have a dog with too soft a coat - mousse them and it hardens up the coat. Not something I would care to do because you are misrepresenting your dog. I just give them a bath about a week before the show or brush off the mud before we go into the ring. I do spray on a mixture of Listerine and water to get a better sheen on my dogs coat. (I do prefer field but since I do have a couple pretty dogs I might as well show them). I have seen people mousse the tail as well to get it to look fuller. You can buy shampoo that makes the coat more wiry, black stuff made specifically to put on your dogs nose if your dog has dudley nose. All kinds of things... I have a friend who spent hours getting his golden ready for the ring and had all kinds of different colored powders to highlight her face. Kind of interesting... A whole different world. He even took a class on how to trim your dog to hide faults. A whole different world.


I know there are tons of powders, etc used on other breeds. I've watched other breeds grooming their dogs at the shows, but I have certainly never done any type of special grooming for a show. I do bathe mine because we live on a farm and they get dirty, but other than that no "product", and they have a beautiful sheen. People have asked me what I use to make my black dogs shine, but I swear I don't use a thing on their coats. I wash them with Spectrum One Shampoo made for course coats / double coats, but use nothing else. Don't even brush them unless they are shedding.

BTW, I am familar with your dogs and even considered breeding to Chase back in the day. I was very sad to hear when he passed. That similar pedigree is still very prevalent in the show ring for chocolates. Great examples of dogs that can do it all. I applaud your contributions to the breed!


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Sharon Potter said:


> Please remember that your experience doesn't speak for the whole world...it just speaks to what you have personally experienced. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> 
> I have personally had my hands on three show Labs that had very blunt ends to their tails rather than a taper...and all three were missing the very tip of their tails (maybe an inch). The scar tissue was obvious when I looked through the hair. It happens when people confuse an otter tail...meaning wide at the base and tapering to the tip....with a blunted, thick club.
> 
> ...


It just seems odd to me that the people on this forum who proclaim their dislike of the show labs seem to see more stuff going on in the show ring than I do when I am at a show almost EVERY weekend. You are right, I am certainly not at EVERY show in the world, but I dare to say I am at more of them than you are, and that I interact with more show breeders than you do, so I can't understand why you see all this stuff going on, and show breeders amputating ends of tails, when I never have. Actually, a breeder seminar was given at Potomac this year and the presenter said that someone new working for her cut off the swizzles (end pieces of hair on the tail), and that she threw an absolute fit and he never made that mistake again. Doesn't sound like people that would amputate an actual part of the tail when they get that upset over cuting off a tiny bit of hair. When I first started out, a dog groomer "helping" me learn to show, cut off a little unruly piece of hair and when I told a more experienced lab breeder/handler about it, she told me to NEVER cut a lab's coat. She said taking scissors to a lab's coat is a sin. I have heard that so many times over the years. So do these same people cut off parts of tails - and I have NEVER seen it? Just doesn't seem very believeable to me.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Uh huh. Well, Sharon and Julie are on here a lot. Never thought either one of them to be a...liar.
You really are digging yourself a big hole. Stop now.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Again, painting with a very broad brush. Of course there are people who don't do that stuff. And of course there are people who do. Good for you for not doing it. And I'm pretty sure that those who do that stuff aren't going to admit it if you ask them.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

cakaiser said:


> Uh huh. Well, Sharon and Julie are on here a lot. Never thought either one of them to be a...liar.
> You really are digging yourself a big hole. Stop now.


I wouldn't be on here at all if the original poster had not posted those breeder names/links. I found this forum when I googled something about the Potomac show and I was mortified by the stuff I saw you all were posting. I don't believe that I ever called anyone a liar. I also don't believe that I am the one digging the hole. I even think that I gave Julie props for what great dogs she breeds. I am just stating what I know to be true and what I have and have not seen. I am sorry that you don't like it, but if you post breeder names and bash them, then you are inviting people such as myself to find your forum. I believe that is what I have said from the time I started posting - that I would just like you to stop bashing the show breeders. I really don't think I am the one at fault here. I take it you don't like that I invaded your forum, but it was caused by the actions of the original poster.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Sharon Potter said:


> Again, painting with a very broad brush. Of course there are people who don't do that stuff. And of course there are people who do. Good for you for not doing it. And I'm pretty sure that those who do that stuff aren't going to admit it if you ask them.


>> Again, painting with a very broad brush

And you are not?

>> And I'm pretty sure that those who do that stuff aren't going to admit it if you ask them

But you know they do it and I don't?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

ROFL. Eons ago my childhood friend's mother showed retrievers, I was amazed one day to find out she was using hair dye to cover up a white blaze on a chest. Pretty sure if Sharon and Julie said they saw it, they saw it. They didn't claim all do it, just that they've seen it.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Rainmaker said:


> ROFL. Eons ago my childhood friend's mother showed retrievers, I was amazed one day to find out she was using hair dye to cover up a white blaze on a chest. Pretty sure if Sharon and Julie said they saw it, they saw it. They didn't claim all do it, just that they've seen it.


