# Labradors - are we splitting the breed?



## PennyRetrievers (Mar 29, 2013)

Recently we bred our female with a really great FT dog. This is the first time I've ever bred a dog, and so I was reflecting back on the traits that I had been looking for in a stud dog: I didn't care much about color, but I wanted a dog with immense desire. I wanted a dog that was rock steady, and took direction well with it's handler. I wanted a dog with great prey-drive and one who had a reputation as a great marker. Our female is really a looker (who doesn't think their dog is handsome?) and so we wanted to produce puppies that would have that American Field-Bred labrador look to them: muscular body intense gaze, and strong bone structure.

While I was doing research a few weeks ago, I looked high and low. I looked at almost every labrador in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Louisana. There was a ton of talent out there. Occasionally though I'd run into a dog listed "at stud" whose breeder would brag about immensly - as a show dog. Some of these animals almost didn't look like Labradors. They were short, stocky, and sometimes obese. In talking to other dog folks I know, I'd find out that many of these show people were incredibly happy with a dog that could pass an AKC JH test - in other words, some of these Labs, didn't posess the desire to hunt or the ability to do field work beyond a few single retrieves.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to knock on the Show Dog people. Personally, I have no desire to ever show a dog in a ring, but I understnad that people have dogs for all sorts of different reasons - and that Labs can be sucessful in a variety of disciplines. But the original intent of the breed was to retrieve dead birds. How can we claim that a short, squatty, blockheaded dog, is the same breed as a dog as the incredibly high-powered, very lean atheletes that compete in sporting events?

Are we splitting the breed?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

PennyRetrievers said:


> Are we splitting the breed?


It has been split for a very long time


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Yep. Been split for decades.

Evan


----------



## PennyRetrievers (Mar 29, 2013)

I guess that was a dumb question. What I meant to say was this: at what point can we definitively say that we've got two different breeds of dog here?


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

EdA said:


> It has been split for a very long time



This^^^^^


Richard


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

PennyRetrievers said:


> I guess that was a dumb question. What I meant to say was this: at what point can we definitively say that we've got two different breeds of dog here?


2 or 3 decades ago


----------



## fishin444 (Apr 23, 2012)

I think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type. Which tend to be short, stocky, block head. The English type dogs are by no means slackers when it comes to hunting. With the internet you should be able to find a suitable Stud for your girl. I would start with the stud dog ads in RNT myself.


----------



## PennyRetrievers (Mar 29, 2013)

Yeah, we bred her with FC AFC Wing Magic's Louisana Roux MH. I knew what I was looking for, and I realized that the gap was pretty wide between both forms, but I didn't realize how wide it was until I really started doing some reading.

I guess what concerns me is that less scrupulous breeders could breed a "champion" show dog with an MNH or NFC dog and create a creature which was a "labrador retriever" but served neither purpose. How is this ok?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Lots of threads on this and lots of arguments, the breed is not officially split, and I don't see that happening. If it did happen, most likely we'd split just end up splitting it again. So for now there's an uneasy truths btw Show and Field in many of the Retriever breeds. Sort've like your strange out of towner cousins, that you only talk to at a family gathering. The competitive nature of Show (Conformation) and Field (FT) venues will continue to put up the dogs that can win above other considerations. We'll just continue to drift from each other, neither Field or Show are really interested in putting forth much effort to change or participate in the other venue. It's good that some conformation dogs do at least they try with HT's etc. However FT type dog would have a hard time in show, playing that game would take away from FT, such titles would not really do anything for an FC-AFC type dog, so realistically Why would they bother?

It is Field vs. Show (Conformation) the same spilt is seen in every country, whether British, German, Australian etc. There's no English short stocky Lab or American long legged, there are dogs of both types bred in each country, they are simply bred for a different focus-purpose, but both are bred to Win.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Good Lowered- do you have any idea how many electrons have met their death whipping this poor old long dead equine?

Get over it and move on regards

Bubba


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Labs split breed? Lets see we got the show labs, we got the field labs, we got the agility labs, we got the jumpin jack flashlabs, and we got the pointing labs. Nah we ain't got no stinkin split breed labs your thinking about those fluffy dogs not labs.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

PennyRetrievers said:


> I guess what concerns me is that less scrupulous breeders could breed a "champion" show dog with an MNH or NFC dog and create a creature which was a "labrador retriever" but served neither purpose. How is this ok?


This situation exists in just about every working and sporting breed in existence; and, as mentioned, the tendency can be seen in just about every country as well. Human nature is what it is ... people get into "specialization" in their hobby which leads them to the venues that most fit with what their innate likes and dislikes.

While I don't favor the extreme of the short-legged, heavy-bodied Labs, some of them still can do a pretty good job hunting. Their physical limitations may make them more suitable for certain types of hunting than others.

We also have to accept that both show and field trials are stylized extremes of the breeds' original purposes. Human nature at work again. For retrievers, they all started out with mid-size bodies (because that size was versatile) and strong retrieving instincts, backed up with intelligence and temperaments that allowed them to work with other dogs when necessary. As society evolved into being less dependent on hunting, keeping dogs became more of a pleasure than a necessity. Does anyone really "need" a car as fast a Ferrari? Probably not, but for some people, owning such a car is a pleasure and a hobby. 

Yet, while the retriever breeds started out with these common traits, we still have multiple retriever breeds  So, is a Lab better than a Chessie? I wouldn't want to be the one to say that very loudly if there are a bunch of Chessie owners standing around  Why did Lord Tweedmouth feel a need for the Golden Retriever, when Flat Coats and Labs already existed? He wasn't interested in a "pretty" dog. He just wanted a "meat dog". Game was a cash crop that fed the Lords' families, their estate workers, and their guests. If he had wanted a lapdog, they already had them.

So, even when working aspects were the primary basis for the breeds, there were still multiple breeds. Did they have different styles of doing their job? Different strengths and weaknesses? 

There are some breeders, in many of the breeds, who tread in the middle ground. The appearance of those dogs is somewhere between the dogs who "show" and the dogs who dominate in performance titles. Their levels of skill among those dogs may not be the sure bet for an FC-AFC, but the dogs are quite capable of doing their breed's working job (am including working breeds as well, not just sporting breeds).

For the retriever breeds, the hunt tests have encouraged more show dogs to explore their original purpose. The MH who may not be capable of field trial work, may still make a good hunting companion for most hunters. Let's not forget that hunt tests can also offer financial backing to clubs whose primary founding may have been for field trials. So, this helps continue the pursuit of the highest levels of field skills that field trials provide.

While field emphasis will generally rule out, by natural selection, the dogs who are poorly structured, that is not an "absolute". There will still be the highly driven dogs who may lack the structure that is most "durable", and are more subject to certain injuries. Having a broader gene pool to draw upon could help overcome those flaws. For the "show" breeder who seeks more emphasis on working ability, they can draw upon the gene pool where that has been emphasized. 

When there are plenty of animal activists who believe owning a dog is "exploitation" of another species, and would like to eliminate the whole thing, it seems wise for us to be tolerant of all of the varied community that is in favor of dog ownership. I have no illusion that the breeds are not split between show and performance, or that the split will get mended, but there is commonality to be valued.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Yes we are .....NO WHERE did you say that you were looking for a balanced well put together dog with a nice head and coat . All you stated was performance work only. The show people are looking for well angulated , dogs with substance and often overlook performance.


PennyRetrievers said:


> Recently we bred our female with a really great FT dog. This is the first time I've ever bred a dog, and so I was reflecting back on the traits that I had been looking for in a stud dog: I didn't care much about color, but I wanted a dog with immense desire. I wanted a dog that was rock steady, and took direction well with it's handler. I wanted a dog with great prey-drive and one who had a reputation as a great marker. Our female is really a looker (who doesn't think their dog is handsome?) and so we wanted to produce puppies that would have that American Field-Bred labrador look to them: muscular body intense gaze, and strong bone structure.
> 
> While I was doing research a few weeks ago, I looked high and low. I looked at almost every labrador in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Louisana. There was a ton of talent out there. Occasionally though I'd run into a dog listed "at stud" whose breeder would brag about immensly - as a show dog. Some of these animals almost didn't look like Labradors. They were short, stocky, and sometimes obese. In talking to other dog folks I know, I'd find out that many of these show people were incredibly happy with a dog that could pass an AKC JH test - in other words, some of these Labs, didn't posess the desire to hunt or the ability to do field work beyond a few single retrieves.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

duk4me said:


> Labs split breed? Lets see we got the show labs, we got the field labs, we got the agility labs, we got the jumpin jack flashlabs, and we got the pointing labs. Nah we ain't got no stinkin split breed labs your thinking about those fluffy dogs not labs.



What on earth is a jumping jack flash lab? See my sig line...

If you met the dawg, you'd know why I named him that...


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Buzz said:


> What on earth is a jumping jack flash lab? See my sig line...
> 
> If you met the dawg, you'd know why I named him that...


The whole post was a joke. The jumping jack flash lab was a joking reference to dock jumping not your dog.

We breed dogs, horses, cows, etc selfishly for the goals we wish to accomplish. For that reason there will always be a splitting of most breeds. Afterall didn't they all come from wolves?

that being said and since I haven't met Jumping Jack Flash why did you name him that. Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## PennyRetrievers (Mar 29, 2013)

Bridget Bodine said:


> The show people are looking for well angulated , dogs with substance and often overlook performance.


But my point is that the original purpose of the dog was to retrieve, not go around in circles in a ring and look good (not that there's anything wrong with that...). Both types of Lab have really changed the breed. All I'm saying is that what I call a Labrador, is NOT the same dog as what Show folks call a Labrador.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

MY point was when you pick for performance only, you get a type of dog, 
when you pick for structure only, you get a type of dog, 
when you pick for both you get in the middle.....which is why the breed is split. The middle does not usually win in either venue


----------



## vergy (Sep 8, 2006)

I think you'll find that the show dog may be closer to the actual breed standard than many trial type dogs. Go back and read the history of the Labrador retriever. They were medium sized dogs built strong in legs, chest, head etc. I care very much about the looks of my dogs. I have seen many dogs that perform in some sort of game or another and they are gettinq quite unattractive. May as well get a grey hound. I do agree the show lab is too short and robust but I am seeing some trial dogs built for speed with skinny heads, noses and legs etc..very off the standard and ugly!


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

I think we see Retreivers and/or Labradors all the time


----------



## vergy (Sep 8, 2006)

boy those first two are kinda pretty but man...can they even move? Would hate to see one in a big cattail slough chasing roosters here in SD


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Really? I thought the original intent of the breed was to retrieve fishing nets and boats from icy water. In which case, the shorter, stockier, heavier boned dog padded with some fat probably did serve a useful purpose. The high-powered, very lean athletes that we see today wouldn't stand a chance at the original intent of the breed.
Goldens, on the other hand, were bred to hunt 




PennyRetrievers said:


> But the original intent of the breed was to retrieve dead birds. How can we claim that a short, squatty, blockheaded dog, is the same breed as a dog as the incredibly high-powered, very lean atheletes that compete in sporting events?
> 
> Are we splitting the breed?


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Field Labs today look pretty much like the Labs you see in the history of Labs books. Unattractive you say? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The breed is identified as being Labrador RETRIEVER; it is a breed in the sporting group. Too many Labs paddling around the show ring today look like they could not survive 1 hour at the marsh, in the boat, or in the field as a hunting dog. Many are too fat and heavy boned. Most are too over angulated for me. When they move... they waddle and their backs roll. Coming at you they are out at the elbows, paddle, and sidewind. I am usually disappointed when I watch Westminster and see the Lab who is representing the breed.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

fishin444 said:


> I think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type. Which tend to be short, stocky, block head. The English type dogs are by no means slackers when it comes to hunting. With the internet you should be able to find a suitable Stud for your girl. I would start with the stud dog ads in RNT myself.


Why do so many people tie the poor English Labrador to the big over weight squatty blocky show dogs. It just aint fair the fine English animal.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

fishin444 said:


> I think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type. Which tend to be short, stocky, block head. The English type dogs are by no means slackers when it comes to hunting. With the internet you should be able to find a suitable Stud for your girl. I would start with the stud dog ads in RNT myself.





Steve Shaver said:


> Why do so many people tie the poor English Labrador to the big over weight squatty blocky show dogs. It just aint fair the fine English animal.


I've long thought this youtube link a great response to that misconception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBBiL3ixsFY


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

vergy said:


> *I think you'll find that the show dog may be closer to the actual breed standard than many trial type dogs.* Go back and read the history of the Labrador retriever. They were medium sized dogs built strong in legs, chest, head etc. I care very much about the looks of my dogs. I have seen many dogs that perform in some sort of game or another and they are gettinq quite unattractive. May as well get a grey hound. I do agree the show lab is too short and robust but I am seeing some trial dogs built for speed with *skinny heads, noses and legs etc..very off the standard and ugly!*



Oh really?

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...iRUbvKEszriQKgi4GwCQ&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAA&dur=5840


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

fishin444 said:


> I think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type. Which tend to be short, stocky, block head.


Where in the heck did you come up with that? English and North American field Labradors have the same physical characteristics.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

I


> think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type



no such things


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Really? I thought the original intent of the breed was to retrieve fishing nets and boats from icy water. In which case, the shorter, stockier, heavier boned dog padded with some fat probably did serve a useful purpose. The high-powered, very lean athletes that we see today wouldn't stand a chance at the original intent of the breed.
> Goldens, on the other hand, were bred to hunt


Barb,
Here's a brief history of Labs from The Labrador Retriever Club website: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/origin_purpose.php

Yes the ancestors retrieved fish & nets but was not at that point a purebred dog but instead a type of Newfoundland. It was also even at that point used to hunt game.
Early specimens were described as "extremely quick running, swimming & fighting"
The above was taken from the article. 
The breed wasn't registered as a purebreds till much later. Also notice how often the words "elegance without refinement" was used to describe early specimens. The Lab wasn't a purebred till after English sportsmen got a hold of it.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Here's a link to The Illustrated Breed standards for show judges. There's a PDF to download http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Publications

Again, this is from the parent club website...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Lots of words theorize this belief or that belief to support a certain position on this issue but nothing speaks like photos of past dual champions - and they all look very much like many of our best field champions today:


----------



## David Maddox (Jan 12, 2004)

vergy said:


> I think you'll find that the show dog may be closer to the actual breed standard than many trial type dogs. Go back and read the history of the Labrador retriever. They were medium sized dogs built strong in legs, chest, head etc. I care very much about the looks of my dogs. I have seen many dogs that perform in some sort of game or another and they are gettinq quite unattractive. May as well get a grey hound. I do agree the show lab is too short and robust but I am seeing some trial dogs built for speed with skinny heads, noses and legs etc..very off the standard and ugly!


Reading this post motivated me to find my "yellow book", The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. book "The Official Book of the Labrador Retriever" and check out the photos of FTCHs, Dual CHs, and CHs of the past. You will see a transformation from the early show labs, which looked incredibly like the athletes we see in 21st century Field Trial dogs, to the short squatty bodied Show Labs of today. 

From the late 40s thru the later part of the 60s and even later, great retrievers like Dual CH-NFTCH. Shed of Arden, pg.18, and 12 time BIS, CH-Shamrock Acres Light Brigade,"Briggs" (pgs. 16&70), would be much more easily mistaken for today's Field Trial Champion than today's Show Champion. I actually owned a beautiful Show bred HRCH/SH grandson of Briggs from 1991-2001. In today's world, most people would never guess that my Char was "Show" bred.


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

and all 4 of those dual champions are pretty enough for me to feed!


----------



## Ironwood (Sep 25, 2007)

Here is a link to the The Labrador Club of America http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed+Standard
The original post raised the issue of the breed being split. We agree there are differences in the the show ring Labrador and the field trial Labrador.
It may take the dedicated breeder looking 3-5 or more generations into the future to creat the all around Labrador- good looking with performance to match. There have been dual champions in the past and there will be dual champions in the future. It will take p work and patince so please don't be discourage by what now appears to be a split.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

There are good representitives of the breed in all venues. One just has to know where and how to look for them.
You will not find them here. My personal dogs have some of the best conformation of any dogs in the trial or huntest venues in the country. These dogs are all from "trial pedigrees" and have a very solid health history, OFA & CERF, along with solid temperments. Did it happen by accident, NO WAY, NO HOW. I'm picky and I know what to look for. The good ones are out there, YA just gotta find em, and know em when ya see em.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

great reading, thanks!



BirdNMouth said:


> Barb,
> Here's a brief history of Labs from The Labrador Retriever Club website: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/origin_purpose.php
> 
> Yes the ancestors retrieved fish & nets but was not at that point a purebred dog but instead a type of Newfoundland. It was also even at that point used to hunt game.
> ...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ironwood said:


> There have been dual champions in the past and there will be dual champions in the future.


