# a Cri du Couer for moderation in breedings...



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

http://www.gundogmag.com/conservation-politics/the-ugly-truth-can-show-dogs-be-hunting-dogs/

A lament about how badly most of the hunting breeds have been split into show and field lines. He is apparently a hunter who doesn't want to hunt with a "butt-ugly" dog. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that titrating show-looks into a field line will not do anything but give them shorter legs and make them look like they have hydrocephalis. (But that's just me.) 

He also says that field dogs are bred for nose and speed and are consequently too "hot" for average hunters. To which I say, it would help if hunters would train their dogs. (I know that sounds unfair... but honestly, whereas most field trialers and hunt test-folks are hunters, most hunters have never seen a field event.)

Anyway, an interesting article that makes some good points about breeding the moderate dog.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

"Sadly, most field-bred Labs do not look like Labradors and there is nothing even remotely pretty about them. What’s more, many of the dogs from field trial breeding are so ‘hot’ they are almost impossible to tolerate if you actually want to hunt with them."

I believe that if you substitute the word "some" for "most" and "many", these two sentences are true. However, in my opinion, the basic premise of the article is false as it applies to Labradors. Characterizing all field bred labs as hyperactive whippets with the "hunt" bred out of them is either grossly ignorant or deliberately misleading. Most of us who have done this for very long have seen field bred labs that display a wide range of both physical characteristics and personality traits. Finding a quality hunting dog that looks like a lab, has good functional conformation and can be a great house-dog and hunting companion is simply a matter of finding the right field breeding. That might not be easy for a novice who is unfamiliar with bloodlines, but it's easier than finding a show dog that will hunt. One man's opinion


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

I don't really understand why he only degrades the 'looks' of field bred labs and not the current show stock. Current show lines are almost as far from the original breed standard as some of the field lines are. While some field labs look may like whippets, just as many bench bred labs look like morbidly obese short-legged Rottweilers. And at least the field bred labs will pick up a bird


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

First off, as YBB Glenda Brown, Farm Grammarian Emeritus, would intone, you misspelled "cry from the heart" in French. It's cri de coeur. Second, after reading such blatherable bilge as this



> "Sadly, most field-bred Labs do not look like Labradors and there is nothing even remotely pretty about them. What’s more, many of the dogs from field trial breeding are so ‘hot’ they are almost impossible to tolerate if you actually want to hunt with them."


your header should be changed to *Cri de Phooey* or another less genteel label for ordure.

MG


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

The in between retriever - the one between the conformation dog that won't get in the water or pick up a bird and the screaming, scrawny, straight legged, roach backed field trial dog, is what most people have. There are extremes on both sides.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Typical line for bench breeders that never actually see field dogs work is Labradors are bred for the field "to be fast". No stop watch here


----------



## big trax (Mar 31, 2015)

I despise such writing and could not disagree more with the opinion(s) of the author. I was a long time hunter who was for years, content with a lab who picked up my ducks. My first two dogs didn't handle well. Thankfully, they had enough natural talent and drive to retrieve birds that they were able on some level, to overcome their owner's shortcomings. 

However, they broke...often at first and then, all the time. They weren't the most obedient dogs in the yard. It wasn't their fault. It was mine. It was my standard.

I have been that guy who thought his dogs to be far superior than the reality of their abilities. It was ignorance on my part. You don't know what you don't know. A friend of mine convinced me to try a hunt test. I ran a 16 month old lab in HRC Started. We passed. More importantly, I was hooked. I watched seasoned and finished and knew immediately...I wanted a finished dog.

I had to learn to increase my standards and to train to heights I'd never realized were possible. fast forward a few years and I found myself wanting to up the ante on my next pup. I wanted something with fire. I wanted a hell raiser who would tear off the line with style and make me proud. I called Mary Howley and began a months long process of getting a pup from a great litter. I recall telling Mary once that I hoped I didn't get more dog than I could handle. She let me know really quickly that notion is hogwash - a dog is what you make him to be. Granted, they are each born with a disposition, but you handle and control training.

My AFC / FC sired Candlewood pup will be two years old in August of 2017. She is a fire breather on the line. I have seen no dog want a bird any more. Yet, in the house, she is everyone's doll baby. You couldn't ask for a better pet. She sleeps on the floor in her bed if I tell her to or she is happy to jump into bed with my wife and I if we allow it. I have started two other "Field Bred" (my definition of field bred is field trial bred) pups and they are equally as good in the home, truck...heck I even take them to the office with me when I can and they are all equally happy to lay around all day. When they see me put on a lanyard, pick up a gun or a bird, it is game on. 

You really can have the best of both worlds if you train for it. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...I personally don't care for big heads and short legs so, it is a good thing I'm not judging shows...


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Screaming scrawny straight legged roach backed. Hm. 

Wager, MH/QAA, (Grady x MH), 78 lbs. Not noisy.














Luna, MH/QAA (FC AFC x MH) 75 lbs. Noisy on takeoff, but not scrawny. Awesome upland hunter too.














Dyna, MH/QAA (FC AFC Sailer x MH) 50 lbs, so maybe scrawny to some, but not noisy. Pretty nice hunting dog too.








Ransom, QAA (FC x MH/QAA) 87 lbs. Not a screamer. Don't think he's scrawny or roachbacked. He is, however, a gigantic walking slurpy with the tongue.














Temper, MH 60 lbs, no noise. MH/QAA x MH. Hell on pheasants.








None of them would make it in the show ring, nor do I care, but they look and act like Labs in the field and don't fit the field stereotypes because they all live in the house too.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Kim, I think you misinterpreted my intended point.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Juli, with all respect, I don't think you really made a point to be misinterpreted...

MG


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

crackerd said:


> First off, as YBB Glenda Brown, Farm Grammarian Emeritus, would intone, you misspelled "cry from the heart" in French. It's cri de coeur. Second, after reading such blatherable bilge as this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Je suis sorry. I grew up and learned to speak where we couldn't even say "French" (it was Fraynch) so I'm doing well to get two out of three words spelled correctly.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Tobias said:


> The in between retriever - the one between the conformation dog that won't get in the water or pick up a bird and the screaming, scrawny, straight legged, roach backed field trial dog, is what most people have. There are extremes on both sides.


Another post deriding the looks of field bred labs and nothing regarding the looks/deviation from breed standard on bench bred dogs. The majority, or at least a high percentage, of the dogs that are winning in the show ring are equally as far removed from the original breed standard as the majority of field bred labs. If you're going to uphold the breed standard, do it on both sides.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Fat short legged slow bench bred dog.. is that better?


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Tobias said:


> Fat short legged slow bench bred dog.. is that better?


You left out Rottweiler 

Seriously. Below are some 'original' Labrador retriever photos along with current NFC Mickey and recent winners of best of... at Westminster. Which is closest to the original standard?
















Compare these 2 photos to recent champions:
2016 NFC Mickey










2015 NFC Keeno's Gizmo









2014 best of Westminster(I couldn't find a 2016 picture from westminster):


----------



## FootballFetch (Feb 3, 2017)

I love the look of block headed muscular labs. The photos of the original labs are what they look like when I close my eyes. The dogs I watched at Westminster seem to be as far from breed standard as you can get. I would have a hard time thinking those dogs provide the athletic attributes 'required' of the bred. But then again - there are 6'4 270lb lineman in the NFL that run sub 5 sec 40's.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

FootballFetch said:


> I love the look of block headed muscular labs. The photos of the original labs are what they look like when I close my eyes. The dogs I watched at Westminster seem to be as far from breed standard as you can get.