Well, I can agree with that statement at least. There are always people willing to be stupid. However, a show dog could never get away with having part of the tail amputated. The judge inspects the dog with their hands and goes the whole way out the tail. If a piece was missing, they would feel it just as Sharon said she did, so there would be no point in doing it. The dog would most likely be disqualified, and if not, he would never win, so there would be no incentive for doing this. If anyone actually did this, they would be a very special kind of stupid, because in so doing, they would eliminate themselves from competition.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/UKCmembers/10152328608795837/ (regarding the LRC letter to the AKC judges).
I only hope this is true, and that it was distributed to ALL AKC Labrador judges AND the reps. Clap clap clap LRC!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

labbie_lover said:


> Well, I can agree with that statement at least. There are always people willing to be stupid. However, a show dog could never get away with having part of the tail amputated. The judge inspects the dog with their hands and goes the whole way out the tail. If a piece was missing, they would feel it just as Sharon said she did, so there would be no point in doing it. The dog would most likely be disqualified, and if not, he would never win, so there would be no incentive for doing this. If anyone actually did this, they would be a very special kind of stupid, because in so doing, they would eliminate themselves from competition.


Wherever there is competition with subjective judging, there will be those who try to cheat. Some venues are easier than others.

And for the record, I was at a dog show last weekend and watched the Labs being judged. There was no end to end examination of tails being done. The judge barely put his hands on the dogs...it was cursory at best. Just going through the motions half-heartedly.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

For the record, I do agree that specific breeders names and websites being posted by others wanting to criticize them is not cool.

However, posting win pics without naming names is fine by me. Especially when those dogs are supposed to represent the perfect conformation for the breed, yet look nothing like the photo in the breed standard.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> https://www.facebook.com/groups/UKCmembers/10152328608795837/ (regarding the LRC letter to the AKC judges).
> I only hope this is true, and that it was distributed to ALL AKC Labrador judges AND the reps. Clap clap clap LRC!


No Kidding! I hope that the judges then pay attention to it....


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I like it! In condition without excess fat. I showed a boy who was in super shape and I think I had everyone scared. He got dumped. This same boy has quite a few show points but I had to show him fat to get them. Oh, I love field trial dogs - just that it is getting harder to find the handsome ones. FC AFC Suncrest Wild Oat's is one good looking boy, I bred my Cougar girl to FC AFC Yellowstone's TNT explosion and got a field trial boy who could have finished in the show ring. Those dogs are getting harder and harder to find though. Oatie is definitely a boy worth taking a look at and I would not be ashamed to take him into the show ring. Now find me some more field champions like him. I am getting tired of looking...


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

windycanyon said:


> https://www.facebook.com/groups/UKCmembers/10152328608795837/ (regarding the LRC letter to the AKC judges).
> I only hope this is true, and that it was distributed to ALL AKC Labrador judges AND the reps. Clap clap clap LRC!


Love it! And I really hope it helps change things. 

But I wonder how it will play out, since when questioned about the weight there's a lot of "The dog isn't fat....it's just coat...if you could put your hands on them you'd feel that". There are some lovely, moderate dogs out there....and I really hope they get used more.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> Love it! And I really hope it helps change things.
> 
> But I wonder how it will play out, since when questioned about the weight there's a lot of "The dog isn't fat....it's just coat...if you could put your hands on them you'd feel that". There are some lovely, moderate dogs out there....and I really hope they get used more.


Especially when people are thinking nothing of 90- 110+ lb CH dogs anymore. Like I really want to put my 58-65# girls with dogs that big.... when did it get this far out of hand?


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I understand the coat. I have one show girl who has a super coat, hard to the touch and feels like wax is on it. I don't care how thin I get her she still looks fat. It makes their legs look shorter as well.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

labbie_lover said:


> And I assure you that I spend more time at dog shows than the people who claim to hear all the bad mouthing at them about field breeders and I have never heard it.


Do you really think so? Interesting. Perhaps I am not at as many shows as I have thought over the years...

I stand by my claim that I have heard just as many show breeders talking smack about field dogs as field breeders (and trainers) talking smack about show dogs.  I remember being mortified when I brought my first real show dog to an area field training day and a couple of the "big trainers" helping out us newbies asked me if I'd rather I have them launch Snausages than bumpers for my first go. They changed their tune pretty quickly when they saw his water entries and other work, but even to this day, we have a lot of friendly banter between all of us. I love it! 

Also- I would say that we see far more lab grooming here on the West Coast than on the East Coast. When I've been to the Potomac a few years (the last time I attended and showed one of my specials was in 2012), most of the east coast dogs leave a good layer of grime on your fingers when you pet them a bit... I've heard that complaint from more than several judges too. On the west coast, people often bathe their "ripe" show dogs (especially after a summer day spent doing water retrieves at Prado, though the conditions there are MUCH better these days than they used to be) with "hard-coat/terrier" shampoo a few days prior to the show and if you attend the west coast specialties, many of the big name breeders will have a blower and grooming table (with grooming products like mousses etc) set up away from the rings.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

SPEED said:


> I understand the coat. I have one show girl who has a super coat, hard to the touch and feels like wax is on it. I don't care how thin I get her she still looks fat. It makes their legs look shorter as well.


Mine too- Even out of coat, my adult black boy tends to look pretty bulky because of thick coat. Not long...just dense/thick. One of my specials also has extra skin around his face/throat/flews. While not correct, it hasn't hurt him much in the show ring nor has it hurt him doing performance stuff or when hunting. No dog is perfect. If you have a dog with a cleaner throat/neck who can barely move competing against a dog who isn't as clean through the throat/neck but who floats effortlessly around the ring, I can tell you which I would choose over the other... probably because of my background in equestrian sports. 