I respectfully disagree, the chasm is too wide. The last 2 or 3 Dual Champions were field trial breeding the last one being 30 years ago. They were numerous in the 50s, not uncommon in the 60s, rare in the 70s and 80s, and non existent today.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

In the beginning, competitions were used to find the best dogs of a breed. Today, dogs are bred for specific competitions rather than for the breed standard first and then competitions, and I don't see that changing, sadly.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

This is my goal, FC or AFC/ CH....I am 51 , I figure I have 30 yrs to get it done. I think I have a good start with a nice Grady son and a fc/afc X CH/M bitch, and a specialtly type bitch sired by a CH/QAA dog. Only time will tell, but wish me luck!!! 


Ironwood said:


> Here is a link to the The Labrador Club of America http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed+Standard
> The original post raised the issue of the breed being split. We agree there are differences in the the show ring Labrador and the field trial Labrador.
> It may take the dedicated breeder looking 3-5 or more generations into the future to creat the all around Labrador- good looking with performance to match. There have been dual champions in the past and there will be dual champions in the future. It will take p work and patince so please don't be discourage by what now appears to be a split.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Good luck! I look forward to seeing it happen. !


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I agree with Helen, looking back to the paintings or photos of the early days of the breed, should give us a good idea of what the people wanted who "created" the breed. We also should keep in mind that they may not all have been perfect in structure. There is always variation, even within the same litter. 

We also have to keep in mind that our titling venues have become very "stylized" ... to suit our human whimsy. Even a field trial might not accurately simulate the stamina a dog needs for an extended hunting outing. Obviously, a show ring or an obedience ring cannot prove such stamina either.

If one truly wants to sort it out the appearance factor, then maybe the thing to do is read the older Standard of the Breed, and then read the most recent one, and discern what has changed. From that one might be able to come up with their own "vision" of what those descriptions (Standard of the Breed) are trying to explain. I'd venture a guess that most visions would end up somewhere between the show and field dogs' appearance (generally speaking, of course) Then you must honestly apply that "vision" to the dog standing in front of you.

My own dogs do not have the perfect head that I would envision for a Golden, but I can forgive the faulty details if the overall expression is pleasing. Still, I cannot lie to myself about the flaws I see if I hope to improve on the flaw in the next generation.

The same process can be applied to working abilities like work ethic or marking ability. A given dog may be "good", but not perfect. I must acknowledge lack of perfection in order to seek improvement in the next generation.

Also agree with the fact that the gap seems to get ever wider, gets ever more impossible to bridge. With that in mind, Bridget may not achieve her Dual CH goal, but in the quest, it is very possible that she will produce some darn nice dogs who are pleasing to look at (by both sides of the tracks) and have high levels of working ability to go along with that. 

If your goals are based on traits you desire to produce, not just on the titles assigned by others who may have different ideals in mind, then you can find the quest more rewarding. A Lab who is pointed in both field trials and the show ring would be a HUGE accomplishment, I think. The show judges who rewarded the dog would have a good image in their minds of a working physique worthy of the Standard; and the field judges would be acknowledging the dog's working ability in spite of the fact that he may look a little different than those they are most used to seeing. That would prove that there are some very good dog people representing both perspectives.

Meanwhile, it serves the breed well, if the focus is on the common ground that is shared by all who love the breed (whatever your breed is). If there is any dim hope of any bridging of the gap, it lies with cultivating good will rather than disdain, as there is always something to learn.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> If your goals are based on traits you desire to produce, not just on the titles assigned by others who may have different ideals in mind, then you can find the quest more rewarding. A Lab who is pointed in both field trials and the show ring would be a HUGE accomplishment, I think. The show judges who rewarded the dog would have a good image in their minds of a working physique worthy of the Standard; and the field judges would be acknowledging the dog's working ability in spite of the fact that he may look a little different than those they are most used to seeing. That would prove that there are some very good dog people representing both perspectives.
> 
> Meanwhile, it serves the breed well, if the focus is on the common ground that is shared by all who love the breed (whatever your breed is). If there is any dim hope of any bridging of the gap, it lies with cultivating good will rather than disdain, as there is always something to learn.


Gerry, the whole thing you wrote is the best thing I've ever read about the whole situation and fits with my scenario. 

Sharon also said it well "In the beginning, competitions were used to find the best dogs of a breed. Today, dogs are bred for specific competitions rather than for the breed standard first and then competitions, and I don't see that changing, sadly. "

Thank you. There is middle ground if we but look for it.

Sue Puff


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Hah!..Stick my neck out and above the parapet!..
Post on RTF ,with y'all who have retrievers that can do fantastic retrieves with titles!
......
A Labrador is a Retriever!...If the programmes y'all promote infallible,surely the programme will work with any dog?....especially a retriever ?
.....
Anna comes from a kennel that has won numerous show titles and represented at Crufts many times. In fact,this young bitch of 14 months had just come back from the show ring a week before the first clip!..So they can and are capable of doing it!...?
Anyhow ..I said to the breeder/owner they could! after two weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIXGFEDnP0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWAEd3zAwno

Some doctors of dogs would copter up a far more complex explanation than I ,for the achievement of the dog in the clip, but when it comes down to it!..It's just get out there and get that *game!*..Is it not?


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

> Some doctors of dogs would copter up a far more complex explanation than I


pure genius!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

If you accept the status quo then things will never change.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I wonder how many posters to this topic have owned and/or bred a Field Champion. Those who have not have no idea what a difficult accomplishment that is. Anyone who believes they are up to the task of being the breeder of a Dual Champion Labrador should work on conquering the FC part before considering the CH part.


----------



## Tim Mc (Mar 1, 2013)

Granddaddy said:


> Lots of words theorize this belief or that belief to support a certain position on this issue but nothing speaks like photos of past dual champions - and they all look very much like many of our best field champions today:


I've seen this photo before on RTF. Those are four of the most handsome dogs I've ever seen. Especially like FC Muscles! I'd like to walk to the line with him by my side!


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

One of the few things that we have accomplished in the field trial breeding program and not thought much about until reading this thread, was being the breeder of a FC and a FC/AFC. The only breeding I ever did as a Labrador owner was breeding my FC/AFC as a nearly seven year old bitch. I kept one of the pups and my co-owner including myself made his 
FC/AFC and was awarded a breeders award from AKC. The second male from the litter made his FC. There were six pups in the litter and a third became a HRCH MH and pointed all age dog. I owned and trained him. I took that breeding for granted and mostly forgot about it. Dr Ed hit it on the head, the goals should be trying to breed field champions before having pipe dreams about dual champions. The breed long ago split.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

EdA said:


> I wonder how many posters to this topic have owned and/or bred a Field Champion. Those who have not have no idea what a difficult accomplishment that is. Anyone who believes they are up to the task of being the breeder of a Dual Champion Labrador should work on conquering the FC part before considering the CH part.


I am doing that Doc, training with Pat several times a year , just about ready to run Derby.....I really do have a plan! That is part of the 30 years! 
Everybody has to have a dream! Life would be pretty boring without


----------



## LabGuy6 (Apr 10, 2013)

Our retriever club had Frances O. Smith DVM over to speak at our club last night. She is the current VP of the Labrador Retriever Parent Club. In her presentation, she mentioned that the labrador retriever is one of the least likely breeds to have another Dual Champion because of the seperation of the breed. The parent club looks for three things in judging - block type head, thick double coat, and an otter-like tail. She mentioned some of the biggest differences between show champions and field champions are the coat (slick coat vs. thick double coat), weight (most show champions are obese), tail (tail should be parallel to the back and not curve up or down), and overall body proportions (i.e. show dogs usually have short legs). When she is looking at buying a lab, she looks for somewhere in the middle. In her opinion, both ends of the spectrum are getting away from the standard description of a lab and breeding is focusing on requests of the buyers (i.e. color, temperament, etc).

Fran - if your on this forum, hopefully I did your presentation justice!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

LabGuy6 said:


> Our retriever club had Frances O. Smith DVM over to speak at our club last night. She is the current VP of the Labrador Retriever Parent Club. In her presentation, she mentioned that the labrador retriever is one of the least likely breeds to have another Dual Champion because of the seperation of the breed. The parent club looks for three things in judging - block type head, thick double coat, and an otter-like tail. She mentioned some of the biggest differences between show champions and field champions are the coat (slick coat vs. thick double coat), weight (most show champions are obese), tail (tail should be parallel to the back and not curve up or down), and overall body proportions (i.e. show dogs usually have short legs). When she is looking at buying a lab, she looks for somewhere in the middle. In her opinion, both ends of the spectrum are getting away from the standard description of a lab and breeding is focusing on requests of the buyers (i.e. color, temperament, etc).
> 
> Fran - if your on this forum, hopefully I did your presentation justice!


Yours & other verbal responses sound reasonable, but the answer is not somehow a compromise of appearance, i.e, something in the middle. Instead of verbal descriptions (which generally are an attempt to influence for a particular position on the issue), look at the photos of the dual champions that we have had. I posted a rather famous one of the Grangemead dogs. This "look" can be found today at most any AKC FT event. It may not be the typical look of every FT competitor but it is far from rare. But the problem is that a Grangemead dog today wouldn't get to first base in a show. But the show enthusiasts don't want to hear that they have gone a different direction. Show enthusiasts have abandoned the rule that form follows function. Ed said it right, focus on developing an FC then look at appearance. that was the Grangemead approach but it won't fly today among the show crowd.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Agree with a lot of the comments above, but I DO think people would "see" the difference between the old Duals and the current field dogs if they STOOD them side by side. Coats seemed to be much better on those old classics. I would venture to guess they were shorter coupled than most field dogs out there today too. Coats can be tough enough to change, but long loined dogs are VERY tough, ime, to change. Front assemblies tend to be quite straight currently in the field lines. 

I wish there were more standing photos taken of todays' FCs instead of the more classic sit w/ bird in mouth photos. There is more to the equation than the head when it comes to looks. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I like the other extreme end of the show labs either... I'm one of those breeders wanting to stay in the middle of the spectrum.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> The last dual ch. I saw belonged to the Lilinfelds back in the early 80's. He was a nice dog to say the least, but the image of him being able to compete in todays trials? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.


Macho was nine when Carol bought him. Prior to that, he placed in one-third of the trials he ran. Very consistent. Smart, and able to do a lot of tests that gave other dogs fits, like pinning the short bird after running long right past it. I'd bet on him making FC/AFC today--but not Dual!


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> I posted a rather famous one of the Grangemead dogs. This "look" can be found today at most any AKC FT event. It may not be the typical look of every FT competitor but it is far from rare. But the problem is that a Grangemead dog today wouldn't get to first base in a show. But the show enthusiasts don't want to hear that they have gone a different direction. Show enthusiasts have abandoned the rule that form follows function. Ed said it right, focus on developing an FC then look at appearance. that was the Grangemead approach but it won't fly today among the show crowd.


Shall I be really obnoxious and point out that that litter was an "oops"? 
Obviously the quality was there in the pedigrees on both sides, reflecting the breeder's priorities--but that particular breeding didn't represent intentional selection.

I've read that no one knows what happened to Grangemead Sharon. Have wondered if she was considered "ruined" by the misbreeding and given away as a pet.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

afdahl said:


> Shall I be really obnoxious and point out that that litter was an "oops"?
> Obviously the quality was there in the pedigrees on both sides, reflecting the breeder's priorities--but that particular breeding didn't represent intentional selection.
> 
> I've read that no one knows what happened to Grangemead Sharon. Have wondered if she was considered "ruined" by the misbreeding and given away as a pet.


I'd love to have such "accidents"........

And an oh by the way, in my Stella's upcoming litter 12 gen pedigree, I found Grangmeade Precocious (110x), Freehaven Muscles (60x), Grangemead Sharon (89x) - and some other Grangemead dogs too. Other dual champs in the pedigree include Little Pierre of Deer Creek (152x), Shed of Arden (163x), Cherokee Buck (69x) & Bracken's Sweep (95x). Taking Stella as typical of pedigree's of many of today's FCs, I think it would be better to start with a current FC, if the intent is to replicate the conformation of our prior dual champions. And just to add, Stella has a wonderful coat (almost seems too dense and thick).


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The Sad thing I see about the split and why we would never see a coming back together is quite honestly, very few if any FT breeders know anything about official conformation (angulation, vs. function etc.), it's judging, and because the venues no longer cross, there is no check and balance system on the performance dog. Most take the attitude, that if the dog can preform well under the stresses we put on them they must have proper conformation, which is semi-correct, you couldn't run well with over-exaggerated conformation characteristics. But with-out the balancing-input of people who actually know what and why body structure needs to be a certain way, we run the risk of breeding in tendencies for injuries that while repairable ALC tears etc. might be avoided if structure was regulated a bit. Of course that's pretty hard when people from both sides look pretty pointedly down their noses at each other. Most performance dog people would argue that the Conformation Lab is not what they want a lab to look-like. I've taken a few labs in for conformation evaluation, I didn't get the impression that the judges really knew what to do with my dogs, they couldn't believe how well they moved despite "_faults_", and while they were still determined to be Labs (yay I was worried ) we were pretty much passed off in 2-3 mins. Seeing the 30-45 min high praise " you must show" evaluation of portly C Lab pups, who kind've waddled around Didn't really leave me with the need to care about their opinion. And there's the split in a nut-shell . Performance Labs would be better off having a Chessie conformation judge or other sporting group judge, to do such conformation evaluations, but that would put the Lab club up in arms. So the performance lab will continue with no checks on their structure, while over-exaggerated dogs will continue win in the show ring.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

The breed is definitely split. Having said that, I bought my pup for "GO" not for show. I like my cars the same way.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> The Sad thing I see about the split and why we would never see a coming back together is quite honestly, *very few if any FT breeders know anything about official conformation *(angulation, vs. function etc.), it's judging, and because the venues no longer cross, there is no check and balance system on the performance dog. Most take the attitude, that if the dog can preform well under the stresses we put on them they must have proper conformation, which is semi-correct, you couldn't run well with over-exaggerated conformation characteristics. But with-out the balancing-input of people who actually know what and why body structure needs to be a certain way, we run the risk of breeding in tendencies for injuries that while repairable ALC tears etc. might be avoided if structure was regulated a bit. Of course that's pretty hard when people from both sides look pretty pointedly down their noses at each other. Most performance dog people would argue that the Conformation Lab is not what they want a lab to look-like. I've taken a few labs in for conformation evaluation, I didn't get the impression that the judges really knew what to do with my dogs, they couldn't believe how well they moved despite "_faults_", and while they were still determined to be Labs (yay I was worried ) we were pretty much passed off in 2-3 mins. Seeing the 30-45 min high praise " you must show" evaluation of portly C Lab pups, who kind've waddled around Didn't really leave me with the need to care about their opinion. And there's the split in a nut-shell . Performance Labs would be better off having a Chessie conformation judge or other sporting group judge, to do such conformation evaluations, but that would put the Lab club up in arms. So the performance lab will continue with no checks on their structure, while over-exaggerated dogs will continue win in the show ring.


With all due respect to the bench enthusiasts, the dogs of recent years, that I am seeing being rewarded with CH titles, would indicate that the bench judges over the last 30-40 yrs know increasingly little about conformation as well - when compared to our past dual champions. My point is that it is much easier to misrepresent or trend a written conformation std than it is to refute photos of past dual champions as the most representative of correct conformation. But then again, many bench champions of today clearly do not meet the objective height measurement & weigh portions of the std yet they are given Ch titles nonetheless.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Instead of spending an hour speculating and typing!..spend some time having a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMegQH1SPg


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

polmaise said:


> Instead of spending an hour speculating and typing!..spend some time having a look at this.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMegQH1SPg


The issues exposed in the video are sad, the implications, however, are not necessarily universal where an adequate & expanding gene pool is involved. Unfortunately, some breeders refuse to follow accepted breeding guidelines - and absolutely refuse to do the testing to avoid issues expressed in offspring. Unfortunately, many breed enthusiasts refuse to follows the basic rule of form follows function. Therefore many abnormalities can be masked because the dogs only have to look good.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> The issues exposed in the video are sad, the implications, however, are not necessarily universal where an adequate & expanding gene pool is involved. Unfortunately, some breeders refuse to follow accepted breeding guidelines - and absolutely refuse to do the testing to avoid issues expressed in offspring. Unfortunately, many breed enthusiasts refuse to follows the basic rule of form follows function. Therefore many abnormalities can be masked because the dogs only have to look good.


Unfortunately, the issues are not only sad! they are real!.The implications are Universal,regardless of the gene pool,if the gene pool is narrowed by the judged winners,and the market breed or are drawn to the 'gene pool' of champions?
Abnormalities cannot be masked!..they are abnormalities!..Judging and awarding abnormalities can and does promote the gene! ?
The Rhodesian ridgeback (ridge on the back) Is actually an ''abnormality'' in the gene!...pups that had no ridge were discarded at birth!...not by the mother. By the breeder! who was breeding to the ''breed standard''!???