That's my main point. Many people deride the looks of field bred labs(and for legitimate reasons in certain lines), but when conformation lines are discussed the main negative points are their lack of hunting desire, water aptitude, athleticism, etc, when in fact their looks are in many cases JUST AS FAR from the breed standard as the field bred lines that are heavily criticized.


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

1tulip said:


> To which I say, it would help if hunters would train their dogs. (I know that sounds unfair... but honestly, whereas most field trialers and hunt test-folks are hunters, most hunters have never seen a field event.)



You're painting with really broad strokes again!!!!


----------



## J. Marti (May 2, 2014)

1tulip said:


> http://www.gundogmag.com/conservation-politics/the-ugly-truth-can-show-dogs-be-hunting-dogs/
> 
> A lament about how badly most of the hunting breeds have been split into show and field lines. He is apparently a hunter who doesn't want to hunt with a "butt-ugly" dog.
> 
> ...


Hi, 
M.J. Nelson is a woman, experienced chesapeake owner, hunt test judge, and I believe she has gotten at least an SH on a chesapeake. I don't know her personally but I do know of her.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I was waiting for someone to correctly identify her. She's written on gun dogs for many years. If anyone is interested, here's a URL to her writings.

http://www.gundogmag.com/author/mjnelson/


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm disgusted to see this drivel in a magazine that's allegedly geared toward hunters. I don't appreciate having my dog described as "butt ugly" by show dog aficionados whom I've noticed as a group tend to be aesthetically challenged themselves. 

The sacred "Standard" that defines the breed is as fluid as women's fashion. I don't know of a breed standard that hasn't changed in 20 yrs and yet we have to hear these portly women from the show world warn us that field bred dogs won't stand up to the rigors of hunting without breaking down. They claim they can evaluate athletic potential from watching the dog trot around the ring & running a hand over it so why hasn't the NFL contacted these biddies to help them on draft day?

If the "superior" conformation of the show dog provided an advantage in the field, there wouldn't be a split would there?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Dave Flint said:

"If the "superior" conformation of the show dog provided an advantage in the field, there wouldn't be a split would there?"

I could not have said it better.

All one needs to do is some research and look at Dual Champion Labradors of yesteryear and it's pretty apparent that the people breeding Labradors to win at recent shows have developed them into something they were never meant to be.

Many dogs stigmatized with the "poor temperament" or "too wild" labels are simply not well trained in interaction with humans or other canines. -Paul


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Google "Labrador conformation" and I get a group of images, silhouettes from pre-labradors to present, and you see how the length of the feet to elbows and elbows to topline (withers ?) should be the same length, and how it deviates with the bench labs with the short legs with the big body.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> Google "Labrador conformation" and I get a group of images, silhouettes from pre-labradors to present, and you see how the length of the feet to elbows and elbows to topline (withers ?) should be the same length, and how it deviates with the bench labs with the short legs with the big body.


Look up Medlin Texas Right - saw one of his pups, well trained but looked like a black Basset Hound.


----------



## chesaka (Dec 13, 2007)

I breed dual purpose Chessies and look to have a CH on the front and an advanced field title on the back. This argument always goes the same way and does nothing but increase the divide. Chessies will go the same way if both sides don't start communicating in order to see the value in having both a good conformation dog and a good field dog. For the love of your breed, find the middle ground. I liked the article because usually it is the field side ridiculing the show labs. This article appreciated conformation while also pointing out some of the negatives of breeding only for field. In my opinion, the best pups are good-looking with an athletic build true to the standard (whatever the breed) and have the drive and trainability to be good field dogs.


----------



## casjoker (Dec 22, 2016)

I have been away from Labs for a long time (last one owned was in 1988). Those "show" labs from page two are disgusting and not at all what I remember. Our dogs back in the day had much more the look of the "original" Lab picture. I have been around the HT people a little bit lately and there are some nice handling dogs that are equally the other way from the show dogs. Heck some are so small I thought a 6-month-old dog was only 3 months old.

I am ignorant of the breed standard discussion, I always thought the standard was 2 parts, abilities and confirmation? In the 1970s my dad had one of the last lines of "hunting" Irish Setters. Still breaks his heart to see the "show" setters. He stopped breeding Irish setters because of the poor hunting abilities of available Setters in our area. He breeds short hairs now and enters them in both show and hunt competitions. He definitely leans towards hunting abilities but understands the importance of both.

I didn't take the article as a shot at Labs, or anyone particular breed. I took it as a shot at those who are not focusing on the "whole" standard of a breed. Both confirmation and the dog being proficient at what the breed was designed to do. 

In the end, it's all tied to money. If the show dogs are making breeders money then that's what will be breed. Same with FT dogs, hell there are silver labs and labordoddles for a reason.


----------



## casjoker (Dec 22, 2016)

Cheska, While I will agree that responsible Chessie owners/breeders have worked harder to maintain the 2 parts to the standard than many other breeds I sense the same issues are creeping into Chessies. In the two regions I have purchased dogs out of in the past (1980-1990s) it was more about what color you wanted because all the dogs looked pretty similar. Now I see some that are 120lbs and some that are 50. 

I see the HT/FT titles as a real driving force. A Chessie litter with just one parent that has a major AKC HT/FT title will bring 2-3k per puppy in some areas of the country. A breeder may be willing to overlook dogs that are a little too small or big for that kind of money.


----------



## Mark Couch (Jan 20, 2017)

I am what I would consider a new comer to retrievers, 3 yrs. and then a lab back in the 70s. I have however spent some time around sled dogs and I have shod horses just a few months short of 40 years. With horses especially their feet the problem is the show horses are not required to compete and though they look pretty to show horse people they can have difficulty with free movement. I see this in some show labs. The written conformation standards I have seen concerning horses call for the hind feet to point straight forward and I think the judges want to see that when they are judging, but it is very uncommon in actual horses, and if you look down at your feet when you are standing most of you will see that your feet point out rather than directly forward. My point being that as long as the "standard" is "flawed" the judging will reflect that as well. There was a registered Siberian huskies running in the Iditarod sled dog race for several years, they were also shown, when shown they were fattened up and still marked down for being under weight by a judge who was trying to uphold a standard, the problem I think was that the judge had little if any experience with working sled dogs, the "standard" the dogs were judged to would have shortened their productive life. The article the OP refrenced stated the conformation standard would keep the dogs sound longer than field breeding, this is not the case with horses at all performance horses what seems to happen is the judge pool is influenced by a limited number of vocal or judges in high regard said judge likes some aspect of judgement, say a small foot on a quarter horse (heavy coat on a lab) and judges accordingly, since this person has influence the other judges do likewise, the next generation has to exagerate the trait as now the standard has moved so to have a small foot or heavy coat you have to go farther. The people involved in only this aspect of their sport or breed think this looks good so the whole thing moves and will continue to do so, I have had a couple occasions where people with show dogs have commented to me how their dog could do work to some level and "look good doing it." these people were it seems unaware that I might not agree with what they thought looked good. 
On the other hand the field trial has changed the breed as well, to be better than the other dogs in the trial they need to have extra drive. To run well in a trial in June July or August you might need to reduce your coat, that might not be a great thing hunting in ice water. 
Due to my experience with horses I bought a field bred lab, she has been difficult to hunt due to trouble keeping her quiet, and still, this is no doubt in part a problem of my not having more experience working with these dogs. However I have seen others at hunt tests from similar breedings with other owners and I am not 
out of the ordinary. The OP thought that hunters who were having trouble with hot dogs maybe needed to train them, true, but reading her other posts I might think her dog is hotter than needed to do a good job as a hunter. 
The only way I can see the standard for shows would move would be for the field people to invade the shows, and some of them to become judges. And the show dogs not be able to hold top titles with out an upper level field title. The same would apply to field dogs moving toward the old standard, I think style would have to be looked at a little differently maybe, and if you wanted to see a working coat some competitions would need to be held in real weather and a top field title would not be awarded to dogs who had not competed in the cold. Obviously these things will never happen so you will see the divide grow. I expect I should head for the hills and not come out for a decade and then only under an alias. 
As an aside I like my dog with lots of drive, I just don't think she is the best hunting dog.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Mark Couch said:


> I am what I would consider a new comer to retrievers, 3 yrs. and then a lab back in the 70s. I have however spent some time around sled dogs and I have shod horses just a few months short of 40 years. With horses especially their feet the problem is the show horses are not required to compete and though they look pretty to show horse people they can have difficulty with free movement. I see this in some show labs. The written conformation standards I have seen concerning horses call for the hind feet to point straight forward and I think the judges want to see that when they are judging, but it is very uncommon in actual horses, and if you look down at your feet when you are standing most of you will see that your feet point out rather than directly forward. My point being that as long as the "standard" is "flawed" the judging will reflect that as well. There was a registered Siberian huskies running in the Iditarod sled dog race for several years, they were also shown, when shown they were fattened up and still marked down for being under weight by a judge who was trying to uphold a standard, the problem I think was that the judge had little if any experience with working sled dogs, the "standard" the dogs were judged to would have shortened their productive life. The article the OP refrenced stated the conformation standard would keep the dogs sound longer than field breeding, this is not the case with horses at all performance horses what seems to happen is the judge pool is influenced by a limited number of vocal or judges in high regard said judge likes some aspect of judgement, say a small foot on a quarter horse (heavy coat on a lab) and judges accordingly, since this person has influence the other judges do likewise, the next generation has to exagerate the trait as now the standard has moved so to have a small foot or heavy coat you have to go farther. The people involved in only this aspect of their sport or breed think this looks good so the whole thing moves and will continue to do so, I have had a couple occasions where people with show dogs have commented to me how their dog could do work to some level and "look good doing it." these people were it seems unaware that I might not agree with what they thought looked good.
> On the other hand the field trial has changed the breed as well, to be better than the other dogs in the trial they need to have extra drive. To run well in a trial in June July or August you might need to reduce your coat, that might not be a great thing hunting in ice water.
> Due to my experience with horses I bought a field bred lab, she has been difficult to hunt due to trouble keeping her quiet, and still, this is no doubt in part a problem of my not having more experience working with these dogs. However I have seen others at hunt tests from similar breedings with other owners and I am not
> out of the ordinary. The OP thought that hunters who were having trouble with hot dogs maybe needed to train them, true, but reading her other posts I might think her dog is hotter than needed to do a good job as a hunter.
> ...


Interesting point of view, Mark. Pretty is, is not always as pretty does. What is pleasing to the eye is not necessarily best for the animal. Brachycephalic breeds are a prime example of how breeders (and puppy buyers) have caused terrible health issues because 'they' like a specific look - and even some show labs have such short muzzles that it seems there is movement toward a more brachycephalic type muzzle in the show ring. 

The day the show or field people agree to 'dual' requirements is the day Michael Jackson comes back to life for a duet with Elvis Presley. Like you say, it will never happen.  In my opinion (mine - you know, what I like is not the same as what other people like, LOL) the CH MH lab, while certainly an impressive accomplishment, is not the direction I would hope any type of 'dual' titled lab to go. I like the classic type of lab - Good solid coat, moderately sized, nice head with medium sized ears, proper length of muzzle and athletically built.... There are many FC dogs of this type that I've seen - and many FC dogs that aren't... No show labs in that type, so I guess I'll stick with field bred labs....To each his own...


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

dorkweed said:


> You're painting with really broad strokes again!!!!


Not a hunter. The sum of my experience is talking with my dad (an avid hunter) who would not go out with anyone bringing their dog because it always devolved into a debacle. And my son-ex-law who has a wide circle of water fowling buddies, none of whom have any idea how to steady a dog and who think a dog that handles is something exotic. So there it is. I am painting with a broad brush, but I'd bet you dollars to donuts there are more hunters who think retrievers should come right from the box as finished products... than there are who understand the value of a well-trained, nice-performing dog. 

And I could also be completely wrong. Or partially right. It's just my opinion and experience.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

_The OP thought that hunters who were having trouble with hot dogs maybe needed to train them, true, but reading her other posts I might think her dog is hotter than needed to do a good job as a hunter. _

Guilty as charged. She is very hot and I am very much the novice. But her drive, fearlessness, and incredible nose (OMG) would be great for a hunter. Had I known then what I know now... she'd have been quiet and steady about 2 years ago.


----------



## labsx3 (Oct 27, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> I'm disgusted to see this drivel in a magazine that's allegedly geared toward hunters. I don't appreciate having my dog described as "butt ugly" by show dog aficionados whom I've noticed as a group tend to be aesthetically challenged themselves.
> 
> The sacred "Standard" that defines the breed is as fluid as women's fashion. I don't know of a breed standard that hasn't changed in 20 yrs and yet we have to hear these portly women from the show world warn us that field bred dogs won't stand up to the rigors of hunting without breaking down. They claim they can evaluate athletic potential from watching the dog trot around the ring & running a hand over it so why hasn't the NFL contacted these biddies to help them on draft day?
> 
> If the "superior" conformation of the show dog provided an advantage in the field, there wouldn't be a split would there?


This right here is about the best thing I have read in a long time!!!!


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

labsx3 said:


> This right here is about the best thing I have read in a long time!!!!


I think the part of the deal where they show off the dogs' gaits... doesn't usually show the handlers off to any good advantage. Of course, I can't imagine how unsightly it would be if I were trying to waltz around the ring with Rocket Dog.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

1tulip said:


> I think the part of the deal where they show off the dogs' gaits... doesn't usually show the handlers off to any good advantage. Of course, I can't imagine how unsightly it would be if I were trying to waltz around the ring with Rocket Dog.


Any familiarity with English Pointers? The Elhew line was established by A guy named Wehle. In his book about training them 
he said "your dog should be capable of hunting whatever field you put them in regardless of size". "Rocket Dog" is the result 
of someone who knows not what they are doing until it has been done. Not meant as an insult but "you own what you condone".


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I don't mind the overall look of the labs at Crufts this year (last.year..lol) I like tjem better than their American counterparts, anyway. Still too much weight, though https://youtu.be/tWM5YxL_Hmg


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> Any familiarity with English Pointers? The Elhew line was established by A guy named Wehle. In his book about training them
> he said "your dog should be capable of hunting whatever field you put them in regardless of size". "Rocket Dog" is the result
> of someone who knows not what they are doing until it has been done. Not meant as an insult but "you own what you condone".