My point is that you really have to look at the whole dog, feel their weight/structure (THROUGH their coat), and watch them move to be able to see why a dog may be a big winner in the show ring. 

Just like there is no way to judge how well a dog can mark, take straight lines, blow through cover changes, hold a bird, stay quietly on the line, etc. etc. etc. by a photo...


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

windycanyon said:


> https://www.facebook.com/groups/UKCmembers/10152328608795837/ (regarding the LRC letter to the AKC judges).
> I only hope this is true, and that it was distributed to ALL AKC Labrador judges AND the reps. Clap clap clap LRC!


Show judges have been thumping there noses at the LRC for a long time, a letter is not stopping their disdain for the standard.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Montview said:


> On the west coast, people often bathe their "ripe" show dogs (especially after a summer day spent doing water retrieves at Prado, though the conditions there are MUCH better these days than they used to be) with "hard-coat/terrier" shampoo a few days prior to the show and if you attend the west coast specialties, many of the big name breeders will have a blower and grooming table (with grooming products like mousses etc) set up away from the rings.


Funny thing Julie, the only consistent points off my dogs at the LRC CC and IABCA shows has been regarding my girls' soft coats! Perhaps I need to get w/ a Terrier breeder or leave them grimier in the future... lol. 

I am confused by the excess skin issue though. My first girl (all field, descended from the old Hiwood lines) was jowly and had all that neck skin. My interpretation of the standard back then (early 90's) was that was wrong. It seems almost to be in vogue now, however. And here I worked hard to breed it out! 

I think my biggest concern w/ the current show lines however is that the outline more closely resembles a Newf w/ the deep bodies. That's where all the extra weight is hiding too-- not in height, that's for sure. I am fielding an incredible number of phone calls (despite my plea for folks to email since I try to work from my home) from people looking for the old classic looking Lab. They are all complaining about the heavy bodies, heavy coats, and Mastiffy looking heads in the show ring when they go to the Meet the Breed functions, etc, that our club has a booth at. These are hunters, competitors, and a lot of just plain pet homes. If they are seeing the changes in the ring as being incorrect, why can't the judges? Or better, why WON'T the judges not support this? 

I'm trying hard here to produce pups to the standard, and I (like Julie Mach) am having an incredibly hard time finding dogs to breed to that meet my specs. Even temperament has changed and I've found some defend their mellow couch potatoes as being "easier to live with" etc. They are LABRADOR RETRIEVERS! They should have the enthusiasm to hunt, do obedience, SAR, etc! What the heck.... I love Newfs and Saints (which I grew up with), etc, but if I wanted one, I'd buy one.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

SPEED said:


> Now find me some more field champions like him. I am getting tired of looking...


TNT explosion did thow looks.
Look Into FC. AFC Roux, the Barracuda blue-lines, Way to Go Rocky, Honest Abe, Rebel and their get. Might also look into Riptide storm (he came from show-field lines). The chocolates came into the field side later they still hold a lot of the show influence as far as bone, muscle and head. (Not today's show influence to be sure; you will not find the Rottweiler nose, and they are larger dogs (think CH Shamrock Acres Light Brigade ("Briggs") For today's show influence you'd probably have to go for the CH-MHs. Also go on Hunting-lab pedigree, and trace the DCs forward FC Freehavens muscles, threw looks; his daddy and brother were DC's.

I bred to FC AFC Roux MH, all the pups turned out in standard (height & weight), well muscled, bone, nice head, good strong back end-balanced angles. One guy brought his for me too watch, ~10mt old I had one of those OH MY GOD.. I bred a Show lab.. where the Heck did that come from moments.  Complete show head, chest, back-end and tail. I had to ask him if it was the same dog; then I told him to take the puppy fat off of him . By Duck season, he had a good looking muscular brute on his hands, True substance baby .

This is my Girl out of that; Not nearly as showy as her bother; but what I like


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I'll second Roux. He's a good lookin' boy.


----------



## labbie_lover (Apr 18, 2014)

Montview said:


> Do you really think so? Interesting. Perhaps I am not at as many shows as I have thought over the years...
> 
> I stand by my claim that I have heard just as many show breeders talking smack about field dogs as field breeders (and trainers) talking smack about show dogs.  I remember being mortified when I brought my first real show dog to an area field training day and a couple of the "big trainers" helping out us newbies asked me if I'd rather I have them launch Snausages than bumpers for my first go. They changed their tune pretty quickly when they saw his water entries and other work, but even to this day, we have a lot of friendly banter between all of us. I love it!
> 
> Also- I would say that we see far more lab grooming here on the West Coast than on the East Coast. When I've been to the Potomac a few years (the last time I attended and showed one of my specials was in 2012), most of the east coast dogs leave a good layer of grime on your fingers when you pet them a bit... I've heard that complaint from more than several judges too. On the west coast, people often bathe their "ripe" show dogs (especially after a summer day spent doing water retrieves at Prado, though the conditions there are MUCH better these days than they used to be) with "hard-coat/terrier" shampoo a few days prior to the show and if you attend the west coast specialties, many of the big name breeders will have a blower and grooming table (with grooming products like mousses etc) set up away from the rings.