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

polmaise said:


> Unfortunately, the issues are not only sad! they are real!.The implications are Universal,regardless of the gene pool,if the gene pool is narrowed by the judged winners,and the market breed or are drawn to the 'gene pool' of champions?
> Abnormalities cannot be masked!..they are abnormalities!..Judging and awarding abnormalities can and does promote the gene! ?
> The Rhodesian ridgeback (ridge on the back) Is actually an ''abnormality'' in the gene!...pups that had no ridge were discarded at birth!...not by the mother. By the breeder! who was breeding to the ''breed standard''!???


I suppose we can argue & each can feel whoever posts last wins. But obviously the abnormalities are not universal in the face of *an adequate gene pool* - as I previously stated. And while you give examples of breeds where there have been problems & breeders who are unscrupulous, they do not represent the normal or the majority of breeders of pure bred dogs. Using the Labrador Retriever & field bred Labs in particular as an example, our field bred dogs are performing today at their highest levels in the history of the breed. This indicates both improving physical skills & improved intelligence - hardly representative of breeding the dogs to death. I do understand for dogs not required to conduct strenuous physical activities which require advanced intellectual capacity, there may well not be any test means of proving the results of breeding other than the inadequate reliance upon appearance, but at least with field Labs who are competing in field events there is a very objective means of proving the breedings being done.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> I suppose we can argue & each can feel whoever posts last wins. But obviously the abnormalities are not universal in the face of *an adequate gene pool* - as I previously stated. And while you give examples of breeds where there have been problems & breeders who are unscrupulous, they do not represent the normal or the majority of breeders of pure bred dogs. Using the Labrador Retriever & field bred Labs in particular as an example, our field bred dogs are performing today at their highest levels in the history of the breed. This indicates both improving physical skills & improved intelligence - hardly representative of breeding the dogs to death. I do understand for dogs not required to conduct strenuous physical activities which require advanced intellectual capacity, there may well not be any test means of proving the results of breeding other than the inadequate reliance upon appearance, but at least with field Labs who are competing in field events there is a very objective means of proving the breedings being done.


Easy Tiger!?..I am not arguing. I'm advocating that while there are standards set by a recognised body that breeders and judges follow, and the achievements by title are awarded to that standard ,then the overall standard and the gene pool is polarised to that standard!..not mine or perhaps not yours?..but the standard none the less!..The Labrador retriever breed is not immune to this!,by way of field competence,or achievement!..Just a ''heads up'', that this also drives the breed to where it is?.(mate)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

polmaise said:


> Easy Tiger!?..I am not arguing. I'm advocating that while there are standards set by a recognised body that breeders and judges follow, and the achievements by title are awarded to that standard ,then the overall standard and the gene pool is polarised to that standard!..not mine or perhaps not yours?..but the standard none the less!..The Labrador retriever breed is not immune to this!,by way of field competence,or achievement!..Just a ''heads up'', that this also drives the breed to where it is?.(mate)


Easy Tiger, you are arguing & by linking a biased video without further comment you are advocating as you state, for that bias. Again the facts are that most breeds & most breeders do not breed in such an unscrupulous manner as to throw away pups who don't meet a desired trait. In fact most breeding are not single trait targeted at all. I can understand if appearance alone becomes the focus of breeding then there can be some narrowing of the gene pool used by a certain or small group of breeders. That said, one or a small group of breeders cannot have such a universal affect on most breeds, and certainly not the Labrador Retriever with its wide-spread popularity. If the logic of your linked video was followed to its logical end, every wild animal in the world would be considered "bred to death" given that most wild breedings are done *only *by the strongest & most fit - with the vast majority of the male breed pool never getting an opportunity to breed at all.

Sure your video linked shows just what we should all already know, that there are the immoral & unscrupulous among us. There are those who are so determined to win that they will break all the rules to attempt to reach their goals - or they are so ignorant that the results of their efforts are evident. But we cannot take the exceptions and without question take them as the rule.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

It's not My video !
and I ain't arguing!
?
"_I can understand if appearance alone becomes the focus of breeding then there can be some narrowing of the gene pool used by a certain or small group of breeder"_
Are you a breeder?.or a Judge?, or both? or neither?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

David, I'd love to see some photos of Stella! Best of luck w/ the breeding as it sounds exciting. Anne





Granddaddy said:


> I'd love to have such "accidents"........
> 
> And an oh by the way, in my Stella's upcoming litter 12 gen pedigree, I found Grangmeade Precocious (110x), Freehaven Muscles (60x), Grangemead Sharon (89x) - and some other Grangemead dogs too. Other dual champs in the pedigree include Little Pierre of Deer Creek (152x), Shed of Arden (163x), Cherokee Buck (69x) & Bracken's Sweep (95x). Taking Stella as typical of pedigree's of many of today's FCs, I think it would be better to start with a current FC, if the intent is to replicate the conformation of our prior dual champions. And just to add, Stella has a wonderful coat (almost seems too dense and thick).


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

polmaise said:


> It's not My video !
> and I ain't arguing!
> ?
> "_I can understand if appearance alone becomes the focus of breeding then there can be some narrowing of the gene pool used by a certain or small group of breeder"_
> *Are you a breeder?.or a Judge?, or both?* or neither?


Yes & yes...........and also a handler who has provided part of the training of my dogs who have earned titles for their work, since you have inquired.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> Yes & yes...........and also a handler who has provided part of the training of my dogs who have earned titles for their work, since you have inquired.


You'll be in a position to change it then?
Or not.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

polmaise said:


> You'll be in a position to change it then?
> Or not.



Change what, don't be so cryptic........


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

It appears to me that the show dog has undergone the most drastic change of appearance due to breeder selection for the flavor of the week. The field lab has evolved from selection based upon form and function to retrieve ducks and geese and even the occasional swan, therefore the longer muzzle and legs perhaps? Is one more Labrador Retriever than the other? Perhaps not, but will continued breeding selections create a show type dog known as the Labrador and the field type dog eventually be called a black, yellow or chocolate Retriever? We have seen the Irish Setter (show dog ) that couldn't find a bird if it had to and now we are seeing the Red Setter (field dog) surface where again they are bred to hunt. I feel the change in appearance has been the result of judges selecting dogs that were perhaps outside the breed standard. One solution could be, until they can attain a performance title (JH minimum) not be allowed to attain a CH title, then maybe we could put some show titles on the field bred dogs. I have seen the so-called fads come and go in horses and dogs over the years but as breeders maybe it is time for everyone to give some thought to what their breeding will produce! The most rewarding thing I and one of my dogs attained were the words from and elderly judge a few years back that simply said, "that's a mighty fine dog you've got there young man."


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

polmaise said:


> Instead of spending an hour speculating and typing!..spend some time having a look at this.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMegQH1SPg


 That was an hour long heavily biased expose, that boils down to an end result that we need to select for function.

A working dog's active career, is the ultimate test of ability and fitness. 
There's no amount of health testing and clearance certificates that can match it.

When we select for certain traits, we are forced to select against others. What traits we select for, are a matter of where our priorities lay.

A Retriever is what it DOES. Not what it looks like. Form really does follow function.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

It would appear from the video that most of the breeds featured are ones where function is not a pertinent factor. Pekes, Pugs, Cavaliers, for example. It was a very hard video to watch. I can't imagine that there are many on this forum who could watch it without finding it painful. The Cavaliers are Spaniels, but I'm not entirely sure what their hunting specialty may have been. I think they are now in the toy group. I can't imagine that too many people have used Bulldogs to bait bulls in recent history. 

So, if we want to continue to have dogs who have a chance to be functional, we should stand close to the hunters and guard their rights.

While there are many show dogs I find unattractive (both in Labs and Goldens) because they do not appear to have the physical endowments to fulfill their function, there are some that I can find appealing. Would it be such a bad thing to encourage the people who own such dogs to breed more dogs like that? If such dogs should turn up at a field event (more likely to be a hunt test than a field trial), and if the dog looks capable, it would not be such a bad thing to offer a compliment. There are still some conformation people around who will admire a nice-looking dog who comes from field lines, usually those who understand good structure and working condition. 

I have to express some admiration for the Golden community. I believe that there are people from the conformation community that would pitch in to the effort for a Golden who became an FC and had a shot of adding the CH to the dog. There is a passion for another DC among Golden people, even though it seems an impossible dream. 

It's kind of worth noting that the most recent DCs in Goldens that I can remember offhand (Clickey Click, Bow, Quar) all had their FCs before their CHs. Basically, all of them knew that the FC was the hard part (as Dr A stated). They didn't start thinkinig about a DC until they had the hard part completed. 

Sorry to go off the topic of Labs ... but Goldens face the same basic issues.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...bs-to-NonSporting-Group&highlight=nonsporting


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Has anybody paused to consider that "letting" the breed split, might have been the single most significant reason that Labrador Retrievers absolutely dominate the field in Retrieving events?

In order to successfully select for the traits that matter, you have no choice but to ignore the traits that don't. 
By striving for both, you tie your own hands.

If you refuse to "split" your breed, you will not be able to keep up.
The breeds that split what matters from what doesn't matter, and then select for what matters will pass you by like you are standing still.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Yeah, I don't get what the issue is. Do they want me to run a trial with a portly, short legged Lab? Or do they think I want to hear that my dog looks like he is put together well enough to swim for a 15 minute 4th series?

The breed is split, if you want to run trials get a field bred dog if you want to compete in dog shows get a show bred dog. Dual Champions are very, very unlikely. How to get it back? Why do we need it back? I wonder how many "field trial" people have ever entertained the idea of going to a dog show.

Unless the perception of what a dog should look like changes, there will always be a huge chasm between the shows and the field. The field dogs continue to progress in the field, and people are always trying to do a little better.

Someone mentioned requiring a show dog prove that it had some hunting ability before it was considered a Champion. I'd like to see one prove that it could run behind a 4 wheeler 250 yards out and back...


----------



## Trifecta (May 17, 2013)

So, I think its important to look at the issue from "conformation" vs. breed type.

In my opinion, the majority of field bred dogs that I have seen at HT's have very good conformation. Dogs with poor conformation do not hold up long under physical stress. Are they perfect? Nope. But neither is the top ranked special of any breed. I think they have substantially better rears- better angulation for sure. Perhaps not as strong of shoulder/front assembly. But, overall, good sound dogs.

Everyone keeps pointing out that "retrieving" is what makes it a retriever. But what makes it a LABRADOR retriever? A golden retrieves! A chessie retrieves! Heck I even knew a guy that trained his boxer to retrieve ducks... does that qualify as a Labrador retriever?

For me, breed type boils down to 3 major characteristics: retrieving ability/style; temperament; and last, the physical: head, coat, and tail. Combined, these factors describe what the Labrador retriever is as a breed, that which separates it from every other breed. The dog that excels in all 5 of those characteristics sould be considered the "ideal" example. The reason that a field dog would be unlikely to finish a show CH is due to predominant focus on the first 2; the majority of bench dogs have focus on the last 2. Although I have seen some field dogs with what I would consider an appropriate head, the overwhelming majority lack double coat and appropriate tail. Size aside on head (and I'm in agreement here that too many labs look like pit bulls!)- snipey muzzles and lack of parallel planes are faults in the majority of sporting dogs for a reason. Guess what? I know the dog can swim without an otter tail... but that is a defining characteristic of the breed. Likewise, before the advent of dog vests, that double coat was of huge importance.

I realize that bench dogs have gone to the end of the extreme. I am frustrated when I see morbidly obese dogs trying to compete in performance events (not just HT). When I look at Hudson, I consider him very moderate, especially by today's standards. In fact, I'm fairly sure that he would not finish his CH if I was showing him today. I also know that at 7 years of age, I might not be still training and competing with him if he wasn't structurally sound- so I guess my next dog, I may just have to forgo the CH in order to keep working in performance venues.

I would love to see field dogs with more consistent features of breed type. Those dogs would look ALOT like the ones earlier in this post.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Trifecta said:


> ....I would love to see field dogs with more consistent features of breed type.....


 If they can't perform in the field, NOTHING else matters.

And performing in the field, means a lot more than what it takes to earn a JH title.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

The Labrador retriever, as a breed, is as diverse a breed as there may be in the world. To talk about them as if they are either a field bred Lab or a show bred Lab ignores the majority of Labs who are neither! True, they may have ancestors from one side or the other, and maybe both sides, but they were not bred to compete in either venue.

The parents of those Labs may have been selected for breeding because they were pleasant to have around the house, good with the kids, good hunters, or just great looking. Regardless of the reason, they pleased someone.

It is easy for those who are interested in pursuing titles in either venue to focus on the traits required to attain those titles and ignore other traits that are of no consequence to their pursuit. However, I believe that the majority of Lab Lovers may have a different view of the breed. It's not quads and 400 yard blinds that attract tens of thousands of Lab owners, nor is it their head, coat, and tail. It is the smart, sensible, attentive, loving dog that we all know that is the reason the Lab has been number one in AKC registrations for 22 years in a row.

You can argue which side (field or show) is right and which is wrong. Depending on your point of view I'd say there are problems to be credited to each side of the arguement. However, the most encouraging thing I've seen on this thread is from breeders who have stated that they are trying to produce Labs that are in the middle of the road. Those breeders know that they are in danger of being lost in no-man's-land. Their Labs may not be able to compete with the best of field trial Labs, nor will they be put to the head of the line in the show ring. Their courage to strive to produce a Lab that meets their own ideal without much chance of being given acclaim for their achievement is a testament to their dedication to the breed. I wish them the best of luck in their quest to produce their image of the ideal Labrador retriever!

Swack


----------



## PennyRetrievers (Mar 29, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> If they can't perform in the field, NOTHING else matters.


When I started this thread, this was exactly my point. Form DOES follow function - or at least it should. 

Why are human beings attractive? At a very base level, you're looking for someone who can either provide for you, or will reproduce well. Large breasts feed babies. Strong biceps are better for manual labor and earning an income. We are attracted to other humans who have full hair, and good teeth, and don't stink, and on and on. Ultimately biology wants to steer us towards totally pratical ends, and as humans we wind up declaring these ends as "attractive." 
The same can't be said for animals who are bred for a set of looks. A fat squatty Lab doesn't do anything well, except eat and crap.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> The same can't be said for animals who are bred for a set of looks. A fat squatty Lab doesn't do anything well, except eat and crap.





> may have been selected for breeding because they were pleasant to have around the house, good with the kids, good hunters, or just great looking. Regardless of the reason, they pleased someone.


Mostly, I agree with Jeff in pointing out the difficulty of breeders finding it near-impossible to reach the highest levels in two very disparate types of competition. Yet, we can't rely on the preferences of the pet-buying public to determine what a Lab (or any breed) is "supposed" to be. Perhaps we hear it more in Goldens, but Lab breeders may also hear: "I want one with a big, blocky head." "I want a BIG male." In Labs, the pet-buying public may favor certain colors. A petowner may also favor a more placid dog than is suited for a working sporting breed. In fact, history seems to tell us that when the petowners create popularity for a breed, it opens the door to irresponsible breeding that can often lead to health issues that are ignored, not to mention the other qualities that made a breed popular to begin with.

OTOH, I think that we can't totally ignore the Standard of the Breed. I can recall when white was more common on the working lines than I've seen today (feel free to correct me if I haven't seen enough Labs lately!) People accepted the white in a good working dog, but the impression I got was they really didn't like it. Somehow, the dog didn't quite look like a Lab? We see white in Goldens on the chest, and sometimes on the feet. If the dog is also of small stature, and we have to look twice to make sure whether it is a Golden or a NSDTR, then something has been lost that distinguishes the one breed from the other. Isn't that an integral part of having a purebred dog?


I think it's pretty clear that someone interested in field work wants an athletic dog who can jump ditches and take a long swim when needed. Too short in leg can be a liability for tough terrain. Excess fat is always a liability for any breed. So, if the show lines follow a trend of whimsy of the current breeders' "vision", without testing the durability of that construction, it will stray from the structure needed to fulfill the breed's working purpose. A failing of the show ring may be that the Standard of the Breed leaves room for "interpretation". When a certain interpretation becomes predominant, the dog in the group who demonstrates a different interpretation may be overlooked, even though it adheres to the Standard as well. 

I also have noted that when someone shows up at a trial with their new young pup, they may often say, "He really loves to retrieve, and he's a good-looking pup, too." I never have heard anyone say, "I'm glad this pup is ugly."  So, even in the performance world, people do take note of appearance. Nor have I heard a show breeder say, "I'm so glad this dog hates those stinky birds." More likely to hear, "He's a great retriever."

It's not likely that most will ever leave the comfort zone of their area of "specialization," but it is helpful for the breed to acknowledge the common ground, than not.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Swack said:


> The Labrador retriever, as a breed, is as diverse a breed as there may be in the world. To talk about them as if they are either a field bred Lab or a show bred Lab ignores the majority of Labs who are neither! True, they may have ancestors from one side or the other, and maybe both sides, but they were not bred to compete in either venue.
> 
> The parents of those Labs may have been selected for breeding because they were pleasant to have around the house, good with the kids, good hunters, or just great looking. Regardless of the reason, they pleased someone.
> 
> ...


good post Jeff- very well stated.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Billie said:


> good post Jeff- very well stated.