Hey, Marv... Size-wise, RD is within standard. The rest of her... not so much. That graceful arc of her tail over her back is rather fetching, though. FC Dam, AFC/FC Sire. I'll own and condone her (but not breed her. So the Lab world is safe.)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The Crufts Labs look much better and they are more animated, not overdone.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Every time I try to paste a picture of DC Banchory Bob, I get the message that it's too large. Perhaps someone more Tech savvy could do it? 

He's a good example of why most of us feel the Show people have done a major disservice to the breed.-Paul


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

http://www.huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp?id=1443


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

1tulip said:


> Hey, Marv... Size-wise, RD is within standard. The rest of her... not so much. That graceful arc of her tail over her back is rather fetching, though. FC Dam, AFC/FC Sire. I'll own and condone her (but not breed her. So the Lab world is safe.)


 Wehle was talking of the size of the field!


----------



## Kurt Opel (Nov 25, 2012)

Banchory Bob


----------



## J. Marti (May 2, 2014)

Here's another dual from England: Dual Ch. Bramshaw Bob, who also was BIS at the Crufts conformation show two years in a row in the 1930's.








And here is what the internet says is the first Labrador Field Champion. Is this correct? FTCh. Flapper? 1908.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Thank you!

To my eye, Bob looks similar to the majority of Labs I see when I judge Field Trials and Hunt Tests. Imagine that; over 80 years ago! 

Perhaps someone could post a Picture of the most recent Labrador Dual Champion. -Paul


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

casjoker said:


> Cheska, While I will agree that responsible Chessie owners/breeders have worked harder to maintain the 2 parts to the standard than many other breeds I sense the same issues are creeping into Chessies. In the two regions I have purchased dogs out of in the past (1980-1990s) it was more about what color you wanted because all the dogs looked pretty similar. Now I see some that are 120lbs and some that are 50.


Near as I can tell from puppy adds, most CH Chessies are "90lbs".


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> I'm disgusted to see this drivel in a magazine that's allegedly geared toward hunters. I don't appreciate having my dog described as "butt ugly" by show dog aficionados whom I've noticed as a group tend to be aesthetically challenged themselves.
> 
> The sacred "Standard" that defines the breed is as fluid as women's fashion. I don't know of a breed standard that hasn't changed in 20 yrs and yet we have to hear these portly women from the show world warn us that field bred dogs won't stand up to the rigors of hunting without breaking down. They claim they can evaluate athletic potential from watching the dog trot around the ring & running a hand over it so why hasn't the NFL contacted these biddies to help them on draft day?
> 
> If the "superior" conformation of the show dog provided an advantage in the field, there wouldn't be a split would there?



I'd like to nominate this ^^^^^ post for "Post of the Year"!!!!!!!

100% spot on in every regard!!!


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

dorkweed said:


> I'd like to nominate this ^^^^^ post for "Post of the Year"!!!!!!!
> 
> 100% spot on in every regard!!!



The judges don't evaluate athletic potential. They evaluate dogs to the American Kennel Club standard which defines the breed. If you want to change the standard, make noise. Otherwise agree to disagree.

I am no fan of the conformation lab - except coat, LOL. It has deviated far from the original type Maybe someday, the pendulum will swing the other way.


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

Tobias said:


> The judges don't evaluate athletic potential. They evaluate dogs to the American Kennel Club standard which defines the breed. If you want to change the standard, make noise. Otherwise agree to disagree.
> 
> I am no fan of the conformation lab - except coat, LOL. It has deviated far from the original type Maybe someday, the pendulum will swing the other way.



Is not the "standard" set by the LRC???? And are not the judges supposed to judge to that standard, not the AKC standard.............if there is such a thing???? Is not the "standard" supposed to support and be a positive influence on "athletic performance"??? 

If "yes" to the prior questions; and judges keep "placing" dogs that are out of the "standard" without penalty, there is a lot wrong with the current conformation/bench judging system!!!


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

Mark Couch said:


> I am what I would consider a new comer to retrievers, 3 yrs. and then a lab back in the 70s. I have however spent some time around sled dogs and I have shod horses just a few months short of 40 years. With horses especially their feet the problem is the show horses are not required to compete and though they look pretty to show horse people they can have difficulty with free movement. I see this in some show labs. The written conformation standards I have seen concerning horses call for the hind feet to point straight forward and I think the judges want to see that when they are judging, but it is very uncommon in actual horses, and if you look down at your feet when you are standing most of you will see that your feet point out rather than directly forward. My point being that as long as the "standard" is "flawed" the judging will reflect that as well. There was a registered Siberian huskies running in the Iditarod sled dog race for several years, they were also shown, when shown they were fattened up and still marked down for being under weight by a judge who was trying to uphold a standard, the problem I think was that the judge had little if any experience with working sled dogs, the "standard" the dogs were judged to would have shortened their productive life. The article the OP refrenced stated the conformation standard would keep the dogs sound longer than field breeding, this is not the case with horses at all performance horses what seems to happen is the judge pool is influenced by a limited number of vocal or judges in high regard said judge likes some aspect of judgement, say a small foot on a quarter horse (heavy coat on a lab) and judges accordingly, since this person has influence the other judges do likewise, the next generation has to exagerate the trait as now the standard has moved so to have a small foot or heavy coat you have to go farther. The people involved in only this aspect of their sport or breed think this looks good so the whole thing moves and will continue to do so, I have had a couple occasions where people with show dogs have commented to me how their dog could do work to some level and "look good doing it." these people were it seems unaware that I might not agree with what they thought looked good.
> On the other hand the field trial has changed the breed as well, to be better than the other dogs in the trial they need to have extra drive. To run well in a trial in June July or August you might need to reduce your coat, that might not be a great thing hunting in ice water.
> Due to my experience with horses I bought a field bred lab, she has been difficult to hunt due to trouble keeping her quiet, and still, this is no doubt in part a problem of my not having more experience working with these dogs. However I have seen others at hunt tests from similar breedings with other owners and I am not
> out of the ordinary. The OP thought that hunters who were having trouble with hot dogs maybe needed to train them, true, but reading her other posts I might think her dog is hotter than needed to do a good job as a hunter.
> ...




28 year farrier regards Bud!!!

There isn't a "good" horseman around that would buy a horse that was put together like many of the winners in the Labrador conformation/show rings. Wide set hocks, hind feet point straight forward/inward, short legs, and long backs result in dogs that WADDLE when walked. It is also a "weak" conformation position for strength. I could go on and on also; but I'll go get my asbestos suit on now!!!


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

dorkweed said:


> Is not the "standard" set by the LRC???? And are not the judges supposed to judge to that standard, not the AKC standard.............if there is such a thing???? Is not the "standard" supposed to support and be a positive influence on "athletic performance"???
> 
> If "yes" to the prior questions; and judges keep "placing" dogs that are out of the "standard" without penalty, there is a lot wrong with the current conformation/bench judging system!!!