I am an East Coaster, so that might explain the grooming issues. Still can't buy into that tail amputation thing - judges hands are always all over my dog from head to tail and that should not be a regional thing - judges travel the country. I hate to think that the East Coast breeders have better manners than those on the west coast and that is why I don't hear the comments about field breeders, but I can 100% honestly say that I have NEVER heard it. It just REALLY bothers me to hear one group of labrador breeders ripping into another when we all love this wonderful breed. We are lucky to have such a versatile breed.


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

labbie_lover said:


> I am an East Coaster, so that might explain the grooming issues. Still can't buy into that tail amputation thing - judges hands are always all over my dog from head to tail and that should not be a regional thing - judges travel the country. I hate to think that the East Coast breeders have better manners than those on the west coast and that is why I don't hear the comments about field breeders, but I can 100% honestly say that I have NEVER heard it. It just REALLY bothers me to hear one group of labrador breeders ripping into another when we all love this wonderful breed. We are lucky to have such a versatile breed.


I think it is great that you are in the show ring and actually use your dogs in the field. I know nothing of the show world. I am sure that there is a lot to it. However, don't you believe that there is a lot to the field world? There are many things seen and done, just because you haven't witnessed them does not make them untrue. I am sure that there are gifted show pedigree dogs for field activities. However, I have also seen (with my own two eyes) on many occasions show labs with no field skills at all, a real disservice to the breed. I think everyone here agrees with you that we admire the lab, which is why so many of us voice a concern over the rewards of stocky short-legged labs that seem to represent at the highest level of public viewership. Many more on this forum hunt and participate in field events then probably those that are in the show world. The ability to perform as a gundog is one of the defining qualities of the breed. To have the public representatives of the breed that lack any ability in the field is sad. I am not arguing to go towards a full blown field phenotype but rather maybe to a "middle" ground that you yourself may already breed (moderate show dogs who hunt). I think that was the basis for this post. It is not (or should not be) an all out bashing of the show world.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Well said and I agree with you totally. Labs are first and foremost a working dog. I would love to see more master hunter show champions and better yet QAA dogs. I would also like to see some very respectable looking field trial dogs get a couple show points. What I have been hearing from many show people is that they do not have the time or resources to both show their dogs and prove them in the field. I guess I can understand. Many show people have no clue even how to train a gun dog and can't afford a pro to do it for them. For the field trial dogs they have the International All Breed show where the dogs are not judged against each other but are judged against the standard - kind of like a hunt test. You could get an international all breed champion title never having won a class - but - your dog has to fit the standard. So, I guess it goes both ways. I got an international champion title on one of my field trial dogs in one weekend where he received four awards of exceedingly excellent or however they say it. I have seen a smattering of other field trial bred dogs there as well who have been rewarded with a title. Field people should give it a shot - and get a different view of the Labrador world. It is a very informal thing and the judges actually write a critique of for your dog for you to keep. It is fun to see what four different judges think of your dog. If your dog is a good representative of the standard it is just one more feather in your cap. I had a good friend onetime tell me he liked his labs to have a head so narrow if it hit a knothole in a tree it would get it's head stuck... In Minnesota they have two weekend all breed shows a year. I think one is coming up soon in Hutchinson Minnesota. Check out their site http://www.iabca.com/


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Labbie; We all understand that you like your type, and You've done a good job in defending them. There are a few on this forum that cross-venues. It was unfortunate that the names were listed etc. However to people that work labradors; we get a little prickly when the dogs that are paraded around at these very public; large shows; defined as the best of the best representation of the breed, in a Working Dog category. Do not in anyway represent nor look like a the vast majority of Labradors that actually work. They also look nothing akin to CH Labradors that held DC and major wins for most of the history of the breed. We would all love to see a Labrador win at one of those shows, we would all love to see the return of Dual-Champions; however the specialized show lab we are seeing right now will never take the big prize until they get back to being shown as a true working dog. The Labrador is one of the most versatile working breeds there is. They should be able to hold their own in both the Working world and Show world with the other breeds. However Show-wise If we compare the lab to all the other dogs in the working group; the Show labs cumbersome look just doesn't fit. On the other hand Labradors continue to out shine their compatriots in almost every performance venue. FTs, HT Agility, OB, Show; we all strive to prove our breed-dog is the best; it's the mentality of people running such events. The Lab is a great breed it should win in all breed conformation just as it dominates in other competitive venues. However the Labs dominating in those others venues don't look anything like the conformation lab; There is something wrong with this.

You say the Show lab people do not care about what the other representations of the breed do ... So Why do the field people care what the show people do? (We all represent the SAME breed; thus We all should care) Do not mistake; people on this forum care about what every representation of the Labrador breed and what every breeder/keeper of the breed does. We care that Labs win FT, are the best represented breed at HT's, are the best hunter companion breed, are the best family dog. We care that bomb-drug-cadaver SAR dogs are Labradors, that breed is represented well in Agility-OB, pointing trials, and Dock diving. We care that breeders breed correct temperament and health screen their dogs. We care and are proud that the go to dog for anything you want to do is a Labrador. Thus we also care the conformation lab; the poster child for what a breed is supposed to look like; correctly represents a greatly accomplished, versatile athletic dog. As this is what we are all in our own way represent by running and proving the same breed in our chosen venues. Thus when many see the highly specialized look of the Show Lab; that doesn't appear to be anything akin to what runs in performance venues, nor what historically a Lab used to look like; they rant and rave (because they most assuredly care, how their breed is represented in all aspects).