 I agree , a very good post about what the Labrador really is


----------



## Trifecta (May 17, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> If they can't perform in the field, NOTHING else matters.
> 
> And performing in the field, means a lot more than what it takes to earn a JH title.


Yes, I realize that performing in the field is more than a JH. However, the AKC currently registers 5 other breeds with the word "retriever" in the name- not including things like water spaniels, etc. My point is that retrieving ability, although an important component of breed type, DOES NOT distinguish the Labrador retriever from the other types of retrievers. Its those silly physical characteristics that distinguish between a lab, a golden, a chessie, a curlie, a flat-coat, NSDTR, etc...


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

While we are all praising the middle of the road approach, let me point out the benefits of the competitive dog sports: they provide a somewhat objective measure of our dogs. If you say you are trying to breed dogs that can win field trials, you either can or cannot point to dogs you've bred with field trial wins.

Sadly for those who want a good moderate pet, there is no such measure for the middle-of-the-road Labrador or the ideal pet Labrador. There is, however, at least one high volume breeder marketing puppies via Internet as "family Labs." These mass-produced puppies go for $2499 and up (last I checked) and have nothing to recommend them but the breeder's say-so. There is no venue of competition to "keep 'em honest."

I am always cautious about criticizing the extremes of Labrador type around anyone who might be a prospective pet puppy buyer.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

afdahl said:


> While we are all praising the middle of the road approach, let me point out the benefits of the competitive dog sports: they provide a somewhat objective measure of our dogs. If you say you are trying to breed dogs that can win field trials, you either can or cannot point to dogs you've bred with field trial wins.
> 
> Sadly for those who want a good moderate pet, there is no such measure for the middle-of-the-road Labrador or the ideal pet Labrador. There is, however, at least one high volume breeder marketing puppies via Internet as "family Labs." These mass-produced puppies go for $2499 and up (last I checked) and have nothing to recommend them but the breeder's say-so. There is no venue of competition to "keep 'em honest."
> 
> I am always cautious about criticizing the extremes of Labrador type around anyone who might be a prospective pet puppy buyer.


Amy the problem with the moderate group is just that, they compromise by accepting that the bench dogs of today have a look to be sought when in fact by just looking at our dual champs (FC/CH) it is obvious that the bench crowd has gone on a wide tangent from the accepted appearance that was, in yesteryears, the norm or desired conformation and instead gone for an English dog that is short, heavy, has a near-Rottweiler head & is devoid of the ability to function to the std set by today's field trial Labs....form follows function.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Really? I thought the original intent of the breed was to retrieve fishing nets and boats from icy water. In which case, the shorter, stockier, heavier boned dog padded with some fat probably did serve a useful purpose. The high-powered, very lean athletes that we see today wouldn't stand a chance at the original intent of the breed.
> Goldens, on the other hand, were bred to hunt


You are absolutely right on this on. I am 5'10" 275lbs and built like a tree stump. Go put something in the water about 1/2 mile that you have to swim out to and pull in. I am sure everyone on this forum would pick me versus Michael Phelps right? How does Shorter stock and heavier boned = better swimmer. I understand the cold but there coat does most of that. Soem body fat helps but there is some diminishing returns at some point right.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Amy the problem with the moderate group is just that, they compromise by accepting that the bench dogs of today have a look to be sought when in fact by just looking at our dual champs (FC/CH) it is obvious that the bench crowd has gone on a wide tangent from the accepted appearance that was, in yesteryears, the norm or desired conformation and instead gone for an English dog that is short, heavy, has a near-Rottweiler head & is devoid of the ability to function to the std set by today's field trial Labs....form follows function.


David, you're preaching to the choir, here. I try not to get worked up about it, but it's just wrong to identify today's show dogs with original Labrador type. People keep saying the Standard is subject to interpretation, but the height and weight ranges give a pretty unambiguous idea of just how much "substance" the breed is supposed to have.

Mostly I try to be polite to everyone and encourage them to work their dogs.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Amy the problem with the moderate group is just that, they compromise by accepting that the bench dogs of today have a look to be sought when in fact by just looking at our dual champs (FC/CH) it is obvious that the bench crowd has gone on a wide tangent from the accepted appearance that was, in yesteryears, the norm or desired conformation and instead gone for an English dog that is short, heavy, has a near-Rottweiler head & is devoid of the ability to function to the std set by today's field trial Labs....form follows function.


 I am not promoting show dogs in any way, but why is the function standard "today's FIELD TRIAL" dog? Does it have to be that extreme? Could the standard not be a MH hunt test dog?


----------



## Olddog (Feb 28, 2009)

At some point in their history all breeds of dogs had some sort of purpose in their existence. Some breeds were lap dogs for royalty, some were bred to be draft animals or hunt lions, but most were probably used to help people in their everyday lives. I think the labrador was just such a dog, the breed has been humanized for lack of a better term but originally they were bred to work. The physical attributes that enable the dog to do his job are the ones that should in my opinion be bred for.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Yes, Amy, it should not be the petowning public that determines what is best for a breed. What they want in a pet may not be what that breed was meant to be. I can recall reading an article in the AKC Gazette, years ago, about Dobermans. People wanted Dobermans as pets because of their noble, elegant appearance, but didn't want the temperament that typified a Dobe! The article lamented that some breeders tried to make that accommodation, and ended up with mentally unstable Dobes. 

The retrievers' generally tolerant temperaments can mislead people into not providing obedience training. So, to make their life easier, they'd prefer a less active, energetic dog. Most of the sporting dogs have easy-going temperaments, but I really don't think any of them were made to be couch potatoes. Yet a couch potato can be the kind of dog the petowner wants.

Grandaddy, you are correct, I think, that there is no way to particularly judge a middle-of-the-road breeder, although hunt tests and other performance venues can assess some of their success. Always one tries to keep in mind that a good field dog can probably be a good obedience or agility dog, but the converse is not always true.

You may be incorrect, however, in assuming that all straddling the middle of the road will default to the Standard exemplified by the dogs in the show ring. If they study the breed's history and purpose, along with the Standard, (both older ones and modern ones), their vision of the "ideal" may be far different than the current show dogs. 

I remember old photos of the Sandylands Labs (a UK prefix) who were distinctive in type and still athletic in appearance. The Sandylands head formed my own image of the perfect Lab head. Does anybody have photos of those old Labs? There were still some of them around in the late 60s and early 70s, I think.

DC Warpath Macho was built more like a show Lab (he came from show lines), but he was also still built like a powerful working dog. I saw him when he was a young dog running some sanctioned trials at the Q level.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> I am not promoting show dogs in any way, but why is the function standard "today's FIELD TRIAL" dog? Does it have to be that extreme? Could the standard not be a MH hunt test dog?


The functional std has always been & should continue to be our best performers in the field - that would be our field champions - FCs. Not knocking MHs but they aren't FCs with all that it takes to achieve that title. Just by definition a MH designation is achieved not by competition among dogs but by a subjective comparison to a written std. And by numbers who have achieved the titles FC & MH, the MHs probably outnumber the FCs 100 to 1 or more. This again is not a knock on MHs, it is a fine achievement but not a competitive one where few attain the title.

That is why I always point to our dual champions. Look at them, wonderful performers who had the intended conformation rather than some English idea that doesn't come close to meeting our conformation std & even less in terms of performance/function. And the fact that some enthusiasts prefer the English bench look doesn't change one iota the Labrador's history in the US which says they are deviating dramatically from the American Labrador both in function & conformation.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Yes, Amy, it should not be the petowning public that determines what is best for a breed. What they want in a pet may not be what that breed was meant to be. I can recall reading an article in the AKC Gazette, years ago, about Dobermans. People wanted Dobermans as pets because of their noble, elegant appearance, but didn't want the temperament that typified a Dobe! The article lamented that some breeders tried to make that accommodation, and ended up with mentally unstable Dobes.
> 
> The retrievers' generally tolerant temperaments can mislead people into not providing obedience training. So, to make their life easier, they'd prefer a less active, energetic dog. Most of the sporting dogs have easy-going temperaments, but I really don't think any of them were made to be couch potatoes. Yet a couch potato can be the kind of dog the petowner wants.
> 
> ...


Gerry,

I agree strongly with your statement which I have enboldend. I was surprised when folks seemed to assume that "middle of the roaders" breeding "more moderate" Labs would be breeding show style dogs. That was not what I had in mind!

There are good looking field bred Labs out there that very much resemble the Grangemead dogs that Granddaddy has promoted. But, it is silly to act as if all field bred Labs of today are cut out of that bolt of cloth.

I too believe that form follows function and that the form will change when the function changes. Is there any doubt that field trial retrievers of today are asked to perform significantly more demanding tests than their counterparts were performing 50 years ago? If you agree, then is it possible that the form of today's Lab has changed to meet the challenges of those more demanding tests? 

I know there will be differences of opinion to whether there have been changes in type within the field Lab population over the years and if so to what degree. Many will profess that those changes have been for the better and others will disagree. There is no one type of Lab that will please everyone.

In my earlier post I didn't mean to infer that the pet owning public was making decisions as to what is best for the breed. I meant to imply that the breeders who chose the dogs for mating selected them based on the traits that mattered to them. There are responsible breeders who are trying to produce hunting/companion Labs based on a vision of their ideal, who are not basing their decisions using the same criteria as a field trial breeder or a show breeder.

Swack


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Swack said:


> .....I meant to imply that the breeders who chose the dogs for mating selected them based on the traits that mattered to them. There are responsible breeders who are trying to produce hunting/companion Labs based on a vision of their ideal, who are not basing their decisions using the same criteria as a field trial breeder or a show breeder.....


 The pet Lab breeders aren't selecting anything other than boy parts and girl parts. Sometimes, they select for color.

And that's a fact Jack.

The people that buy from those breeders, don't know a dog's ass from a hole in the ground. They believe what they read about "Labs" and they absolutely BELIEVE what they read.

And if you think the average show Lab is fat...............................


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Swack said:


> Gerry,
> 
> I agree strongly with your statement which I have enboldend. I was surprised when folks seemed to assume that "middle of the roaders" breeding "more moderate" Labs would be breeding show style dogs. That was not what I had in mind!
> 
> ...


No one has said or implied that "all field Labs of today..." have the conformation of the Grangemead dogs pictured in this thread. I said our dual champions are where we should look for proper conformation & that many of our FCs have similar body type. Even within the FC group there are some that are similar to the Grangemead dogs, others who fall short, but without question the dual champions is where we should be looking, comparing, striving to obtain. And I am confident that those dogs would acquit themselves very well in the field trial game of today. I will add any consideration of the short, fat, Rottweiler-faced dogs who have little or no retrieving desire or talent & who dominate the bench is a turn in the wrong direction. That is my complaint of the moderation breeders who by the consideration of the bench type are admitting that there is merit in that tangent which is far afield from anything resembling the American Lab that achieved a dual champion status.

Further it matters not whether the look of field Labs with conformation to match the Grangemead dogs pleases the public or particularly the bench enthusiast of today. There is a std & the Grangemead type is the historical type for the American Lab & what we should be striving for if we want to maintain or revive an adherence to the std.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

The Labrador Retriever was not developed to be a Field Trial breed. It was developed as a hunting dog... a retriever of game. So, why then should the "breed standard" (which is already defined..... just not always followed) be affected by what "Field Trial" dogs look like (whatever that is....). 

Granddaddy... you say you weren't "knocking" HT dogs... but in fact you were. We get it... Field Trial dogs do amazing things. Their training is incredible. But folks don't have to find a way to knock Hunt Test dogs, or meat dogs for that matter, when discussing what the breed should look like. We know what the breed should look like based on the breed standard.. period. Not what a field trial dog looks like (whatever that is) or a hunt test dog (whatever that is) or someone's couch potato lab (whatever that is....)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Mike Tome said:


> The Labrador Retriever was not developed to be a Field Trial breed. It was developed as a hunting dog... a retriever of game. So, why then should the "breed standard" (which is already defined..... just not always followed) be affected by what "Field Trial" dogs look like (whatever that is....).
> 
> Granddaddy... you say you weren't "knocking" HT dogs... but in fact you were. We get it... Field Trial dogs do amazing things. Their training is incredible. But folks don't have to find a way to knock Hunt Test dogs, or meat dogs for that matter, when discussing what the breed should look like. We know what the breed should look like based on the breed standard.. period. Not what a field trial dog looks like (whatever that is) or a hunt test dog (whatever that is) or someone's couch potato lab (whatever that is....)


Mike, I'm sorry if you think so but you don't know me or what I think. I have said I am not knocking the hunt test dog or the title. I have said the MH title is a fine achievement & if you are a gentleman you will accept what I am saying as my opinion - and what I think. And to respond directly, I was answering a question to me, "..why not the MH...". 

You also do not understand the history of our breed (the Labrador Retriever) or you would understand that we have always looked to our champions as the best of our breed. This is done because the champion title has historically been the pre-qualifier for consideration as to the type to be sought. Once you have the group of champions (field champions since form follows function) then from within that pre-qualified group you find your best conformation examples. This is not my idea but has been the tradition of breeders of champion & dual champion dogs since the beginning when the AKC recognized the Labrador Retriever as a breed - and yes the breed std was written to reflect the performance & conformation type that has been exemplified by our dual champions.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Mike Tome said:


> The Labrador Retriever was not developed to be a Field Trial breed. It was developed as a hunting dog... a retriever of game.


The breed was developed in England to pick up birds in driven shoots. It was imported to the U.S. to participate in the field trial sport, which (having developed in the meantime) was imported with the dogs. U.S. field trials changed to incorporate more of the skills required in American "rough shooting," mainly water work. The dogs changed with them, developing into a breed with great potential for American style waterfowl hunting, and taking over a niche that was previously occupied by spaniels, Chesapeakes, and some versatiles.

Here in the U.S., it was a field trial dog first.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

copterdoc said:


> The pet Lab breeders aren't selecting anything other than boy parts and girl parts. Sometimes, they select for color.
> 
> And that's a fact Jack.
> 
> ...


copterdoc,

No where in the portion of my post you quoted (or in any of my posts on this thread) did I mention the phrase "pet Lab breeders". I'm talking about Lab breeders whose goal is to produce good looking, sensible hunting companions for hunting homes.

If you think there are only breeders of field trial Labs, show Labs, and "pet" Labs, you are missing a big group of breeders. 

I'm not sure what you meant to say in that last sentence. 

And the name's SWACK, not Jack!

Swack


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

OK... well let me get to my point from this direction then...

Just what does a "Field Trial " lab look like... and how does it differ from what "Hunt Test" or "Meat Dog" labs look like?

My point being, in all these categories, there are labs that conform with the breed standard and there are labs that deviate from it to a greater or lessor degree. I don't think we can say that one game that we play harbors all the best conformation characteristics of a Labrador Retriever. Just because a dog has to "win" does not mean it is any closer to the breed standard that a dog that has to "qualify" or jump the furthest, or hunt the hardest or retrieve the fastest.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Mike Tome said:


> OK... well let me get to my point from this direction then...
> 
> Just what does a "Field Trial " lab look like... and how does it differ from what "Hunt Test" or "Meat Dog" labs look like?
> 
> My point being, in all these categories, there are labs that conform with the breed standard and there are labs that deviate from it to a greater or lessor degree. I don't think we can say that one game that we play harbors all the best conformation characteristics of a Labrador Retriever. Just because a dog has to "win" does not mean it is any closer to the breed standard that a dog that has to "qualify" or jump the furthest, or hunt the hardest or retrieve the fastest.


I thought I had explained the historical process in post #96:

"...we have always looked to our champions as the best of our breed. This is done because *the champion title has historically been the pre-qualifier for consideration as to the type to be sought*. Once you have the group of champions (field champions since form follows function) then from within that pre-qualified group you find your best conformation examples. This is not my idea but has been the tradition of breeders of champion & dual champion dogs since the beginning when the AKC recognized the Labrador Retriever as a breed - and yes the breed std was written to reflect the performance & conformation type that has been exemplified by our dual champions.

Amy Dahl explained the context of the bolded statement above when she told us, "...Here in the U.S., it was a field trial dog first."