The LRC yes - but all the dogs that are shown are AKC - so I consider them one in the same.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Tobias said:


> The judges don't evaluate athletic potential. They evaluate dogs to the American Kennel Club standard which defines the breed. If you want to change the standard, make noise. Otherwise agree to disagree.
> 
> I am no fan of the conformation lab - except coat, LOL. It has deviated far from the original type Maybe someday, the pendulum will swing the other way.


I think most people don't want to change the LRC standard. They would be happy if the judges graded by the true LRC standard, not the deviation/bastardization that is currently en vogue in the show ring.


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

bamajeff said:


> I think most people don't want to change the LRC standard. They would be happy if the judges graded by the true LRC standard, not the deviation/bastardization that is currently en vogue in the show ring.



I have another nomination for "Post of the Year"!!!!!!^^^^^^

It was your "bastardization" term that clinched it for me!!!


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I wonder what the word "standard" means. The field people have deviated from the standard (herein follows a straw dog of the "whippet"-snipey-leggy-coatless labrador) but we have, in fact, lots of dogs who are within the standard AND can do the work at a high level. But intensely show-bred labs are the keepers of the "standard" but they look less like the dogs around whom the standard was established and they are less able to do the work.

But then show people will say that tastes change and this is the way the "standard" is now. So... I'm confused.


----------



## J. Marti (May 2, 2014)

paul young said:


> Thank you!
> 
> To my eye, Bob looks similar to the majority of Labs I see when I judge Field Trials and Hunt Tests. Imagine that; over 80 years ago!
> 
> Perhaps someone could post a Picture of the most recent Labrador Dual Champion. -Paul


Couldn't find a full body picture of Dual Ch. Hiwood Shadow, who I think is the most recent Dual Champion. But I found this link to Dual Champion Warpatch Macho, who is one of the most recent. http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/labrador_retriever/dog.html?id=1497149-warpath-macho


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

1tulip said:


> I wonder what the word "standard" means. The field people have deviated from the standard (herein follows a straw dog of the "whippet"-snipey-leggy-coatless labrador) but we have, in fact, lots of dogs who are within the standard AND can do the work at a high level. But intensely show-bred labs are the keepers of the "standard" but they look less like the dogs around whom the standard was established and they are less able to do the work.
> 
> But then show people will say that tastes change and this is the way the "standard" is now. So... I'm confused.



So is the USA Constitution a "living, breathing document".............or do the words in the USA Constitution mean what they mean??!!!


The LRC has provided measurements for height, length, weight. Which some of these "slugs" fall into.............but I'll bet $1000 that many couldn't do a 100+ yards double!!!

And if'n they can do the double....................egg timer regards!!!


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

1tulip said:


> I wonder what the word "standard" means. The field people have deviated from the standard (herein follows a straw dog of the "whippet"-snipey-leggy-coatless labrador) but we have, in fact, lots of dogs who are within the standard AND can do the work at a high level. But intensely show-bred labs are the keepers of the "standard" but they look less like the dogs around whom the standard was established and they are less able to do the work.
> 
> But then show people will say that tastes change and this is the way the "standard" is now. So... I'm confused.


If a 'Standard' can be swayed by opinion or change in tastes, is it really a standard? The current judging criteria is nowhere near what the LRC standard truly is.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't know if there is a clear time delineation, but it seems to me that 1974 was around the time the e-collar was becoming more sophisticated and better use of it was being established, and by extension, FT were becoming more demanding. (Waaaaaayyy huge generalizations, but go with me here...)

What I'm trying to say is that roughly after 1974 the GAME (not the dogs) became increasingly extreme and the the DUAL CH out of reach. Show folks cut themselves off from the reality check that the field sports/titles provide. It's true that a decade later the HT game started but (1) it's not comparable because there is no "championship" per se and (2) by then... it was too late. Show dogs were less and less functional as high end field dogs.

That's my working theory.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

I am not going to get in to back and forth on show vs field, but the dog in my avatar is all field. 35 fc's in his five gen, with several NFCs as well. I think he looks pretty sporty, and not at all what the author of this article described. He has a ton of go, but is an absolute joy to hunt over and in the house. I am disgusted that gundog magazine allowed this drivel to get past the editor and in to their pages. It is a disservice to the readership for such erroneous broad stroke tripe to be propagated by one of their authors.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?104758-CH-Shamrock-Acres-Light-Brigade!!! 
Briggs was 1964-1978. He was 12x Best in Show I think. The English type were brought over in the 80's and then they imported judges to judge them, people bred to win, the split occurred, and Labs don't go BIS. It had nothing to do with FT or the e-collar


----------



## J. Marti (May 2, 2014)

ErinsEdge said:


> http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?104758-CH-Shamrock-Acres-Light-Brigade!!!
> Briggs was 1964-1978. He was 12x Best in Show I think. The English type were brought over in the 80's and then they imported judges to judge them, people bred to win, the split occurred, and Labs don't go BIS. It had nothing to do with FT or the e-collar


Hi Nancy,
Have you ever seen any pictures of AFC Ch. Shamrock's Simmer Down? The story on Shamrock Acres' site says she was 1/2 point from her FC and her Dual Championship.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

J. Marti said:


> Hi Nancy,
> Have you ever seen any pictures of AFC Ch. Shamrock's Simmer Down? The story on Shamrock Acres' site says she was 1/2 point from her FC and her Dual Championship.


No I haven't. It says she was born in 1961. Sally was very much a dual breeder, and even with the overdone English type, she always bred moderate. I'll ask Mary Howley about her.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

1tulip said:


> I don't know if there is a clear time delineation, but it seems to me that 1974 was around the time the e-collar was becoming more sophisticated and better use of it was being established, and by extension, FT were becoming more demanding. (Waaaaaayyy huge generalizations, but go with me here...)
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that roughly after 1974 the GAME (not the dogs) became increasingly extreme and the the DUAL CH out of reach. Show folks cut themselves off from the reality check that the field sports/titles provide. It's true that a decade later the HT game started but (1) it's not comparable because there is no "championship" per se and (2) by then... it was too late. Show dogs were less and less functional as high end field dogs.
> 
> That's my working theory.


You can file that theory with reports of alien abductions.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

EdA said:


> You can file that theory with reports of alien abductions.



ROTFLMAO!!!! Good one, Ed! -Paul


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Indeed.

And the funny thing - for those who espouse the "English" Lab look as anything remotely functional afield, up to and including finding its food bowl without collapsing from exhaustion on the way to it - is an American cocker spaniel just won the "Gundog group" at Crufts.

To which my (and Polmaise's fellow) Scots buddy "Wullie" noted, under the heading: "Is _*that *_a gundog?"



> Just saw an American Cocker win the gundog group at Crufts. Totally NOT fit for purpose ......it should have been in the Toy Group. The judge needs her heid examined ! I turned away from the t.v. in disgust .......do these show judges know what gundogs actually do?


Somewhat taken aback to find out recently that for all the talk of Chessies as dual purpose - and taken almost as an article of faith - the breed has never done better at Westminster than a third in the Sporting Group. Which, taken from the Chessies that I've seen at work *and* in the ring, seems a real slight against an American breed.

MG


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed+Standard

the LRC breed standard.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

paul young said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!! Good one, Ed! -Paul


Au contraire. Just like all "science"... it is _settled!_


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

1tulip said:


> *Au contraire*. Just like all "science"... it is _settled!_


Good, you got your French down - though I fear next you and MJ Nelson will be telling us that show Labs need only go on the Mediterranean diet including as much butter and mayonnaise as they can consume to transform themselves overnight into tres chic and sleek working specimens... 