Still welcome to the forum I hope you stick around, perhaps learn a bit and perhaps start caring what other dogs that also represent Labrador; a breed we all love; are doing to prove and keep the breed as versatile and as accomplished in all venues as it can possibility be.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

First and foremost - I like a good working dog above all else and to watch one in the field is pure poetry in motion and a thrill. I love to see what other people are doing and respect them for it. I have always said I would take a butt ugly national field trial champion over the number one show champion Labrador who can't find his tail any day.

Hope you didn't see the last post hunt'em up... my bad... I missed the labbie thing...


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

WindyCanyon,
No, use mousse... ha, ha! I am referring to a previous post on products people use for their show dogs - kind of funny you mentioned it. I have never used it but know others who have. My dogs are usually the ones the judge makes a funny face at after running their hands over my dog... I do bath them once in a while for the judges benefit. You have some nice working dogs that deserve a little recognition in the ring.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Hunt'em Up- you know your dogs and structure. Your girl is not a bad looking girl. She has good bone, structure, form - put a little weight on her and you may have a show dog... ha, ha. Really, I do like her.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I have been looking really hard at Roux - I am hoping to breed a chocolate girl I have here to him and am just waiting to do her clearances and for her to go in heat. Roux is getting up there in age so I have to do it soon. I just finally started getting around to training her and she is coming along nicely. She is fairly large for a field dog at just over 70 lbs. Her mom is out of Gator Pt's Magnum Gentle Ben and is sister to MH dogs and mother of some agility dogs/a master national qualifier and her grandma was my little bitty SH girl I loved so much sister to an AFC double header winner out of my Rocky girl. Her dad is not of the normal trial lines but the fourth generation is solid old fc afc lines but he is an MHRCH MH QAA dog. She is a nice looking girl and eic & cnm clear so Roux is definitely on the top of my list. She kind of looks like your girl only fatter... ha, ha. I had heard rumors years ago that Abe sometimes produced dogs that were a bit crabby - who knows - could have been a combination of the two dogs that caused it - stud dog always gets blamed. Fran Smith had a nice Abe dog who Jam'ed a specialty show but she sold him because of producing white on pups. I would not fault him for that if everything else is great.

I have a big handsome yellow girl I would breed to Roux also but she is an EIC carrier. I am looking at FC AFC Jet Black Bustin Thru The Brush MH (had to look hard for him) AFC Fish River Out Of The Park, FC AFC Big Alfonse Capone Of Mo-Kan (not a big dog), Liz Gerome has or had a really handsome big boy chocolate/yellow factored AFC Just Deal Me a Jack - grandson of Gusto - don't know if she is breeding out of him now or has frozen or not but he is an EIC carrier - would breed to him if my yellow were clear. 

This is a picture of my Nitro / Penny boy and 100% field trial - SH title no fails by 14 months -


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Here is a thread, you might like.
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?80655-What-is-the-best-looking-field-champion


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> Funny thing Julie, the only consistent points off my dogs at the LRC CC and IABCA shows has been regarding my girls' soft coats! Perhaps I need to get w/ a Terrier breeder or leave them grimier in the future... lol.


If you bathed them right before the event, absolutely. That was one of the first "grooming tips" I ever heard for this "wash-n-wear" breed... Don't bathe any closer than 3-4 days prior to a show, and only use a shampoo intended for hard-coated breeds if you do. Bathing strips them if the oils and tends to soften the coat, though I know that you already know that, LOL.




> I am confused by the excess skin issue though. My first girl (all field, descended from the old Hiwood lines) was jowly and had all that neck skin. My interpretation of the standard back then (early 90's) was that was wrong. It seems almost to be in vogue now, however. And here I worked hard to breed it out!


Like I said, it is not correct according to the written standard. But it can often be the lesser of all evils/faults and if a dog excels in other aspects such as beautiful movement, good eye color/expression, full dentition, great coat, good angles/front, outstanding topline leading right through the tail, why would you fault judge and choose a dog without the excess skin but also without those other strengths? Fault judging is a dangerous path to follow. One needs to look at the whole dog and compare it to the others.



> Even temperament has changed and I've found some defend their mellow couch potatoes as being "easier to live with" etc. They are LABRADOR RETRIEVERS! They should have the enthusiasm to hunt, do obedience, SAR, etc!


Like many here on RTF can attest to whose dogs have that "off switch," being a mellow couch potato at home doesn't mean a dog isn't birdy or an avid retriever when out in the field. I've had to move my dog van before so my least experienced, most mellow couch potato can't see any part of a hunt test set up or he goes nuts. When the van starts rocking and the dogs inside are barking their heads off, someone will ask that it get moved anyhow.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> .... when did it get this far out of hand?


 It's what the system produces. 
Changing the standard won't solve anything. 

The system being used for breeding selection is the problem. 
And it eventually leads to a concentration of serious genetic problems in any breed.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> Here is a thread, you might like.
> http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?80655-What-is-the-best-looking-field-champion


 There's plenty of stunningly beautiful Labrador Retrievers in that thread.

Dogs that had/have to be structurally sound athletes in order to successfully accomplish the objectives of their work.


----------



## BigKahuna13 (Mar 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It's what the system produces.
> Changing the standard won't solve anything.
> 
> The system being used for breeding selection is the problem.
> And it eventually leads to a concentration of serious genetic problems in any breed.