Unfortunately, you seem to want to take a detached position of conformation relative to function where the form std can be an independent consideration while ignoring function or at least lowering the functional bar to include "meat-dogs" as you put it or less awarded dogs in field achievement. In my view and that historically, prior to the English bench influence, function - and particularly our field champions, was the pre-qualifier for correct conformation, i.e., the field champions served as the pool from which correct conformation was judged and represented the basis for the conformation std to which you refer. When certain field champions were valued for their field prowess but lacked certain conformations qualities sought, their pedigree line was sometimes influenced by breedings to less awarded dogs or bitches to hopefully add the conformation qualities deficient in the line of the dogs with field prowess so valued. That approach puts breeding in proper context. This detached position of form from function, on the other hand, is the very basis of the split which we are discussing. So yes I do think we can say that our field champions by virtue of their champion status do in fact 'harbor' the conformation requirements necessary for them to meet the function (which is the most important consideration) required of the breed to be a field champion & therefore that group of field champions should serve as the only pool from which we find our dogs that best represent our breed's conformation. It is simply a matter of show how the dog functions first before giving it any consideration as to whether the conformation of the dog should be valued. And field trials are the means by which we have historically recognized & awarded performance for our very best dogs.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> That is my complaint of the moderation breeders who by the consideration of the bench type are admitting that there is merit in that tangent which is far afield from anything resembling the American Lab that achieved a dual champion status.


Unless we take each of the moderation breeders case-by-case we may not be able to say that the "Standard" they are using is based upon the bench type seen most often today. The frame of reference may be a compilation of certain specimens and study of the evolution of the breed Standard.

Not a disagreement that the squatty-body dog is the correct dog.

Amy raises a very good point. Hunting conditions have changed over time, even in Europe, I'd venture. Different parts of Europe quite reasonably have differing terrain and conditions. The same would be true for North America. My vet's father bred Gordon Setters. He bred brawnier dogs than the European model. He was a hunter, and contended that hunting conditions in the US required a brawnier dog than Europe's use of the breed. It seems a reasonable premise that modifications to breeds would evolve over time. Still doesn't make me like the short-legged, bulky look, but may help understand how these changes evolve.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Unless we take each of the moderation breeders case-by-case we may not be able to say that the "Standard" they are using is based upon the bench type seen most often today. The frame of reference may be a compilation of certain specimens and study of the evolution of the breed Standard.
> 
> Not a disagreement that the squatty-body dog is the correct dog.
> 
> Amy raises a very good point. Hunting conditions have changed over time, even in Europe, I'd venture. Different parts of Europe quite reasonably have differing terrain and conditions. The same would be true for North America. My vet's father bred Gordon Setters. He bred brawnier dogs than the European model. He was a hunter, and contended that hunting conditions in the US required a brawnier dog than Europe's use of the breed. It seems a reasonable premise that modifications to breeds would evolve over time. Still doesn't make me like the short-legged, bulky look, *but may help understand how these changes evolve*.


But if form follows function, these changes if significant or important, take care of themselves over time. And the breed conformation std should represent function and then form as it relates to function. It should not be independent or detached & it should not be influenced by form apart from function.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> I thought I had explained the historical process in post #96:
> 
> "...we have always looked to our champions as the best of our breed. This is done because *the champion title has historically been the pre-qualifier for consideration as to the type to be sought*. Once you have the group of champions (field champions since form follows function) then from within that pre-qualified group you find your best conformation examples. This is not my idea but has been the tradition of breeders of champion & dual champion dogs since the beginning when the AKC recognized the Labrador Retriever as a breed - and yes the breed std was written to reflect the performance & conformation type that has been exemplified by our dual champions.
> 
> ...


So, please explain to me how a Field Champion Labrador appears different from a MH Labrador. 

I think you are missing my point.... that all shapes and sizes of Labrador have earned FC or AFC or CFC tiles, as well as all shapes and sized of Labrador have earned MH (AKC), GMHR (NAHRA) or whatever high end titles in the various Hunt Test organizations. I do not understand your point that Field Trial dogs, because of the superb training and accomplishment, have conformation characteristics that are any better than Labradors in the hunt test programs.

I am not disagreeing that the breed has split in form, or that there are labs out there that are not good representives of the breed standard in both bench and field lines. What I have issue with, is that you state that the Field Trial dog (you have still not explained what a field trial dog looks like) is a better example of what a Labrador Retriever should look like. I also take exception to the point you made that somehow, hunt test dogs should not be considered as good representatives of the breed. Here's exactly what you say "*The functional std has always been & should continue to be our best performers in the field - that would be our field champions - FCs. Not knocking MHs but they aren't FCs with all that it takes to achieve that title*." And I have no idea where you got this "*Unfortunately, you seem to want to take a detached psition of conformation relative to function where the form std can be an independent consideration while ignoring function or at least lowering the functional bar to include "meat-dogs" as you put it or less awarded dogs in field achievement"*, because I never stated any such thing. What I said is that there could be perfect examples of the breed standard in hunt test dogs, dock jumping dogs, or meat dogs. Please do not put words in my mouth....

All I want to know, is how does my Hunt Test dog, from Field Trial stock, differ in form from someone's FC based just on what the title in front of or behind their name says. How is a Hunt Test dog any less of a representative of the standard than a Field Trial dog, when both are within the conformation standards established by the breed club? I understand your point of dual champions very clearly... but is a Field Trial/CH somehow "better" than a MH/CH?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Mike Tome said:


> but is a Field Trial/CH somehow "better" than a MH/CH?


A FC-CH is a dual champion (2 competitive venues determined to be the best in 2 venues by competition) a MH-CH (determined to be the best in one competitive venue and has passed a standard in another, but has not competed) realistically I see very few conformation differences the vast majority of dogs in FT, HT, working dogs or even pet stock, most have the leggy-hound quality. It's harder to find the show influence CH is the rarer in the majority of venues in regard to looks, and when you do find it it's usually that someone has made a conscious decision to have that type-look of dog.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I don't think David is saying that because trial dogs are obviously the more talented group that they necessarily look any better or different than dogs running hunt tests. They tend to be from the same bloodlines from best I can tell. He is using the term field trial dogs or field champions, etc as a point of reference because they are what everyone is compared against.


Mike Tome said:


> OK... well let me get to my point from this direction then...
> 
> Just what does a "Field Trial " lab look like... and how does it differ from what "Hunt Test" or "Meat Dog" labs look like?
> 
> My point being, in all these categories, there are labs that conform with the breed standard and there are labs that deviate from it to a greater or lessor degree. I don't think we can say that one game that we play harbors all the best conformation characteristics of a Labrador Retriever. Just because a dog has to "win" does not mean it is any closer to the breed standard that a dog that has to "qualify" or jump the furthest, or hunt the hardest or retrieve the fastest.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

While I am not nor presume to be a David apologist when he uses the term "field trial dog" that also includes hunt test dogs. After more than a decade of not having a stud dog I can report that all of the hunt test females who have inquired about stud service are field trial bred on at least one side and generally both sides of the pedigrees, so the term "field trial dogs" is often synonymous with "hunt test dogs" at least by parentage if not accomplishment.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

You said it much better than myself.


EdA said:


> While I am not nor presume to be a David apologist when he uses the term "field trial dog" that also includes hunt test dogs. After more than a decade of not having a stud dog I can report that all of the hunt test females who have inquired about stud service are field trial bred on at least one side and generally both sides of the pedigrees, so the term "field trial dogs" is often synonymous with "hunt test dogs" at least by parentage if not accomplishment.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

EdA said:


> While I am not nor presume to be a David apologist when he uses the term "field trial dog" that also includes hunt test dogs. After more than a decade of not having a stud dog I can report that all of the hunt test females who have inquired about stud service are field trial bred on at least one side and generally both sides of the pedigrees, so the term "field trial dogs" is often synonymous with "hunt test dogs" at least by parentage if not accomplishment.


Dr. Ed, but you see.. David said exactly that "Not knocking MHs but they aren't FCs with all that it takes to achieve that title." and that is the point I'm trying to get clarification on. But for the resources of time and money, many MHs, GMHRs and great hunting dogs could possibly be FCs. I simply maintain, that we need not only look at FCs to find examples of what a Labrador should look like. That, in those simple words is the crux of my argument and where I disagree with David. And in reality, he and I probably agree on more than we disagree. I just took exception to David stating that FCs somehow are better examples of what a Labrador Retriever should look like.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Again, he isint saying that. He is saying they are an elite group of performers in the field. I strongly than many hunt test titled dogs could FC or AFC. That statement is insane IMO.


Mike Tome said:


> Dr. Ed, but you see.. David said exactly that "Not knocking MHs but they aren't FCs with all that it takes to achieve that title." and that is the point I'm trying to get clarification on. But for the resources of time and money, many MHs, GMHRs and great hunting dogs could possibly be FCs. I simply maintain, that we need not only look at FCs to find examples of what a Labrador should look like. That, in those simple words is the crux of my argument and where I disagree with David. And in reality, he and I probably agree on more than we disagree. I just took exception to David stating that FCs somehow are better examples of what a Labrador Retriever should look like.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

I went to my see my 1st hunt test last weekend. There were several bench bred dogs competing for their JH. I spoke with one of the owners and her CH dog was on a truck for a full year and was still trying to earn a JH. I watched the bench bred dogs run or should I say waddle? It was similar to watching a quarter horse trying to run in the Kentucky Derby...


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Dave Farrar said:


> I went to my see my 1st hunt test last weekend. There were several bench bred dogs competing for their JH. I spoke with one of the owners and her CH dog was on a truck for a full year and was still trying to earn a JH. I watched the bench bred dogs run or should I say waddle? It was similar to watching a quarter horse trying to run in the Kentucky Derby...


Ouch, show Quarter Horse maybe.

Los Alamitos regards,


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

claimsadj said:


> That statement is insane IMO.


Not insane many AFC-FCs we're brought to that title by people who started in HTs and moved on to FT, you don't have to start in FT to earn those titles you just have to have a great dog, the fortitude-insanity to take your licks, keep improving and keep going. I'm not from Missouri but I have to be able to see any split show vs.field or FTvsHT, before I can argue it. HT-FT Bloodlines cross so much that they are pretty much indistinguishable. But the best thing about a physical competitive venue is why make generalizations; all you have to do is sign a dog up and show what they can do, if they win-compete well; you've proven that you got a Great dog regardless of what they look like, or where they came from.


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

PennyRetrievers said:


> Are we splitting the breed?


Happened long ago.

Black, Yellow, Chocolate......

I'm out...


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Dave Plesko said:


> Happened long ago.
> 
> Black, Yellow, Chocolate......
> 
> I'm out...



What about white, silver, charcoal and red? Just fried some bacon or, rashers if you chose to be on the British side...mmm


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

So many dogs that run hunt tests could become an FC. It just would take time, money etc and they would do it? MANY? Get real


Hunt'EmUp said:


> Not insane many AFC-FCs we're brought to that title by people who started in HTs and moved on to FT, you don't have to start in FT to earn those titles you just have to have a great dog, the fortitude-insanity to take your licks, keep improving and keep going. I'm not from Missouri but I have to be able to see any split show vs.field or FTvsHT, before I can argue it. HT-FT Bloodlines cross so much that they are pretty much indistinguishable. But the best thing about a physical competitive venue is why make generalizations; all you have to do is sign a dog up and show what they can do, if they win-compete well; you've proven that you got a Great dog regardless of what they look like, or where they came from.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

My point was that both venues went to extremes, the show t to the overdone side and the field trial to further , faster , sharper obedience. ( Because of pin point timing with corrections) THat is why I asked about the standard being FC. YES I understand about MH being non competetive. BUT COULD IT BE that the field trial world has gone to a extreme also?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Bridget Bodine said:


> My point was that both venues went to extremes, the show t to the overdone side and the field trial to further , faster , sharper obedience. ( Because of pin point timing with corrections) THat is why I asked about the standard being FC. YES I understand about MH being non competetive. BUT COULD IT BE that the field trial world has gone to a extreme also?


Modern technology, training methods, information avialability/sharing, pedigree databases, performance tracking has added up to more than just the games going extreme in my opinion. You used to allow dogs to breed. Now, many breeders won't even let their dogs tie? Those will become the bulldogs of the lab world. I joke about it to a few show breeders close to me but, I'm relatively serious. Some studs don't know how to do anything unless it involves a zip-lock and five fingers. Tell me that isn't, "Extreme".....for the last thing that should come naturally.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Mike Tome said:


> So, please explain to me how a Field Champion Labrador appears different from a MH Labrador.
> 
> I think you are missing my point.... that all shapes and sizes of Labrador have earned FC or AFC or CFC tiles, as well as all shapes and sized of Labrador have earned MH (AKC), GMHR (NAHRA) or whatever high end titles in the various Hunt Test organizations. I do not understand your point that Field Trial dogs, because of the superb training and accomplishment, have conformation characteristics that are any better than Labradors in the hunt test programs.
> 
> ...


Mike, my point has been about how we have historically selected our breeding stock. FCs give breeders a quantifiable means of selecting a sire or dam for a breeding that is universally recognized as the highest level of credibility. Sure there are probably non-titled dogs who could also produce wonderful pups, who could perform as well as an FC given the same opportunity or have the looks we desire most (whatever they are) but the titled dogs are universally recognized as the elite because they HAVE achieved the highest level of field titles. All you have to do is look at the breeding of the most successful dogs in the field to see that most come from field champion breedings. So the titled field dogs serve as a pool of dogs from which most of the breedings come - a pre-qualifier, if you will, for the best breedings. This elite group of dogs has also historically served as the breeding stock (in the 1st or 2nd generation) for most of the hunting Labs we have owned & used over the last 100 yrs. At least from an achievement credentials view, there is no better place to look for the best breeding stock. And if form should follow function, which I strongly believe, then lack of field achievement should serve to disqualify other dogs from breeding if the intent is to maintain the breed. This is not unlike how we select the best in a number of fields. For instance, high school basketball players that are McDonald's All-Americans are considered the elite players pool from which the most competitive power-house schools recruit. It doesn't mean there aren't players just as good who are not members of that elite group but the McDonald's All-American label provides a known credibility to the selected players & they represent the elite recruiting pool....same for Ivy League graduates, Rhodes Scholars etc in their areas of expertise. And coincidentally, from an appearance view, they all look a lot alike. But it is the performance credentials that set the group apart and which creates the pool from which the std is set.

It is only when functional achievement (field champions titles) is not considered as a pre-qualifier that form is given license to go in any direction that certain enthusiasts want to take it. So yes, a non-titled meat dog may look just as good to some as a titled dog but without the titled label it has virtually no credibility & certainly no depth of pedigree from which to predict a future generation. And to accept less than a field titled dog (yes I mean FCs) means there isn't an elite breeding std. So is MH OK, and to those that have a SH maybe they think a SH is OK. And to those who have just achieved a JH, maybe they think that is an acceptable level. And what about WC certificate? The point is that when we start down that road it has no ending except that over time you wind up with no std at all as a pre-qualifier. Even now some will say an UKC registry (not talking about UKC/HRC performance titles) is just as credible as an AKC registry & maybe there are those pet-store dogs who have a Continental registry that say their credentials are just is good as AKC or UKC. So is there a std or not? And should there be a functional title std from which our breeding stock comes from, I think so....and I just happen to believe it is the same std we have had historically and not the alternative of form separate from function that bench enthusiasts of the last 50 yrs have created in order to go their own way.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

This is true, unfortunately. I also want to know why C-sections are becoming so common and in some cases, pre-planned. Owner requested or are we backing ourselves into a dreaded $1500 corner (if so unlucky to end up at the E Clinic)? BS imo on both accounts. Dogs should know "how" to breed and when if location is favorable. I'd much rather do a natural breeding than have to pay my vets up the ying-yang anymore to do a chilled, let alone a natural. Give me a break. 



Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Modern technology, training methods, information avialability/sharing, pedigree databases, performance tracking has added up to more than just the games going extreme in my opinion. You used to allow dogs to breed. Now, many breeders won't even let their dogs tie? Those will become the bulldogs of the lab world. I joke about it to a few show breeders close to me but, I'm relatively serious. Some studs don't know how to do anything unless it involves a zip-lock and five fingers. Tell me that isn't, "Extreme".....for the last thing that should come naturally.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> My point was that both venues went to extremes, the show t to the overdone side and the field trial to further , faster , sharper obedience. ( Because of pin point timing with corrections) THat is why I asked about the standard being FC. YES I understand about MH being non competetive. BUT COULD IT BE that the field trial world has gone to a extreme also?


Bridget this is typically the view of members of the moderation group. But field trials have evolved not so much because the dogs are more capable or more intelligent IMO but primarily because training methods have advanced dramatically & resulted in phenomenal advancements in the performance of our best trial dogs, i.e., the advanced training has unlocked the potential of our dogs. Even at the hunt test level it was never envisioned that so many dogs would be so capable to achieve a master skill level just 20-30 yrs ago. So I don't see FTs as extreme at all. What I see is a phenomenal group of dogs that never cease to amaze me with their abilities brought out by advanced training. And what this FT evolution does is provide a further means to separate the skills of dogs vying for the FC title. Without question today dogs that achieve a FC title are as a group the best performing dogs we have ever produced. This doesn't mean, however, that many FC dogs of the past would not be just as successful today given access to the advanced training. 