MG


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Read the article; completely sided toward show, author knows nothing about working dogs. Still I'm struck by the overwhelming assumption that Show labs are good looking. Pure Fallacy in my opinion... Show labs just might be the "butt ugly" ones; fine journalistic quote there


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

crackerd said:


> Somewhat taken aback to find out recently that for all the talk of Chessies as dual purpose - and taken almost as an article of faith - the breed has never done better at Westminster than a third in the Sporting Group. Which, taken from the Chessies that I've seen at work *and* in the ring, seems a real slight against an American breed.
> 
> MG


Chesapeakes are a workmanlike breed, not flashy so they typically don't stand out in the sporting group like those caricature coated specimen that show judges love. I think actually only one CBR ever got a group placing at Westminster and it was a 4th. Also a working dog that moves correctly with an efficient, ground covering stride (which is what you want in a retriever), is not going to look flashy like a Hackney gaited one flinging its feet up and down with acres of hair floating around it.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

1tulip said:


> Au contraire. Just like all "science"... it is _settled!_


Maybe not "science," but it's coming from a DVM who has been around the highest levels of the sport for 35+ years and put his hands on thousands of field bred labs and other dogs in that time period. On that note, the whole concept of the article is hogwash. The current field bred lab is so much closer to the show champions of the 40's and 50's than the current show dogs. The show folks are the ones that decided a lab had to look like an overweight rottweiler to not be ugly. The article makes tons of inaccurate generalizations. Are there ugly field bred labs? You bet, but even those probably look more like the original labs than current show dogs do. Also, if a dog is too "hot" for someone, that usually means that person lacks the skills or knowledge to train a working dog.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Maybe not "science," but it's coming from a DVM who has been around the highest levels of the sport for 35+ years and put his hands on thousands of field bred labs and other dogs in that time period. On that note, the whole concept of the article is hogwash. The current field bred lab is so much closer to the show champions of the 40's and 50's than the current show dogs. The show folks are the ones that decided a lab had to look like an overweight rottweiler to not be ugly. The article makes tons of inaccurate generalizations. Are there ugly field bred labs? You bet, but even those probably look more like the original labs than current show dogs do. Also, if a dog is too "hot" for someone, that usually means that person lacks the skills or knowledge to train a working dog.


If only it was 35 years, I would be 10 years younger. The notion that the revolution of retriever training with the E collar had any bearing on the appearance of field bred Labradors is both uninformed and ridiculous. My first Labrador purchased in 1969 looks very much like my current crop except he was yellow. The great divide in the breed began long before reliable E collars were available as Dual Champion Labradors faded away. My former spouse was breeder, owner, and trainer of one of the last Dual Champion Labradors, Dual CH-AFC Trumarc's Triple Threat (Punt). 

http://www.gooddoginfo.com/gdc/asp/viewpedigreedetailed.asp?DogNo=61290

As previously stated few conformation breeders tried to produce performance dogs except for Sally McCarthy who achieved a moderate level of succes as evidenced by the number of performance retrievers with Shamrock Acres in their name. One of my first competive dogs, Shamrock Acres Comanche, had a bench bred dam and NFC-NAFC Super Chief as his sire and he was far from handsome. Performance breeders have been selectively breeding for retrieving desire and ability, athletic ability, soundness, and brains while bench breeders have been selectively breeding for coats, tails, and muzzles. For me today's conformation Labradors are unrecognizable the changes coming from the bench breeders not the field breeders. So Madam 1tulip your theory about the Tri Tronics effect is nothing more than illogical idle speculation.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Thanks for that gentle rebuke and confirmation "clarification," Dr. Aycock - besides Ms. J W-A's Punt, when would you think the last FC went into a show ring? Early 80s? Later?

MG


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

crackerd said:


> Thanks for that gentle rebuke and confirmation "clarification," Dr. Aycock - besides Ms. J W-A's Punt, when would you think the last FC went into a show ring? Early 80s? Later?
> 
> MG


maybe Lanse's gal Dual Ch- AFC Royal Oaks Jill of Burgundy, she was also a multi National Finalist and is in the RHOF...I think she got her show FC in the 70's


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

crackerd said:


> Thanks for that gentle rebuke and confirmation "clarification," Dr. Aycock - besides Ms. J W-A's Punt, when would you think the last FC went into a show ring? Early 80s? Later?
> 
> MG


The last Dual CH Labrador was Hiwood Shadow early to mid 1980s


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I think a certain amount of the lack of Dual's would go to the longer trial seasons that began with travel trailers 
& interstate highways, also with both venues having larger numbers. I've seen some very nicely true to the breed 
FT competitors that were never shown. But I have also seen some dogs unworthy of the title who attained due to 
lack of competition in the early days.

I can also remember judging some show yellows for a working certificate at a sanctioned trial, really . In the 60's.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Messieurs, si vous s'il vous plaît... when I write in Fraynch you cannot tell that my tongue is firmly in my cheek and my eyes are rolling in an expression... how you say... très drôle.

I had a Shamrock Acres dog that was out of River Oaks Rascal... (a long, long, long time ago... maybe a Rascal grandson) who had just gotten his first Open points before dying tragically at barely 4 years of age. He had one of the most handsome lab heads I'll ever see.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Breed splits happen when people start breeding for ribbons in events instead of using events to sort out the best dogs of a breed. 

While today's field bred Labradors are a heck of a lot closer to the breed standard and the original, athletic Lab than the conformation Labs (imagine that....conformation dogs with INcorrect conformation!), the split has blame from both sides. As long as the attitude of a blue ribbon being all that's required to make a dog worthy, the split will continue.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Sharon Potter said:


> Breed splits happen when people start breeding for ribbons in events instead of using events to sort out the best dogs of a breed.
> 
> While today's field bred Labradors are a heck of a lot closer to the breed standard and the original, athletic Lab than the conformation Labs (imagine that....conformation dogs with INcorrect conformation!), the split has blame from both sides. As long as the attitude of a blue ribbon being all that's required to make a dog worthy, the split will continue.


Sharon,

I agree with your statements. And I'll go a bit further. Labrador retriever conformation shows and retriever field trials were originally intended to achieve the same objective. That objective was to identify the dog(s) which best meet the needs of a sportsman in the field. The conformation show was intended to do this by identifying the dog with the best physical structure and breed traits (as defined in the breed standard) to equip the dog to do the job in the field. Field trials were intended to evaluate the dogs performance in the field in a test representing an ordinary day afield. The intent of both venues was to reward dogs who meet the needs of the hunter. 

It's been stated in this thread that the standard has changed. The written AKC Labrador retriever standard has only been modified twice in the past sixty years, once in 1957 and again in 1994. The current written standard is very similar to the original standard first written just over one hundred years ago in 1916. The _interpretation _of the standard by show judges and conformation breeders _has_ changed in the past forty years. The Labrador currently winning in the show ring doesn't resemble the dog described in the standard, in my opinion. The fancy has pursued ribbons and in order to stand out in the ring they bred more . . . more substance (bone, muscle or fat?), more blocky body (accentuated by shorter legs), a more blocky head (accentuated by a shorter muzzle), and more coat (which resulted in a fatter tail, though not necessarily one like an otter's). In pursuit of awards they abandoned the smartly built workmanlike Labrador.