Thanks for posting!!!!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

BigKahuna13 said:


> Thanks for posting!!!!


 The statement made at 36:38 made my eyes roll right out of my head. That's only happened one other time in my life.

Through selective breeding, these traits become so exaggerated, that they become what is judged as average. 

Since the word is by definition relative, "moderate" working dogs can't actually continue to exist in the reality of the conformation ring.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I like it but I would like to see more pictures and input on the good looking field trial dogs. Heises have a handsome fellow but I know there must be more.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Montview said:


> If you bathed them right before the event, absolutely. That was one of the first "grooming tips" I ever heard for this "wash-n-wear" breed... Don't bathe any closer than 3-4 days prior to a show, and only use a shampoo intended for hard-coated breeds if you do. Bathing strips them if the oils and tends to soften the coat, though I know that you already know that, LOL.


Mine RARELY are bathed.  They go for a swim in the canal (mountain snow melt off), but that's about it, so no, I do believe the coats are legitimately soft. 

As for the rest (jowliness, etc), isn't that considered breed type?


----------



## BigKahuna13 (Mar 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> The statement made at 36:38 made my eyes roll right out of my head. That's only happened one other time in my life.
> 
> Through selective breeding, these traits become so exaggerated, that they become what is judged as average.
> 
> Since the word is by definition relative, "moderate" working dogs can't actually continue to exist in the reality of the conformation ring.


Amazingly, people are blinded by what they feel is the "standard" with no real explanation.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> I have also NEVER heard o a lab's tail being amputated. It would actually make the dog ineligible to compete. They are not allowed to be altered through surgery in any way.!


Just because the rules say a dog can not be altered does not mean it does not happen. I have a friend who flat out told me that the breeder of her golden told her that if she wanted to show him just do a simple nip and tuck to remove a small black patch on his side. That conversation came about when I asked her what he got into one day at the ob club.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> It just seems odd to me that the people on this forum who proclaim their dislike of the show labs seem to see more stuff going on in the show ring than I do when I am at a show almost EVERY weekend. You are right, I am certainly not at EVERY show in the world, but I dare to say I am at more of them than you are, and that I interact with more show breeders than you do, so I can't understand why you see all this stuff going on, and show breeders amputating ends of tails, when I never have. Actually, a breeder seminar was given at Potomac this year and the presenter said that someone new working for her cut off the swizzles (end pieces of hair on the tail), and that she threw an absolute fit and he never made that mistake again. Doesn't sound like people that would amputate an actual part of the tail when they get that upset over cuting off a tiny bit of hair. When I first started out, a dog groomer "helping" me learn to show, cut off a little unruly piece of hair and when I told a more experienced lab breeder/handler about it, she told me to NEVER cut a lab's coat. She said taking scissors to a lab's coat is a sin. I have heard that so many times over the years. So do these same people cut off parts of tails - and I have NEVER seen it? Just doesn't seem very believeable to me.


Ever seen a twizzle on a dog shown by the top lab handler? I haven't.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> I wouldn't be on here at all if the original poster had not posted those breeder names/links. I found this forum when I googled something about the Potomac show and I was mortified by the stuff I saw you all were posting. I don't believe that I ever called anyone a liar. I also don't believe that I am the one digging the hole. I even think that I gave Julie props for what great dogs she breeds. I am just stating what I know to be true and what I have and have not seen. I am sorry that you don't like it, but if you post breeder names and bash them, then you are inviting people such as myself to find your forum. I believe that is what I have said from the time I started posting - that I would just like you to stop bashing the show breeders. I really don't think I am the one at fault here. I take it you don't like that I invaded your forum, but it was caused by the actions of the original poster.


They posted the winners and commented. This happens all the time on show lab sites. You are just taking offense because most on here have field labs. Are you going to tell me that if I comment that I do not care for the winners I am bashing all labs from show lines? I currently own 2. YOU can check the one in my sig by name and the other is Teracroft. I'm sure you know that name.
Hmm, one of my previous labs had a rather well known show sire. Ever heard of Clemson of Killingworth?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> ROFL. Eons ago my childhood friend's mother showed retrievers, I was amazed one day to find out she was using hair dye to cover up a white blaze on a chest. Pretty sure if Sharon and Julie said they saw it, they saw it. They didn't claim all do it, just that they've seen it.


And my mother used tweezers to pull striped hair stands out a tiny black patch on the rump of a yellow. It happened to be a Whygin bitch. Long after Butter stopped showing those hairs were plucked! No hair dye as that was against the rules. Nothing said those striped hairs could not be individually plucked.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> Well, I can agree with that statement at least. There are always people willing to be stupid. However, a show dog could never get away with having part of the tail amputated. The judge inspects the dog with their hands and goes the whole way out the tail. If a piece was missing, they would feel it just as Sharon said she did, so there would be no point in doing it. The dog would most likely be disqualified, and if not, he would never win, so there would be no incentive for doing this. If anyone actually did this, they would be a very special kind of stupid, because in so doing, they would eliminate themselves from competition.


Never had a judge mess with my dogs tail. They have rudely checked to make sure a male had real equipment. First time that happened my husband had a fit for the dog! I proofed him for handling not ABUSE!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Sharon Potter said:


> Love it! And I really hope it helps change things.
> 
> But I wonder how it will play out, since when questioned about the weight there's a lot of "The dog isn't fat....it's just coat...if you could put your hands on them you'd feel that". There are some lovely, moderate dogs out there....and I really hope they get used more.