This is much different that the conformation evolution within the Labrador Retriever breed. That evolution just ignored function altogether & established a path detached & independent from which the bench enthusiasts could re-write the historical interpretation of the breed conformation std. The result is the short-legged, over-weight version of the Lab with the near-Rottweiler look that has little or no retrieving desire - and who knows what health issues have come along with this evolution because these dogs do little or no field work.


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

Granddaddy said:


> Mike, my point has been about how we have historically selected our breeding stock. FCs give breeders a quantifiable means of selecting a sire or dam for a breeding that is universally recognized as the highest level of credibility. Sure there are probably non-titled dogs who could also produce wonderful pups, who could perform as well as an FC given the same opportunity or have the looks we desire most (whatever they are) but the titled dogs are universally recognized as the elite because they HAVE achieved the highest level of field titles. All you have to do is look at the breeding of the most successful dogs in the field to see that most come from field champion breedings. So the titled field dogs serve as a pool of dogs from which most of the breedings come - a pre-qualifier, if you will, for the best breedings. This elite group of dogs has also historically served as the breeding stock (in the 1st or 2nd generation) for most of the hunting Labs we have owned & used over the last 100 yrs. At least from an achievement credentials view, there is no better place to look for the best breeding stock. And if form should follow function, which I strongly believe, then lack of field achievement should serve to disqualify other dogs from breeding if the intent is to maintain the breed. This is not unlike how we select the best in a number of fields. For instance, high school basketball players that are McDonald's All-Americans are considered the elite players pool from which the most competitive power-house schools recruit. It doesn't mean there aren't players just as good who are not members of that elite group but the McDonald's All-American label provides a known credibility to the selected players & they represent the elite recruiting pool....same for Ivy League graduates, Rhodes Scholars etc in their areas of expertise. And coincidentally, from an appearance view, they all look a lot alike. But it is the performance credentials that set the group apart and which creates the pool from which the std is set.
> 
> It is only when functional achievement (field champions titles) is not considered as a pre-qualifier that form is given license to go in any direction that certain enthusiasts want to take it. So yes, a non-titled meat dog may look just as good to some as a titled dog but without the titled label it has virtually no credibility & certainly no depth of pedigree from which to predict a future generation. And to accept less than a field titled dog (yes I mean FCs) means there isn't an elite breeding std. So is MH OK, and to those that have a SH maybe they think a SH is OK. And to those who have just achieved a JH, maybe they think that is an acceptable level. And what about WC certificate? The point is that when we start down that road it has no ending except that over time you wind up with no std at all as a pre-qualifier. Even now some will say an UKC registry (not talking about UKC/HRC performance titles) is just as credible as an AKC registry & maybe there are those pet-store dogs who have a Continental registry that say their credentials are just is good as AKC or UKC. So is there a std or not? And should there be a functional title std from which our breeding stock comes from, I think so....and I just happen to believe it is the same std we have had historically and not the alternative of form separate from function that bench enthusiasts of the last 50 yrs have created in order to go their own way.



Fantastic Post! I was a bit on the fence trying to figure out both sides argument. 

Well put Sir! and thanks for taking the time to do so.




/


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

This is much different that the conformation evolution within the Labrador Retriever breed. That evolution just ignored function altogether & established a path detached & independent from which the bench enthusiasts could re-write the historical interpretation of the breed conformation std. The result is the short-legged, over-weight version of the Lab with the near-Rottweiler look that has little or no retrieving desire - and who knows what health issues have come along with this evolution because these dogs do little or no field work.[/QUOTE]

Well said David. There is a split where did it come from? People imported Labs in the early 1900s that looked like the dogs you and I have today. Somewhere along the way "someone" developed a dog that looks like the show dogs of today. Now they say my dog "isn't built right to do what a Lab does. He doesn't have the proper conformation to run and swim long distances. His coat won't keep him warm." My dog does what a Lab was meant to do all day long. "Their" dog has the perfect conformation to do something it will never do...Incomprehensible.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

There is no denying the difference between the Labs one sees in the show ring and those at upper levels hunt tests or field trials.

However, I think we are missing Dr. A's point. When hunt tests started, the dogs participating were a mixed bag of pedigrees. Many people started out with their hunting dogs or pets. Those who got hooked on the hunt tests didn't take long to figure out that it was easier & more fun to train a dog who had a lot of natural ability to start with. So those people looked toward the field trial bloodlines for their next dog; not to mention that they also went training with the people who trained for field trials  

So, now the majority of the most successful hunt test dogs have pedigrees that are not far removed from the field trial pedigrees. The only difference between the individual dogs may be that their individual owners chose different pursuits. There can also be differences in a litter bred specifically for field trials, i.e. some of them don't become FCs. If in the same litter you have an FC, a couple of MHs, and a few pets, you'll pay a stud fee for the ones with the titles.There may also be valuable genetic material in the pet, but it hasn't been documented.

Some of the short-legged, bulky Labs get MH titles. Some field-bred Labs wash out. It's about the laws of probability being not as much in favor of the bench dogs to succeed in MH as for the dogs who have been bred for the high levels of natural abilities specifically needed for working tasks.

No question in my mind that the FC title is light years more difficult than a MH title. The distance factor, alone, adds the dimension of quality of the dog's eyesight. Not every dog of even the best pedigree may have the eyesight needed to be a brilliant marker. 

In Labs there are many FCs and AFCs to choose from. In the other retriever breeds, the choices are much more limited. So, in those other breeds, QAA and MH sires (and dams) are, of necessity, the genes that are also used by those who wish to produce field-working offspring. 

In Goldens, if we added up all the living FCs and/or AFCs in both US and Canada, the number would still be a small fraction of the # of FCs and/or AFCs achieved in Labs in just one year! So, for other retriever breeds it can be more challenging to find the right combo of genes; and then to find owners interested in high-level field activities who haven't already decided they need a Lab  It's not surprising that many owners of Goldens or Flat Coats, etc. also have acquired a Lab for field work even if they don't abandon their loyalty to their primary breed.

The field working contingent has one important factor on their side. The dog whose form is faulty may be more injury prone or have a shorter career. Drive may give them momentum to overextend their bodies' limits, but, in the end, the body must be able to hold up to the rigors of the work. Unfortunately, from a show standpoint, the structure may "look good on paper", but it is not often put to the test of the durability that is needed from the working aspect. The hard working dog has proven its durability.

We really shouldn't leave the best hunting dogs out of our equation. The MH or field trial dog might be considered a "sprinter", while a hunting dog may need the stamina of a marathon runner. Human runners, regardless of the length of the race, often have similar physique. I've not heard of any successful runners who are built like Sumo wrestlers


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> There is no denying the difference between the Labs one sees in the show ring and those at upper levels hunt tests or field trials.
> 
> However, I think we are missing Dr. A's point. When hunt tests started, the dogs participating were a mixed bag of pedigrees. Many people started out with their hunting dogs or pets. Those who got hooked on the hunt tests didn't take long to figure out that it was easier & more fun to train a dog who had a lot of natural ability to start with. So those people looked toward the field trial bloodlines for their next dog; not to mention that they also went training with the people who trained for field trials
> 
> ...


*
*


You ever met a fat Ninja ?


----------



## Mountain Duck (Mar 7, 2010)

Shawn White said:


> [/B]
> 
> 
> You ever met a fat Ninja ?


Sorry...low hanging fruit....couldn't pass it up!!


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> We really shouldn't leave the best hunting dogs out of our equation. The MH or field trial dog might be considered a "sprinter", while a hunting dog may need the stamina of a marathon runner. Human runners, regardless of the length of the race, often have similar physique. I've not heard of any successful runners who are built like Sumo wrestlers


I think most field trials adequately demonstrate the stamina of the dogs that compete. A couple of days with a field trial training group should convince anyone of their endurance. Long marks & blinds are often repeated, dogs are called back to correct lines. They have long hunts. This happens 5 or 6 days per week, all year round. I do not personally know of any hunting labs that get that much endurance work.

I also think, on average, there is a significant difference in the pedigrees between hunt tests and field trials. Today, almost all successful field trial dogs are at least FC sired and a large number are FC X FC (or NFC/NAFC). In addition, the successful trial dogs tend to have a majority of ancestors with field trial titles. Not so much in the average hunt test pedigree. Great breeding is not a guarantee. There is a lot of variability within a given litter. Given similar training and opportunity, all littermates are not created equal. FC's are the proven elite of the retriever performance world.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

So in addition to the endurance and trainability ,if we could add coat, otter tails, level toplines and better heads, we might be getting somewhere. (NO I do not mean rotty heads either) If we could start to see FCs in a standing picture to evaluate structure, it would go a long way to being able to select for the whole package. We could look at the past generations and discard candidates that have poor construction. Sooo, can we start to show pictures of dogs standing, we all know FCs can sit
IT is not and cannot be just about the performance nor just about the structure ,


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

So what does an Otter Tail have to do with either performance or structure? Appears to me to be pure vanity in a human conceived idea of beauty. I will say most, if not all, of the top field dogs I have seen have nothing like an otter tail. Show dogs are never seen without one.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> This is much different that the conformation evolution within the Labrador Retriever breed. That evolution just ignored function altogether & established a path detached & independent from which the bench enthusiasts could re-write the historical interpretation of the breed conformation std. The result is the short-legged, over-weight version of the Lab with the near-Rottweiler look that has little or no retrieving desire - and who knows what health issues have come along with this evolution because these dogs do little or no field work.


EIC for starters. It's very prevalent in the show world. I've heard, "many dogs have never even had an episode" which isn't surprising because few have ever had more than 3-4 live birds at the training day once a year...got to be realistic..


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

2tall said:


> So what does an Otter Tail have to do with either performance or structure? Appears to me to be pure vanity in a human conceived idea of beauty. I will say most, if not all, of the top field dogs I have seen have nothing like an otter tail. Show dogs are never seen without one.



That's why there are "Purebred" dogs. Human vanity. What other reason would there be?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bridget Bodine said:


> IT is not and cannot be just about the performance nor just about the structure ,


So where do you factor in temperament, trainability, skin and haircoat problems, entropion, ectropion, chronic otitis externa, retained testicles, CCL injuries, OCD, etc............?


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

EdA said:


> So where do you factor in temperament, trainability, skin and haircoat problems, entropion, ectropion, chronic otitis externa, retained testicles, CCL injuries, OCD, etc............?


 OK I agree, IT is not just about Performance NOR is it just about structure NOR is it just about health. It SHOULD be about the total package


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

It's been said before but the best looking dog is the one coming back with the last bird in the last series, level topline and otter tail not withstanding.

I'll never understand how there can ever be another dual champion Lab, when the ones that are built "right" can't perform and the ones that supposedly look like they can't run or swim all day do.

FCs show what they can do nearly everyday.

If someone produced an FC with an otter tail I wonder how many breedings they'd get?


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

View attachment 13258
I'm wearing this outfit so I won't be recognized because I could possibly be the daddy of some of those pups?


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Funny enough , there was a very recent trial where the amateur dog that got second was sired by a show champion.... Congrats again Glenn. There is also another bitch here in the East that has been getting Jams that has a pretty strong show pedigree. Maybe we are closer than we think...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Funny enough , there was a very recent trial where the amateur dog that got second was sired by a show champion.... Congrats again Glenn. There is also another bitch here in the East that has been getting Jams that has a pretty strong show pedigree. Maybe we are closer than we think...


Glen is a great guy & he works very to get the best from his dogs. But I don't think we are close really, more of an anomaly.

here's the logical & historical progression, form FOLLOWS function, which means from the performance pool the elite performers are determined through competition, from those elite performers those with the very best structure are selected as the best over all examples of the breed. The performance regiment of the elite field dog is the very best proof of proper structure and ultimately health as well.


When conformation is allowed to be evaluated or judged separate from performance, then it enables those who judge to bring wide ranging and subjective interpretations to the conformation std. And in that separation, the ability & desire to do even rudimentary field work is systematically lost. In this process, where dogs are being selected for conformation excellence without an elite performance pre-qualifier, I.e., from dogs outside of the elite performance pool, then it precludes the very dogs that should be the pool from which our best structural dogs (dogs who have proven the viability of their structure through years of high level field work) should be selected. Being precluded from conformation consideration, the elite performance pool then loses the historic level of attention to structure. That said, I firmly believe the grueling level of field work to which the elite performance dogs are daily subjected is the very best proof of proper structure for those dogs that hold up under years of field training....a much more objective judgment of structure that a human judge who subjectively pronounces which dogs represent best their idea of proper structure.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Well said David.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

I have long thought that outcrosses of a strong field sire to a dam of very different breeding produce great working dogs more often than chance would indicate. Genetics tells us that these dogs are likely to be very poor producers--so such a cross can produce performers, but it's a dead end reproductively.

I'm not comfortable giving "known" examples--maybe students of pedigrees will instantly think of a few. I have seen the same thing in the dogs we've trained as gun dogs, that we wished the owners wanted to trial. Seems a lot of the time these are show/field crosses, and they do everything right, learn fast, great attitudes, can remember and separate tough marks, etc. 

Parents of vastly different physical types can produce odd-looking offspring though.

Amy Dahl


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Glen is a great guy & he works very to get the best from his dogs. But I don't think we are close really, more of an anomaly.
> 
> here's the logical & historical progression, form FOLLOWS function, which means from the performance pool the elite performers are determined through competition, from those elite performers those with the very best structure are selected as the best over all examples of the breed. The performance regiment of the elite field dog is the very best proof of proper structure and ultimately health as well.
> 
> ...


David, do you believe that the current "structure" of the typical field bred Labrador Retriever in no way contributes to the increased incidence of TPLO injury? It seems the performance community would be seeing less TPLO injury both in older and younger dogs if "the grueling level of field work is the best proof of proper structure". In discussions with the ortho surgeon after my Lab's TPLO, he indicated that the very straight hind legs in some field bred Labradors predisposes them to CCL rupture.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

frontier said:


> David, do you believe that the current "structure" of the typical field bred Labrador Retriever in no way contributes to the increased incidence of TPLO injury? It seems the performance community would be seeing less TPLO injury both in older and younger dogs if "the grueling level of field work is the best proof of proper structure". In discussions with the ortho surgeon after my Lab's TPLO, he indicated that the very straight hind legs in some field bred Labradors predisposes them to CCL rupture.


Have there been any studies on what makes the injuries occur? Is there something structural to it? Do these injuries occur as frequently in other breeds? How do the breed-Standard structures vary among the various breeds, in which these injuries are seen most often? 

Is it a small percentage of the competitors, and so the numbers seem large just because of the size of the population?

We see these injuries also occurring in agility competitors. A dog (agility competitor) I bred had a tear repaired, but they seem more common in the Border Collies. There are many more Border Collies in agility than Goldens, so maybe it's a matter of percentages?

I know very little about this topic, so it might be better in a thread of its own? I don't mean to hijack this thread.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Have there been any studies on what makes the injuries occur?.


http://www.tierklinik-reif.de/pdf/Comparison%20of%20Tibial%20Plateau%20Angles%20in%20Normal%20and%20Cranial%20Cruciate%20Deficient%20Stifles%20of%20Labrador%20Retrievers.pdf


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Looking at hind limb structure, many field dogs are too straight behind...and many show dogs are over-angulated and sickle-hocked to the point of losing power and drive. Again, extremes....but different in their existence. It's not all that common for field trial breeders to look hard at rear structure and make breeding decisions with that in mind (it's way down the list, as a rule)...while many of the show dog folks select for the over angled extreme. One side ignores it, the other side over-does it.

Having said that, I do believe there is a correlation between too-straight hind limb structure and CCL tears. However, one also has to take into consideration the work the dog is doing. A hard running athlete is more likely to injure itself than a dog that does no strenuous work. I've seen some show dogs that are so over-angluated in the hocks that I'd expect plantar ligament issues if stressed. And if you really want to see a show dog that is ruined in the rear, take a look at the horrible hocks on the Gordon Setters...yikes! Some of them almost make the show German Shepard Dogs look normal.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I believe that there is more involved in CCL tears than conformation, they were relatively uncommon 25-30 years ago, I believe there is a genetically based predisposition that will hopefully be identified by DNA analysis. Familial history suggests there is a genetic component.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

EdA said:


> I believe that there is more involved in CCL tears than conformation, they were relatively uncommon 25-30 years ago, I believe there is a genetically based predisposition that will hopefully be identified by DNA analysis. Familial history suggests there is a genetic component.


Dr. Ed, I agree...there's more to it and very likely a genetic component. Any possibility that genetic component could also be structural?  Today's field dogs tend to be straighter behind than they were a few decades back. Just a random thought...


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Sharon 
I am working with a show bred Gordon that makes me dizzy when he is moving away. Granted he is young (12 mos), but he is very narrow and his legs are all over the place... 
If the field breeders would pay more attention to movement and balance it would go a long way. I personally feel that the HEART (guts,tenacity,will) of the field bred dog overcomes the short comings of the structure. 