Conversely, advancement in training techniques resulted in an escalation of difficulty in the field trial venue. In order to perform more difficult tests a more athletic Lab was bred. While I agree there are no stop watches in the hands of the judges, the quicker the dog can retrieve distant marks and blinds the less time he has to remember the other marks, so he's less likely to forget them. Plus, the judges may reward a stylish retriever, which isn't often slow. While the result of their competitive trials is a very intelligent, highly motivated, athletic retriever, many are taller and heavier than the breed standard prescribes, and they often lack the coat and tail which is a hallmark of the breed. In pursuit of awards they too have abandoned the smartly built workmanlike Labrador.

Somewhere between these two divergent extremes you can find the true Labrador retriever. He's not "typey" enough to compete with the exaggerated expectations of today's conformation ring. And he may not be as athletically gifted or driven enough to excel in today's highly competitive field trials. But you can still find soundly built, good looking, Labs with plenty of drive and desire to get the job done in the field.

If there's a breed where exaggeration should be avoided it's the Labrador retriever. The words moderate or medium appear 8 times in the current AKC Labrador standard. Fortunately there are still a few breeders who produce a moderate Lab with working ability for those who have no desire to compete in the show ring or in field trials. Some may begin from the show side of the breed looking for moderate specimens who retain working abilities. Other breeders may seek out Labs from working bloodlines who retain the proper physical traits of the breed. These breeders may not receive recognition in the form of highly coveted awards, but they may be the best hope for preserving the Labrador retriever as it was in the past.

Swack


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

What a great post Jeff. You should submit THAT as on opinion piece to the magazine.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Swack,
That was the best thing I have read about this whole subject. Thank you for putting that into words.


----------



## chesaka (Dec 13, 2007)

Rick Hall said:


> Near as I can tell from puppy adds, most CH Chessies are "90lbs".


Bigger is not better. There is a breed standard for size and weight on males and females. Many years ago, the Chessie males in the show ring were getting too big. Market driven in my opinion. There was a lot of swagger about my Chessie being over 100 pounds. I do not see that anymore. The Chessies being shown by and large are in the breed standard. If anything, I think the more recent trend in the show ring has been to Chessies that I think look "lab-ish". Too short of leg, too short of muzzle, too boxy. I do think the split in Chessies will widen if the field and show people don't start talking. I also think "use it or lose it" for the good of the breed. That is one reason I strive to put a field title on my dogs and hunt them.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Tobias said:


> What a great post Jeff. You should submit THAT as on opinion piece to the magazine.


Do it, Jeff!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Swack said:


> If there's a breed where exaggeration should be avoided it's the Labrador retriever. The words moderate or medium appear 8 times in the current AKC Labrador standard. Fortunately there are still a few breeders who produce a moderate Lab with working ability for those who have no desire to compete in the show ring or in field trials. Some may begin from the show side of the breed looking for moderate specimens who retain working abilities. Other breeders may seek out Labs from working bloodlines who retain the proper physical traits of the breed. These breeders may not receive recognition in the form of highly coveted awards, but they may be the best hope for preserving the Labrador retriever as it was in the past.
> 
> Swack


While your entire post was very well written from the standpoint of someone whose obviously observant of what happens, 
I'd like to expand a little on the highlited items. 

Over the years I have seen many moderate or medium (closer to standard) size dogs compete admirably in FT's, they just 
aren't bred as most breeders go with the dog that is overhyped. It is a lot of work to sit & watch dogs perform when it is 
much easier to pick your stud from the overhype that is spread around. 

As there are less & less folks training their own dogs, the judging pool for trials become less knowledgeable along with the 
fact that many very capable folks are passed over as they are not household names. The original intent of FT's was to have 
a large pool of judges with different expectations of performance operating within a framework of expectations of performance.
This would then create a larger pool of competitors along with talents spread among more genes. 

The availability of AI & faster transport has not helped. It used to be that most breeding were local & areas of the country 
could be typed by the type of dogs produced. Today that is not so as it is an immediate "Right of Passage" to own a pup 
from the latest "Stud of the Month". At least, until they prove to be overpriced & underwhelming in performance. My :2c:
worth .


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Marvin #81 X 2.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I actually just wanted to post to say how much I dislike the title of this thread. ;-)

And, does anyone really believe that those winning in their chosen venue are going to pay any heed whatsoever to those who don't put their money where their mouths are?

There are specialties like field trial or the show ring, and everything in between, with Labs. As long as they are taking care of their dogs, who cares. Nobody is forcing anyone to breed or buy or even look at dogs they think don't meet their ideal in Labs. You wanna change the judging standards in a venue, then work to do so by entering those venues, campaigning for different judging standards, rule changes, whatever. Otherwise, do your thing all you want, let those spending a great deal of resources putting a title on a dog have their own say in what's what in their chosen venue. They are the one paying and supporting it.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Marvin S said:


> While your entire post was very well written from the standpoint of someone whose obviously observant of what happens,
> I'd like to expand a little on the highlited items.
> 
> Over the years I have seen many moderate or medium (closer to standard) size dogs compete admirably in FT's, they just
> ...


Marvin,

I appreciate your experience and time in the sport which make your observations valuable. The popular sire syndrome affects both field and show breeding. It's probably about as hard to find a show bred Lab without Dickendall Arnold in their five generation pedigree as it is to find a field Lab pedigree without Lean Mac. 

Too many allow the hype to make their decisions instead of formulating their own opinions based on personal knowledge and experience. People try to breed a winner by breeding to a winner instead of developing their own image of ideal which they try to achieve. 

Swack


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

chesaka said:


> Bigger is not better. There is a breed standard for size and weight on males and females. Many years ago, the Chessie males in the show ring were getting too big.


You're making me feel old with that "Many years ago...". I was just having some fun with the fact that there have been some big ol' dogs squeezed into the "standard" by their stud ads. Certainly haven't tried to keep current with what's happening in the ring. 

(Makes me smile that one of our hunters called my latest young Chessie "a peculiar looking little dog".)


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Swack said:


> Marvin,
> 
> I appreciate your experience and time in the sport which make your observations valuable. The popular sire syndrome affects both field and show breeding. It's probably about as hard to find a show bred Lab without Dickendall Arnold in their five generation pedigree as it is to find a field Lab pedigree without Lean Mac.
> 
> ...


I like to read different things. Two of those reads were books about Horse breeding called "Stud" & "Horse of 
a Different Color" by Monarcho's breeder & early trainer. What was interesting was the, IMO, ability to put one 
of our more famous studs in the marketing regime of "Stud". 

We have to realize that finding a breed standard dog that is also a top performer is the proverbial "Needle in 
the Haystack" & even then someone would find some fault. Probably one of the best looking performing dogs 
that I have seen was "El Nino", originally owned by Al McKean (Canada) & later by Blair Down, run by Rorem
when owned by Down. 

While this discussion has been about size, there are 2 distinct coats on labs, too many "Yellow-Eyed" dogs to 
suit my taste & no shortage of long muzzles, it used to be called "snipey".


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

It's still called snipey. Unfortunately we also have too many short muzzles too.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

A big long nose is not necessarily snipey. It's just big. And Long. Goes with a generous muzzle. 