We have a wicket for height why not a scale for weight? I own 2 exactly 9 months apart in age. A pic would say one weighs at least 15lbs more than the other. The vet scale says and has for 8 years 2 lb weight difference and only 1/2 inch height difference.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Montview said:


> tell you which I would choose over the other... probably because of my background in equestrian sports.
> 
> My point is that you really have to look at the whole dog, feel their weight/structure (THROUGH their coat), and watch them move to be able to see why a dog may be a big winner in the show ring.


On the east coast the only way to win on a regular basis is to pay Rusty Howard to handlle your dog. Judges put up anything he holds on the other end of a leash! I can walk over from an ob or rally ring to catch the labs and predict without seeing the dogs the win if Rusty is listed as handler. I figured it out almost 9 years ago when I watched a big fat blob named Buzz win.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

cakaiser said:


> Here is a thread, you might like.
> http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?80655-What-is-the-best-looking-field-champion


I totally forgot about Snake Eyes double or nothing; He's probably at the top of my list of great looking FCs; I guess it begs the question why are most of these dogs in my pedigree?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> TNT explosion did thow looks.
> 
> And EIC! I live with one. Confirmed in the last test phase. Looks, yup that is why his son lives in this house. NO ugly dogs. Buddy is almost 10 and had never been going anywhere. MOM can handle it and deal with it. When he was a youngster it was pure hell until we got his triggers under control.But we did figure it out and zero issues in at least 8 years!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

labbie_lover said:


> I am an East Coaster, so that might explain the grooming issues. Still can't buy into that tail amputation thing - judges hands are always all over my dog from head to tail and that should not be a regional thing - judges travel the country. I hate to think that the East Coast breeders have better manners than those on the west coast and that is why I don't hear the comments about field breeders, but I can 100% honestly say that I have NEVER heard it. It just REALLY bothers me to hear one group of labrador breeders ripping into another when we all love this wonderful breed. We are lucky to have such a versatile breed.


I'm an East coaster just been moving further south year by year. MY god I hear nasty comments all the time. All I have to do is take the field kid over to watch conformation after the ob or rally ring. Very well mannered dog, unlike many of the show dogs, being slammed while quietly watching after picking up at least a Q ribbon.
Don't even ask what happened when the show dog waited for his number under ob control.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

http://s284.photobucket.com/user/uplander_2008/media/IMG_1551_zpsc092d50c.mp4.html

You can also have a seventy five lb Lab from a "Show Breeder" that runs like the wind and be oh so sweet... it is just what breeders choose to exhibit. They have no chance putting a smaller Lab up against the giant exaggerated beasts.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Years ago... My Chase beat Rusty's dogs with an amateur handler - Rusty wanted to know if Chase was for sale..



luvmylabs23139 said:


> On the east coast the only way to win on a regular basis is to pay Rusty Howard to handlle your dog. Judges put up anything he holds on the other end of a leash! I can walk over from an ob or rally ring to catch the labs and predict without seeing the dogs the win if Rusty is listed as handler. I figured it out almost 9 years ago when I watched a big fat blob named Buzz win.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

​Below was in the AKC's Winter Magazine:

Breed standards that include disqualifications for specific traits represent a 
statement from the parent club that it has determined the presence of this attribute 
(fault) is so undesirable that the entry is to be eliminated from competition. When 
a breed standard includes height or weight as a disqualifying fault, one cannot 
properly judge the breed if they are incapable of conducting a procedurally correct 
measurement or weighing. 
Unfortunately, some may choose to “avoid the issue” by putting the entry in 
question at the end of the line. Whether this choice is an attempt to save potential 
embarrassment for the exhibitor or the judge themselves is irrelevant. This practice 
will be of no assistance if an exhibitor chooses to protest an entry in the ring. 
The importance of properly measuring or weighing entries is also reflected in the 
Board approved Judging Approval Process. The current policy includes provisions 
for the removal of judging privileges for measurable breeds.
Judging Approval Process
– Removal of Breeds (page 7)
• 
Judges receiving negative reports on weighing or measur
ing will be 
required to pass the applicable wicket and /or scale test. 
• 
Failure of this test will result in review by the Judges Review
Committee 
and the potential of all applicable breeds being removed.

Glenda


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> On the east coast the only way to win on a regular basis is to pay Rusty Howard to handlle your dog. Judges put up anything he holds on the other end of a leash! I can walk over from an ob or rally ring to catch the labs and predict without seeing the dogs the win if Rusty is listed as handler. I figured it out almost 9 years ago when I watched a big fat blob named Buzz win.


Except Rusty didn't handle Buzz. Joy Quallenberg did. I assume you're talking about the same Buzz that earned his JH at over 10 years of age with no training at all? The one bred and owned by the veterinarian, who is still alive and well at I believe 14 or 15 years of age?


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Montview said:


> Except Rusty didn't handle Buzz. Joy Quallenberg did. I assume you're talking about the same Buzz that earned his JH at over 10 years of age with no training at all? The one bred and owned by the veterinarian, who is still alive and well at I believe 14 or 15 years of age?