Dr Ed as a long time participant, what is your experience with arthritis and other joint issues in the older dog. Have you found straighter, post legged dogs (front and rear) might be retiring earlier? Is the any correlation to work longevity to structure?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Dr. Ed, I agree...there's more to it and very likely a genetic component. Any possibility that genetic component could also be structural?  Today's field dogs tend to be straighter behind than they were a few decades back. Just a random thought...


Structural is an ill defined factor. Perhaps weak or deficient cruciate ligaments but stifle angulation I doubt partially based on my own dogs now in the sixth generation. Also there is an immune mediated theory so mostly we just have speculation.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

EdA said:


> Structural is an ill defined factor. Perhaps weak or deficient cruciate ligaments but stifle angulation I doubt partially based on my own dogs now in the sixth generation. Also there is an immune mediated theory so mostly we just have speculation.


Interesting. I enjoy hearing your thoughts on the subject. I'll be very curious to see what comes up in the research in the future. All I've based my theory on is the number of dogs I've seen, said to myself "there's a CCL just waiting to blow" and eventually, I hear it happened and was repaired. I'm going to take a wild guess and say I've said that about 50 dogs, and approximately 75% of those have eventually had cruciate repairs.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Sharon
> I am working with a show bred Gordon that makes me dizzy when he is moving away. Granted he is young (12 mos), but he is very narrow and his legs are all over the place...
> If the field breeders would pay more attention to movement and balance it would go a long way. I personally feel that the HEART (guts,tenacity,will) of the field bred dog overcomes the short comings of the structure.


Bridget, I've seen some show Gordons who were almost walking on their hocks. All to get that overstretched, sloping topline and camped out pose...and they move like a trainwreck. Such a difference from the field Gordons....another breed split.

And I agree that the heart and desire often overcome structural deficiencies. In the end, without heart, we have nothing.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

tall said:


> So what does an Otter Tail have to do with either performance or structure? Appears to me to be pure vanity in a human conceived idea of beauty. I will say most, if not all, of the top field dogs I have seen have nothing like an otter tail. Show dogs are never seen without one.


*I agree, otter tail = snail tail. Show Labrador dogs SUCK in the field. The breed isn't being spilt. It is split. Any one thinks today's "Bench Champion" can become a FC, prove me wrong.
*


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

The dogs use their tail as a rudder when swimming. So, at least in theory, a thicker tail, heavier at the base, adds stability and strength to the "rudder". And yeah, I know all the thinner tailed dogs can swim...but we'll never know if they'd be better with the otter tail.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

This whole argument get so old. To each his own. I and my circle of breeder friends choose to breed moderate dogs who can spend the day hunting with their owners. Can they do field trials? Probably not. Do they have double coats and a rudder? Yes. Can they live in the house and lay at their owners feet and relax and be ready to go in a minute? Yes. Do they look like a lab? Yes. 

Do they win in the show ring? Yes, but it's really hard and takes a long time. Do they get to MH level? Yes. Does a dog need to be a CH or an AFC/FC to be a good hunting partner? No. Are there extremes on both sides? Yes. Labradors shouldn't look like greyhounds and have curved tails. Labradors shouldn't be so short they can't cover ground effortlessly. Labs shouldn't need a vest in the cold weather because they should have a tight DOUBLE coat. They shouldn't have a long coat.

My dogs are from long lived, classic lines, with minimal health problems, no lines are clear of everything. They can hunt, do agility, do obedience, be a couch potato. I have a bitch from my last litter that is working on her OTCH. I kept one that is halfway to her CH/MH. Two others are with families with kids that swim them in the Chesapeake bay everyday.

I don't think we should split the breed. But REALLY, can't you appreciate some of the things that make Labs, Labs? Both sides have great qualities.

Isn't the lab supposed to do it all? Isn't that the reason they've been number one for 10+ years unfortunately? Come on people....keep an open mind.

Sue Puff


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

suepuff said:


> This whole argument get so old. To each his own. I and my circle of breeder friends choose to breed moderate dogs who can spend the day hunting with their owners.


Sue - I am coming at labs from a working dog perspective as a guy that hunts hard, upland and waterfowl, as well as runs hunt tests. 

What is it about your current litter that is 'moderate'? Siggy and Bree.

I'm really not trying to poke on you here - don't know squat about a bench dog. I do admittedly feel for some folks who've bought show line dogs with JH titles whereas the breeder pretty much sold 'em a bag of coal from a working dog perspective - when what they were after was a good hunting dog and pet and absolutely no intention of ever entering a ring.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Not buying the "tail as rudder". No dog swims faster or maneuvers quicker than my oldest. He has a gorgeous, high, curved tail. Rudders go on boats, not dogs. The ones I see with "otter" tails the appendage seems to act more as an anchor!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

2tall said:


> Not buying the "tail as rudder". No dog swims faster or maneuvers quicker than my oldest. He has a gorgeous, high, curved tail. Rudders go on boats, not dogs. The ones I see with "otter" tails the appendage seems to act more as an anchor!


An otter tail is useless anyway if the dog is running around the bank to pick up a water mark. :razz:


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> The dogs use their tail as a rudder when swimming. So, at least in theory, a thicker tail, heavier at the base, adds stability and strength to the "rudder". And yeah, I know all the thinner tailed dogs can swim...but we'll never know if they'd be better with the otter tail.


You are arguing, function follows form. And, your evidence for that is...coulda, woulda, shoulda.
When, there is real evidence, that it is the other way around. Form follows function.

That evidence is seen all the time. FT dogs


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> You are arguing, function follows form. And, your evidence for that is...coulda, woulda, shoulda.
> When, there is real evidence, that it is the other way around. Form follows function.
> 
> That evidence is seen all the time. FT dogs


I'm not saying I agree with it...I'm just saying that's the supposed reason for it.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

2tall said:


> Not buying the "tail as rudder". No dog swims faster or maneuvers quicker than my oldest. He has a gorgeous, high, curved tail. Rudders go on boats, not dogs. The ones I see with "otter" tails the appendage seems to act more as an anchor!


And where is that tail when he's swimming?  

The otter tail is another thing that is often overdone in the show dogs. And I hate the blunt cut hair at the end that some do (and claim is naturally that way).


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Well said Sue. I have to say that in the past 5 yrs especially, I'm getting more and more calls from folks that say they've not been able to find a Lab that looks like the old labs they grew up with. They complain about both ends of the spectrum. Too little coat vs too much coat, narrow lock picking noses vs big Rott heads , light rangy bodies vs big heavy bodies. Whenever I can, I have them come visit to see for themselves what I have here. I too have a range, and some are better at one thing or another. I love to breed to field dogs but they have to have decent structure along w/ everything else, or I'm not interested.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> Sue - I am coming at labs from a working dog perspective as a guy that hunts hard, upland and waterfowl, as well as runs hunt tests.
> 
> What is it about your current litter that is 'moderate'? Siggy and Bree.
> .


Quick question, before I answer, how much do you think Siggy and Bree weigh? Then go look at Coal and Ziva? Ziva is Bree's daughter.

The reason I ask this is that pictures can be deceiving. It's one of the reasons I make it a policy to not use a dog I haven't seen.

I openly admit. I don't hunt. I train for and compete in hunt tests. I want a dog with instinct and endurance when I breed.

Sue Puff


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

suepuff said:


> Quick question, before I answer, how much do you think Siggy and Bree weigh? Then go look at Coal and Ziva? Ziva is Bree's daughter.
> 
> The reason I ask this is that pictures can be deceiving. It's one of the reasons I make it a policy to not use a dog I haven't seen.
> 
> ...


Heck Sue - I don't know? 250? :twisted: (kiddin)

How much do you think my last one weighed?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Bree is 60 pounds, Ziva is 55 soaking wet. Coal is 75 and Siggy is about 85-90. No fat on my three in real life. Siggy has extra weight on him when showing I assume. I never saw him in show weight. My Coal is going strong at nine and runs like a bat out of hell. The reason he doesn't have is MH is I'm an inept handler and I won't let anyone else compete with him. And I travel extensively for work.

None of mine have overdone bone or coat. They don't have TONS of bone and aren't dripping in coat as the fashion can be. I can actually lift my dogs up myself. So, I guess that's why I call them moderate. They just look a little different than yours. Maybe a little more than yours but less than current show fashion. They are sturdy.

Can they do FT? Probably not. Can they go out and hunt, probably so. they certainly can mark, remember and use their noses. My pups are exposed and worked with as soon as possible. I really enjoy preserving a good looking dog that can hunt.

My good looking is different than yours. That's fine. No one is better. Me saying the field lines are hyper, hounds greyhoundish dogs is like someone saying that all show labs are pigadors. It's just not true.

In my perfect world, we would each appreciate the pluses and minuses of all and acknowledge that none are perfect. I certainly appreciated the working ability of field dogs. It's stunning to watch. We certainly need to do a better job learning from each other across the board. With type, working ability, training, advances in health and reproduction. We need to understand that in all venues, the training, time and money spent is extensive. One venue doesn't corner the market on that.

Anyway....I guess I'm usually in dream land.  I'm looking forward to my litter of black puppies out of a yellow bitch and chocolate sire. Ill have pups carrying all three colors. I hope my second CH/MH is in there! And I hope the kids getting puppies out of this litter enjoy them, for 15+ years! 

Sue Puff


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> The dogs use their tail as a rudder when swimming. So, at least in theory, a thicker tail, heavier at the base, adds stability and strength to the "rudder". And yeah, I know all the thinner tailed dogs can swim...but we'll never know if they'd be better with the otter tail.


I have one with NO tail. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference as far as working in the water goes. However, she's not very pleasing to look at.-Paul


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

paul young said:


> I have one with NO tail. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference as far as working in the water goes. However, she's not very pleasing to look at.-Paul


  Of course they can swim just fine without a tail. But if they have one, they do utilize it to some extent.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

suepuff said:


> Bree is 60 pounds, Ziva is 55 soaking wet. Coal is 75 and Siggy is about 85-90. No fat on my three in real life. Siggy has extra weight on him when showing I assume. I never saw him in show weight. My Coal is going strong at nine and runs like a bat out of hell. The reason he doesn't have is MH is I'm an inept handler and I won't let anyone else compete with him. And I travel extensively for work.
> 
> None of mine have overdone bone or coat. They don't have TONS of bone and aren't dripping in coat as the fashion can be. I can actually lift my dogs up myself. So, I guess that's why I call them moderate. They just look a little different than yours. Maybe a little more than yours but less than current show fashion. They are sturdy.
> 
> ...


Sue - I'd have a hard time believing the legs on any of those dog could carry an upland longer than 90 minutes. There's a market for what you breed, I get it. But I don't honestly believe a JH, SH, or even in many cases a MH title mean much as far as the quality and athleticism of a Lab. I've seen dogs WALK and get a senior pass. And 'probably' can't compete in Field Trials is more likely 'definitely' can't compete. And you don't expose them to actual hunting which is quite different than a 'test'. 

All that aside - I would not buy your breeding for a hunting dog. Nor would I recommend anyone else to. 

Whether I'd suggest it for a show dog that can pick up a duck - maybe, don't know enough about the show side. I'm hoping that is your audience though. 

I really don't buy for looks, I buy for pedigree. Working pedigree.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Ah well. We both enjoy our dogs and they enjoy what they do. I appreciate them all. And thankfully, mine don't walk to get their titles.

Sue Puff


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

What about this dog? Moderate?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I am absolutely convinced that Dickendall Arnold, while certainly not the beginning of the breed split, was the reason the breed split became acceptable--because so many breed dogs that have the heart and birdiness to work seem to have Dickendall Arnold in their lines, and the show folk say "My dog hunts/loves to hunt/can hunt/will hunt/trains to hunt" and, even though the dog is overdone to crispiness, the dog hunts/loves to hunt/can hunt/will hunt/trains to hunt, whatever. 

All the pictures of him he seems to be a powerful-looking dog, definitely showy, but when young definitely also athletic (and when middle-aged and old, fat but happy). His progeny and progeny's progeny, to me, look like caricatures, and it bothers me to no end because they are probably not as capable as their desires could accommodate, but they do seem to carry the heart and birdiness as much as or more than the show look.

I'd be super-curious to hear others' observations about Dickendall Arnold and show/working outcomes.

I don't know. To each his own. I've come to think that the best-looking Lab in the whole world is mine. 

Which reminds me, Al--I'm going to e-mail you right now about the picture of Atticus jumping over the hay bale!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

luvalab said:


> Which reminds me, Al--I'm going to e-mail you right now about the picture of Atticus jumping over the hay bale!


This one?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> This one?


That's the one.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

HNTFSH said:


> This one?



Now THAT'S an otter tail !!!


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

HNTFSH said:


> I'd have a hard time believing the legs on any of those dog could carry an upland longer than 90 minutes.


I have a completely show bred Lab that was a SAR dog for 11 of his 13 years. Some, but not all, of his accomplishments in that world include 7 days in New Orleans after Katrina/Rita working 8 hours a day, climbing pile after incredibly high and unstable rubble, spent a week in the Amazon (Guyana, South America) looking for a missing airplane, and many multiple day searches in the Blue Ridge Mountains. At 13 he has slowed significantly, but is not on anything for arthritis and still likes to do the occasional task and pick up the occasional bird. In his prime he would have run circles around the dog I bought because of her working pedigree.

I admire the overwhelming desire of the field lab but I have an incredibly hard time looking at the pure field breed Labs no matter their working ability. To turn your words around: All that aside - I would not buy your breeding for a hunting dog. Nor would I recommend anyone else to.

It seems like every 3-4 months we go through this topic, and we won't change anyone's mind. But, there are those of us that don't want or need a dog that can run 400 yd multiple marks and 250 yard blinds because we don't see the purpose of it in real life. And there are others that think that is everything and loaf of bread.

We all love to work our dogs and that is all that should matter.

Finn at 12:


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

suepuff said:


> Bree is 60 pounds, Ziva is 55 soaking wet. Coal is 75 and Siggy is about 85-90. No fat on my three in real life.* Siggy has extra weight on him when showing I assume. I never saw him in show weight.* My Coal is going strong at nine and runs like a bat out of hell. The reason he doesn't have is MH is I'm an inept handler and I won't let anyone else compete with him. And I travel extensively for work.
> 
> None of mine have overdone bone or coat. They don't have TONS of bone and aren't dripping in coat as the fashion can be. I can actually lift my dogs up myself. So, I guess that's why I call them moderate. They just look a little different than yours. Maybe a little more than yours but less than current show fashion. They are sturdy.
> 
> ...


If the current bench standard is "so correct" then why do you take a dog in working shape and have to fatten them up for the ring. Unacceptable. A bench dog in "show shape" has a hard time trotting around the ring, now way could they perform even the easiest of hunts. So explane why you have to fatten your dogs up to show them. Cant be healthy for the dog. Borders on abuse.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

MikeBoley said:


> If the current bench standard is "so correct" then why do you take a dog in working shape and have to fatten them up for the ring. Unacceptable. A bench dog in "show shape" has a hard time trotting around the ring, now way could they perform even the easiest of hunts. So explane why you have to fatten your dogs up to show them. Cant be healthy for the dog. Borders on abuse.


I don't and i never said it was perfect. you know...the field side did have as much input into the standard many years ago when it was developed.....back in the beginning. Why they put weight on is ego....they want to win. Shame on the judges that put them up. It's politics. Why do many field lines not look at elbows? Watching some of those guys walk around when they are older borders on abuse. In FT game is their not politics and dogs put up that shouldn't be? There are in HT. 

Both of those main statements are generalized statement about a whole population. Of which can't be done. And generally does the population a disservice. 

Oh well...off to enjoy my weekend with the dogs, friends and family. I know better then to get involved in this topic, but I just hate it when people lump things into big categories. Trying to make others appreciate differences never work.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend!

Sue Puff


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

wheelhorse said:


> I have a completely show bred Lab that was a SAR dog for 11 of his 13 years. Some, but not all, of his accomplishments in that world include 7 days in New Orleans after Katrina/Rita working 8 hours a day, climbing pile after incredibly high and unstable rubble, spent a week in the Amazon (Guyana, South America) looking for a missing airplane, and many multiple day searches in the Blue Ridge Mountains. At 13 he has slowed significantly, but is not on anything for arthritis and still likes to do the occasional task and pick up the occasional bird. In his prime he would have run circles around the dog I bought because of her working pedigree.
> 
> I admire the overwhelming desire of the field lab but I have an incredibly hard time looking at the pure field breed Labs no matter their working ability. To turn your words around: All that aside - I would not buy your breeding for a hunting dog. Nor would I recommend anyone else to.
> 
> ...


Finn sounds like a nice dog. Hopefully you passed some of that genetic/trait ability down a line with the like?

The breeders I'd admire the most are those that do seek that next DC. Its been 30 years. Previous pic of Banjo from 1941 demonstrates a well framed dog built for the work and someone felt the physical characteristics met the breed criteria. 

BUT - those breeders seem few and far between in the field and show world. I never see a strong field line breeder suggest the pups will be 'show worthy' but often see show line breeders suggest their pups are most 'field worthy'. 

So to my comment above of 'would/would not' recommend (Sue aside, speaking of any line) what line would it make sense to drive a hunter or hunt tester toward? A 5 generation pedigree of field accomplishment or a 5 generation pedigree of show accomplishments with a sprinkling of HT titles? Especially laden with Junior ribbons? Where does the probability lie for the inherent drive and capability to train a great field dog?

Nor am I offended my dog would be laughed at in a ring. That ain't what I bought him for. 

I realize this topic gets old and repeated. If anything should demonstrate as has been said - the separation is well made. If someone had the secret sauce for that next Labrador DC I'm guessing the Retriever world would be in humble awe. Till then - be nice if people sold what they have for what it is, compared to what's available - and the buyer market clearly understood the difference.

And like most breedings it's buyer beware cause in both field and show lines (call it structure) - there are infinitely more folks than those here on RTF that will sell the uninformed a pile of BS to move that puppy.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Hntfsh Curious if you think this dog could hunt? 3/4 show bred , a tad bit overweight here.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Hntfsh Curious if you think this dog could hunt? 3/4 show bred , a tad bit overweight here.
> View attachment 13315


Bridget - I can't tell if a dog 'hunts' by a picture. Then comes the question of hunt what and how long. Then the perseverance factor. Finally, the probabilities of how genetically predisposed a dog might be based on its ancestry. Needless to say two pics of dogs like in stature may have completely opposite dispositions. 

And you do mean hunt right? Not just test? 

Go ahead and fill me in on this dog.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> Bridget - _*I can't tell if a dog 'hunts' by a picture*_. Then comes the question of hunt what and how long. Then the perseverance factor. Finally, the probabilities of how genetically predisposed a dog might be based on its ancestry. Needless to say two pics of dogs like in stature may have completely opposite dispositions.
> 
> And you do mean hunt right? Not just test?
> 
> Go ahead and fill me in on this dog.


Bolded added by me This is exactly my point , thank you!!! I just thought that your comment about Sue Puff's dogs was a little out of line for this exact reason.
But yes Albert can hunt, all day, in weather, breaking ice when the Bennellis froze up


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Me, I don't know if that dog could hunt or not. But it just does not appeal to me. I particularly dislike this kind of "stretched" show stance. Reminds me of horses that are shown like this, say Saddlebreds and Arabs, to cover myriad fault in the running gear. With that said, if it's what you like, go for it! I like to see the ones like mine, that's why I chose them. Now when a breeder of either type comes up with the sure fire way to prevent all Ortho problems and illnesses, I'd go for that! Otherwise I think it is folly to pursue a one size fits all DC.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Albert's father OP , ( my dog can jump higher than your dog, na, na, na , na)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Bolded added by me This is exactly my point , thank you!!! I just thought that your comment about Sue Puff's dogs was a little out of line for this exact reason.
> But yes Albert can hunt, all day, in weather, breaking ice when the Bennellis froze up
> View attachment 13316
> View attachment 13317


Bridget - you're so tricky. But I looked at Sue's pedigrees and based my comments on that, along with the structure of the dogs, even commenting on running a field all day long in the uplands. Nor does Sue hunt her dogs so what basis would I have to recommend her line?

This isn't about SUE. She likely breeds very nice, healthy dogs. However, the structure, pedigree and accomplishments don't spell Field dog. And my dog doesn't spell show dog. So AGAIN - should I make a recommendation to a fella looking for a field/test dog - it wouldn't be toward that end of the choices.

It's only when you can become objective the conversations have much merit. I am not offended I can't enter a show ring. Nor am I offended my last dog wasn't field trial material. Ya'll shouldn't be offended your lines fit a purpose, but not mine or others.

So would ole Banjo here win a show today? May or may not win a field trial. guessing not considering the competition today.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Carol , absolutely to each their own! I have a Grady son, who has a head like a flat coat, that I absolutely adore!!! Please show me a picture of your dog standing that you prefer.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

suepuff said:


> I don't and i never said it was perfect. you know...the field side did have as much input into the standard many years ago when it was developed.....back in the beginning. Why they put weight on is ego....they want to win. Shame on the judges that put them up. It's politics. Why do many field lines not look at elbows? Watching some of those guys walk around when they are older borders on abuse. In FT game is their not politics and dogs put up that shouldn't be? There are in HT.
> 
> Both of those main statements are generalized statement about a whole population. Of which can't be done. And generally does the population a disservice.
> 
> ...


Thanks for helping make my point. The Field side DID have input in the standard. Now the bench side has taken it over. Your generalization about elbows is just you trying to justify the bench people ruining another working breed. 

The increase in elbow and tplo surgeries could be due to the increased demands put on these athletes. Many of the retired FT dogs I have seen can still out perform most bench dog in its prime. I have never seen a retired bench dog but what do they retire from, trotting around the ring once in while? 

I do enjoy differences when they are positive. If you believe that bench people dont perpetuate falsehoods about field breed dogs then you have been drinking to much of the koolaid. Form follows function, bench dogs generally cant function. The standard has been changed to meet a persons idea of what the lab should look like with no regard to how it should perform. Give me my taller, fitter, smarter, more heart Field breed lab anyday. 

Have a great Memorial Day weekend!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Greta - make sure you send me a PM with your email addy so I can send you Attiticus. BTW - a nice Kerrybrook dog, MN plate winner as I recall.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> Bridget - you're so tricky. But I looked at Sue's pedigrees and based my comments on that, along with the structure of the dogs, even commenting on running a field all day long in the uplands. Nor does Sue hunt her dogs so what basis would I have to recommend her line?
> 
> This isn't about SUE. She likely breeds very nice, healthy dogs. However, the structure, pedigree and accomplishments don't spell Field dog. And my dog doesn't spell show dog. So AGAIN - should I make a recommendation to a fella looking for a field/test dog - it wouldn't be toward that end of the choices.
> 
> ...


Please believe me, I am not trying to back up show dogs, I am totally on board that most are not breeding for function. And I agree a JH does not mean a hill of beans...but to say ,on a public forum, what you did , just struck me slightly out of line. 
I happen to have both field and show pedigrees and mix them, to improve the work ethic in the show dogs and the structure in the field dogs. 
www.sighttosealabs.com Albert's Father is OP and his mother Annie. 
I like Banjo , he could live at my house

PS the Labrador Retriever is a very versatile dog, but was not originally bred to be an upland hunting dog


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Please believe me, I am not trying to back up show dogs, I am totally on board that most are not breeding for function. And I agree a JH does not mean a hill of beans...but to say ,on a public forum, what you did , just struck me slightly out of line.


WHY? I don't dislike Sue nor did I diminish her breeding practices. Furthermore readily accept and admit my own dogs would be sorry recommendations for some things 'Lab'.

It's hardly a slam. Heck - I can say the same about thousands of breeders that have no 'show' twist. Don't think I'd recommend a breeder to someone just because they have a field 'look'. But if you breed and purport Dual purpose dogs - it's best to have some evidence as such. Right?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bridget Bodine said:


> PS the Labrador Retriever is a very versatile dog, but was not originally bred to be an upland hunting dog


Nope but it certainly adapted well, neither did the originators of the breed envision search and rescue, explosive and drug detection, agility, dock diving, seeing eye for the blind, etc.....you get the picture, it's original intent I think was to be a companion and hunting dog, a task to which it continues to excel.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

You are Correct , there should be some evidence! We really are on the same page ..... going private for the rest


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

EdA said:


> Nope but it certainly adapted well, neither did the originators of the breed envision search and rescue, explosive and drug detection, agility, dock diving, seeing eye for the blind, etc.....you get the picture, it's original intent I think was to be a companion and hunting dog, a task to which it continues to excel.


Ahh yes, you are so right, THAT is why I love this breed. 
How about the athleticism in the agility dog? ( likley not show bred) or the calm tractable nature of the seeing eye dog ( likely does have show breedings)
Isn't it great that the Labrador Retriever can do it all!!


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> Nope but it certainly adapted well, neither did the originators of the breed envision search and rescue, explosive and drug detection, agility, dock diving, seeing eye for the blind, etc.....you get the picture, it's original intent I think was to be a companion and hunting dog, a task to which it continues to excel.


Dr Ed once again points out the reason the Lab is americans most popular dog. A breed (even in being split) that has something for everyone.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

EdA said:


> Nope but it certainly adapted well, neither did the originators of the breed envision search and rescue, explosive and drug detection, agility, dock diving, seeing eye for the blind, etc.....you get the picture, it's original intent I think was to be a companion and hunting dog, a task to which it continues to excel.


This is what I'm an advocate for. No I don't hunt. Unfortunately I don't have all the time in the world or money to do what I want to do. My guns are sitting in the safe. Thus the competition in various venues. I don't feel the need to prove anything. The line I have has been going into multiple performance and companion homes for generations. No titles, just good homes that hunt their dogs on the Chesapeake bay or run with their kids or do 4H. 

I actually don't like Kool aid and believe that all sides are at fault. When we choose for ONE trait, we lose others. its happened in all breeds and species. its prevalent in The cattle and horses i work with on a daily basis. 

I'm sure all would like to bury this thread so I'll leave off. 

Sue Puff


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Carol , absolutely to each their own! I have a Grady son, who has a head like a flat coat, that I absolutely adore!!! Please show me a picture of your dog standing that you prefer.


LOL! That's one of the problems with comparing shape and structure. Few FT bred dogs will stand for a photo. They are sitting or in motion. I have tried for years to get a standing photo of mine and they just look goofy. But when wandering free you can get a look at how they are put together.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I think the problem comes in when we feel strongly that the best dog of a breed is what wins in a particular competition venue....when really, it is simply the best of that competition venue.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

*Y*



suepuff said:


> I actually don't like Kool aid and believe that all sides are at fault. When we choose for ONE trait, we lose others.f


Yes but when you forsake a breed's intended purpose to change it's physical appearance then IMHO those who do only further the divide. A relatively small number of field trial bred Labradors ever make it to the big time in field trials but those who don't make wonderful hunting dogs and because of their athletic ability they are more suitable for almost all of the other venues that Labradors participate in.

I do hunt my field trial dogs and have hunted with almost all of them including Judy's NFC Honcho and NAFC Zip Code, I doubt the same can be said of a myriad of bench champions.


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

Who's next in line to beat this dead horse?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

wheelhorse said:


> Who's next in line to beat this dead horse?


Your turn post 171....


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> Yes but when you forsake a breed's intended purpose to change it's physical appearance then IMHO those who do only further the divide. A relatively small number of field trial bred Labradors ever make it to the big time in field trials but those who don't make wonderful hunting dogs and because of their athletic ability they are more suitable for almost all of the other venues that Labradors participate in.
> 
> I do hunt my field trial dogs and have hunted with almost all of them including Judy's NFC Honcho and NAFC Zip Code, I doubt the same can be said of a myriad of bench champions.


The question must be asked, which was your favorite dog to hunt with (This is including all the dogs you have been a part of.) & which one was the best? Yes, obviously it can be the same dog.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> The question must be asked, which was your favorite dog to hunt with (This is including all the dogs you have been a part of.) & which one was the best? Yes, obviously it can be the same dog.


Assuming you have siblings that would be like asking your mother which kid is/was her favorite.

Unfortunately for Honcho, Cody, Percy, and Rudy they predated pheasant hunting so it would be a two part question, who was your favorite waterfowl dog and who was your favorite upland dog?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

love this. So true.



Sharon Potter said:


> I think the problem comes in when we feel strongly that the best dog of a breed is what wins in a particular competition venue....when really, it is simply the best of that competition venue.


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

We are running out of switches...


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> Assuming you have siblings that would be like asking your mother which kid is/was her favorite.
> 
> Unfortunately for Honcho, Cody, Percy, and Rudy they predated pheasant hunting so it would be a two part question, who was your favorite waterfowl dog and who was your favorite upland dog?


I understand the comparison analogy. I have a younger brother & have a sister who decided to wreck my 4th birthday by being born on it. 

So, favorite waterfowl & favorite upland?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> I understand the comparison analogy. I have a younger brother & have a sister who decided to wreck my 4th birthday by being born on it.
> 
> So, favorite waterfowl & favorite upland?


Waterfowl NFC Honcho whose competitive career ended at 6 so after a year off to recover from blastomycosis I had quite a few seasons with him and I was seriously into duck hunting then.

Upland Li'l Ms Hot Pursuit (Pogo's dam) one of the best pheasant dogs I've had the privilege of hunting with.

unfortunately for hunting NAFC Trumarc's Zip Code's competitive career lasted until he was 11 1/2 so I didn't have enough seasons with him but he was very very smart and might well have been the best of both if given the chance.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

EdA said:


> unfortunately for hunting NAFC Trumarc's Zip Code's competitive career lasted until he was 11 1/2 so I didn't have enough seasons with him but he was very very smart and might well have been the best of both if given the chance.


That's good to know. My pup has a little Zip Code DNA in him.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> Waterfowl NFC Honcho whose competitive career ended at 6 so after a year off to recover from blastomycosis I had quite a few seasons with him and I was seriously into duck hunting then.
> 
> Upland Li'l Ms Hot Pursuit (Pogo's dam) one of the best pheasant dogs I've had the privilege of hunting with.
> 
> unfortunately for hunting NAFC Trumarc's Zip Code's competitive career lasted until he was 11 1/2 so I didn't have enough seasons with him but he was very very smart and might well have been the best of both if given the chance.


As always, thanks for the info. You have to be one of the very few (If there has been another?) who has been able to hunt over soo many fine dogs.

I was told about Cody's intelligence.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> You have to be one of the very few (If there has been another?) who has been able to hunt over soo many fine dogs.
> .


My life has had abundant good fortune in almost all areas other than making money.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

frontier said:


> David, do you believe that the current "structure" of the typical field bred Labrador Retriever in no way contributes to the increased incidence of TPLO injury? It seems the performance community would be seeing less TPLO injury both in older and younger dogs if "the grueling level of field work is the best proof of proper structure". In discussions with the ortho surgeon after my Lab's TPLO, he indicated that the very straight hind legs in some field bred Labradors predisposes them to CCL rupture.


Sorry for the delayed response, I was off judging.........

Actually the "grueling level of field work..." is in fact showing that a number of field breeding lines have NO incidences of CCL injuries. Yes there are incidences of such injuries among the field breedings in general, but many believe there is a inheritance element to consider, i.e., there are certain lines with much higher incidences of various types of work injuries including CCL. And much like other traits & propensities, if there is a inheritance element associated with CCL injuries then if current testing leads to conclusions that there is in fact an inheritance element, breedings can then be planned that avoid the propensity much like PRA, EIC etc. And yes certain types of work, certain types of terrain, among other things have also shown to contribute to CCL injuries. All the more reason to rely upon the proven field lines for perpetuating the Labrador breed. Regarding the very straight hind legs that are attributed to field lines, I have not found that generalization to actually be true in terms of the general field population. But there is a segment of those Labs incurring CCL injuries who do have straight hind legs, which leads some vet medical authorities to theorize that such structure contributes to the injury. Nonetheless, form follows function & cannot be separated if the historic American Labrador is to be perpetuated. As such, those who breed with an independent view of form as the highest priority, IMO are not contributing or perpetuating the American Labrador.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

We are not alone
http://clubs.akc.org/brit/JudgesEducation/JudgesEducationArticles/Attempting%20To%20Show%20A%20Field%20Dog,%20Joan%20Donnell.pdf


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

EdA said:


> My life has had abundant good fortune in almost all areas other than making money.


1. good money
2. good dogs
3. good looks

it wouldn't be fair if the Good Lord gave guys like me, you and jacob more than two of the three.

(i lost my money.......twice. i sold the best dogs i was given. now i am left with ugly)


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Bridget Bodine said:


> We are not alone


No you are not Bridget. Even across this side of the pond it has been 50 years since a dual champion retriever gained an award in our IGL ,in fact the last one was a Golden ! Ch Dai of Yarlaw .You have to go back further to 1953 for the last Labrador retriever 'Rockstead Footspark' who was a dual champion that ran in the IGL.

Curiously enough an article in this months UK Shooting Gazette covers this very discussion

The 'Split' emerged after world war 2 ,where the sport started to take on a new breed of handler/owner both in the show ring and the field. What was also emerging was 'commercial' influence. In both the show and field it was evident that money could be made by 'winning'!and if a certain 'line' or 'kennel' could consistently win then they became prosperous! irrespective of what the dog looked like (either field or show) ..Then what was born was 'The Kennel Club' !.....That was why I posted earlier the link regarding the exposure.;-)


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

HNTFSH said:


> What about this dog? Moderate?


I don't have Labs, but if I did, I would be very happy to have this one


----------