Buzz - I like his son CH Salty Dog Of Tampa Bay who also has his JH and he took BOB at Crufts and a group 2 there as well and they like their dogs looking like they can work. Salty, Check him out at http://www.aquariuslabradors.com/news.html


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

SPEED said:


> Buzz - I like his son CH Salty Dog Of Tampa Bay who also has his JH and he took BOB at Crufts and a group 2 there as well and they like their dogs looking like they can work. Salty, Check him out at http://www.aquariuslabradors.com/news.html


Another "looks like he can work" dog, West Coast version, would be Multi-BIS Am./Can. CH Sharays Nikolas of Whidbey JH. I got to see this dog last year at ten years old, he has held up wonderfully. From looking at his many online photos of him in is prime you can see he was always shown in fit condition.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Amazing to see that in the original links the pedigrees of each dog only showed one WC and the other had one SH out of 30 parents for each. The field titles speak for themselves or the lack there of ..... heavy bodies, large heads and short legs seem to rule the show lines. Traits that are hard to understand how they would help a hunting dog perform well.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

SPEED said:


> Years ago... My Chase beat Rusty's dogs with an amateur handler - Rusty wanted to know if Chase was for sale..


I did get a second in 12-18 once with Rusty getting 3rd. Winner of 12-18 took winners dog so that was fun. The judge even asked the age of the dog. We were on the run between ob and show.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Montview said:


> Except Rusty didn't handle Buzz. Joy Quallenberg did. I assume you're talking about the same Buzz that earned his JH at over 10 years of age with no training at all? The one bred and owned by the veterinarian, who is still alive and well at I believe 14 or 15 years of age?


OK I remember Buzz and some other well known dog were in a huge battle for #1. Both were suposed to be at Winston Salem in Dec. At that time it was also a lab special. One was a Rusty dog. Only Buzz showed up. Lets see Magic was born May 2005 and he was a pup. I had him with me and all I remember was the other was missing and BUZZ walked right by us, a friend was showing her future CH. SHe told me that Buzz was in the building. I was like, that is BUZZ??? FAT! He was shown very fat! AS for the JH and zero trianing, I need to look back. Someone bought into either him or the other and paid big bucks for that dogs JH. I can tell you who bought in.
I'll take Magic's sires quest for an MH over any JH. How many dogs no matter what game they play can come back from massive burns and earn their MH?
BUzz and any JH is nothing compared to Blades!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

SPEED said:


> Buzz - I like his son CH Salty Dog Of Tampa Bay who also has his JH and he took BOB at Crufts and a group 2 there as well and they like their dogs looking like they can work. Salty, Check him out at http://www.aquariuslabradors.com/news.html


CHeck out a real dog with guts. CH/MH Got our Power Play! How many dogs could ever do what he did? Burned severly and then got his MH! That dog has guts!


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> CHeck out a real dog with guts. CH/MH Got our Power Play! How many dogs could ever do what he did? Burned severly and then got his MH! That dog has guts!


Luvmylabs, Do you train for the field? Do you hunt? How many labs have you shown? Just curious...strong opinions


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Luvmylabs, Do you train for the field? Do you hunt? How many labs have you shown? Just curious...strong opinions


I do not hunt, my husband does! Yes my dogs train for the field. They also do ob. I started showing as a junior handler way back when. So long ago that the first dog I showed in conformation and ob had the prefix "Whygin". The ob heights were 1 1/2 times the dog height not the dog height. Ob was outside, so even in Novice you better have a real recall. So long ago that the first time Butter ( the WHygin dog) was entered in anything people were walking around searching for "the Whygin" bitch walking right past the family having a picnic with the "pet " lab.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Joe Brakke said:


> Amazing to see that in the original links the pedigrees of each dog only showed one WC and the other had one SH out of 30 parents for each. The field titles speak for themselves or the lack there of ..... heavy bodies, large heads and short legs seem to rule the show lines. Traits that are hard to understand how they would help a hunting dog perform well.


You are correct... how sad is that! I do love my field dogs but when I started looking for a show bred dog I looked at what the dogs in the pedigree have done. I bought a boy who's dad was a MHR MH and a best in specialty show winner CH, the mom was a JH and sister to an MH BISS and CH, His grandmother was an MH MHR and a show champion but also high point open dog in their field trial club one year. Dogs bred from show lines and bred to work are very hard to find. My current boy I bred and his dad is an MHR CH champion and three of his four grandparents are master hunter show champions, and his two brothers from the same breeding are master hunters and one is an MHRCH MH and youngest dog to make it to the 2nd series of the ESPN super dog trials the other MH has 8 show points. I only showed my boy one time as a puppy and I have senior legs on him - would be farther if I trained more but he works as good as my field trial bred dogs. To be a field champion takes a very special dog and most trial dogs aren't cut out to be field champions - so, there are nice working show dogs but you have to look long and hard for them. My show bred boy sure likes to work and he can take a good correction as well as any field dog - he won't fold under any circumstance. I totally love his attitude. He does test me though - I can cheat just a little mom... Oh, my boy has nice length of leg as does his MH brother. If you do show a dog like my boy you probably do have to look for show judges who like a more athletic looking dog if you want to win. I am not that into it, if they win, they win, if not we go home and field train. I don't know if my boy would do much at a specialty but I never tried it so who knows. I like a handsome good working dog who looks the part of a working dog but isn't an eye sore either. But, even the down right ugly dog who is an incredible working dog is beautiful to my eye.


----------