This is snipey. We used to say some labs had snouts that could go down a coke bottle.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

A big long nose is not necessarily snipey. It's just big. And Long. Goes with a generous muzzle. I don't know in whose universe this is a bad thing for a dog meant to find and retrieve game birds.

View attachment 47258

This is snipey. We used to say some labs had snouts that could go down a coke bottle.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Rainmaker said:


> I actually just wanted to post to say how much I dislike the title of this thread. ;-)
> 
> And, does anyone really believe that those winning in their chosen venue are going to pay any heed whatsoever to those who don't put their money where their mouths are?
> 
> There are specialties like field trial or the show ring, and everything in between, with Labs. As long as they are taking care of their dogs, who cares. Nobody is forcing anyone to breed or buy or even look at dogs they think don't meet their ideal in Labs. You wanna change the judging standards in a venue, then work to do so by entering those venues, campaigning for different judging standards, rule changes, whatever. Otherwise, do your thing all you want, let those spending a great deal of resources putting a title on a dog have their own say in what's what in their chosen venue. They are the one paying and supporting it.


Kim,

I don't have any delusions of changing the judging of Labradors competing in conformation shows or in field trials. It's their game, as you state so well. They may do as they wish.

My objective is to provide food for thought for those breeding or buying Labrador retrievers. Unfortunately I think there's a lot of confusion and even ignorance about Labradors, the purpose of shows and field trials, and the standard. I had a long time breeder of hunting Labs tell me there was no standard for American Labrador retrievers. She said the standard described English Labradors. I believe she thought the standard actually described the current day "English Style" conformation Labrador, rather than a working retriever. 

My hope is that all Labrador enthusiasts develop a better understanding of the standard and its relevance to the breed regardless their field of interest. It was established for a reason and it should still serve the same purpose today.

In your post you state the following: _There are specialties like field trial or the show ring, and everything in between, with Labs. As long as they are taking care of their dogs, who cares. Nobody is forcing anyone to breed or buy or even look at dogs they think don't meet their ideal in Labs. 
_
Yet on the home page of your own website you state the following:

*We do not do silvers or any other dilute, we never knowingly have, never 
will. We test our Labs now for the dilute gene to make sure we aren't getting 
it snuck into our dogs.

*The subject of so called silver Labs may seem to be different from the height, weight, temperament, and shape of a Labrador, but it really isn't. There is a standard. There is a historical perspective. When a breed begins to deviate from the standard, regardless in what manner the breed begins to lose its integrity. 

There may be more diversity within the Labrador retriever gene pool than in any other purebred dog. From the perspective of Population Genetics this diversity is a blessing. It helps to insure the genetic health of our breed, assuming we use the diversity wisely in our breeding. However, the popular sire syndrome Marvin S. mentioned narrows the gene pool and risks the genetic health of our breed. 

The breeding of Labradors which aren't able to perform the intended function of the breed, or otherwise deviate too greatly from the dog described in the standard is detrimental to the breed as a whole. Popularity has been the downfall of other sporting breeds over the years such as the Irish Setter and the American Cocker Spaniel to name a couple. The Labrador retriever has been atop the AKC popularity polls for over twenty years. I believe we're approaching a dangerous time in the Labrador's history. 

It may be uncomfortable to closely examine the breed we love and see the flaws which are creeping into it. But we need to recognize those flaws and act to reverse the damage or we risk losing the breed we love so dearly.

Swack


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> The Labrador retriever has been atop the AKC popularity polls for over twenty years. I believe we're approaching a dangerous time in the Labrador's history.


I fail to see the point you are making by those remarks, including those about the silvers because they are rejected by the standard. I think there is more thought to moderate now than there was 20-25 years ago or when the split occurred. Field dogs are not all greyhound looking. Some bench breeders are trying to follow the standard somewhat with dogs that can hunt all day. Overdone Labs at the specialties don't fit the standard of a Lab that can hunt all day.


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

I am going to jump in having only read this thread up to page 5. But I have 2 questions:
1) Do you think the hyper short legs in labs is something that has been perpetuated after the DQ was added for height? My male is admittedly not as heavy as the show labs but if you took off about 2 inches of leg he would look pretty similar. minus 15-20 lbs of fat. To that end it in my limited exposure simply adding a few inches of leg back on a dropping 20 lbs might make many of the show dogs look better? Hypothetically.
2) Current research on vision in dogs has shown evidence that dogs with better long distance depth perception bred for visual hunting (sight hounds) have elongated skull morphology. This morphology is believed to improve the depth perception as certain visual receptors line up. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0264.2006.00749.x/full
So, this in mine, do you think selecting so strongly for long distance marking ability in field trials has also inadvertently selected for longer skulls?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Sorry Jeff, but dilutes aren't purebred Labs and that's what I object to, that dilute gene getting snuck in. People want to breed dilutes, have at it, I don't care in that regard, it's the false registering of them as colors they are not, so we have to test to make sure that "chocolate" in the pedigree wasn't actually silver. 

As for the rest, no, Labs as a breed are not in danger, have been hearing that one for decades, nothing's changed in field except the dogs and training keep getting better. So what if there are popular sires, they obviously had something to offer to the breed, like it or not, the breed is hardly so small that a few hot FT sires is going to ruin it. Hype? Sure, there are plenty of uneducated, inexperienced, clueless breeders who don't watch dogs, don't go to trials, just breed to the name and title, always been that way, always will be. The Lab breed is huge, the specialties at either end of the spectrum are a small chunk of change. Even dilutes aren't ruining the breed as a whole, we have genetic testing to prevent it and keep our own pure Lab, even if the dilute numbers increase exponentially.

Quite frankly, those who run field and love field get tired of the holier than thou-ness of those preaching field trial Labs are ruining the breed. Plenty are not. Plenty are proponents of educating about health clearances and responsible breeding and mentoring and still like a good looking Lab that does fall within the standard of looking like a Lab and acting like a Lab. Who is more vocal about such things as new tests available and keeping things in the public forefront, average joe breeder who doesn't participate in anything or the ones involved and invested in one of the venues? Field trialers aren't bringing in genes from other breeds to try and enhance something either, they are working within real Labrador pedigrees. Many of the Labs I see at tests and trials look like regular ol' Labs and lots of them live in the house, crash on the couch, beg for food and hit the pheasant field and duck blind too. Are there homely ones with funny ears, curly tails, or some that are just "too much hyperdrive"? Yep. Are there amazingly talented Labs being produced? Also yep. Ruining the breed? Nope, not in the opinion of many who count and work with the breed.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

You don't think the 'holier than thouness' goes both ways?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Tobias said:


> You don't think the 'holier than thouness' goes both ways?


Sure does, but, I think FT titled dogs have proven themselves and earned some holier than thou-ness. As well, when some bash field-trial bred Labs as ruining the breed, not being suitable for the average owner/hunter, etc, I often see it as more about marketing their own particular take on what a Lab should be, pushing their own breeding as the better example of Labs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Tobias said:


> You don't think the 'holier than thouness' goes both ways?


X ding ding ding give the dog a cookie 

One of the major problems in the breed is that show can't stand field and field can't stand show; so they get spread further and further apart. To where there's hardly any competitive field people that know even the basics of conformation or standard; wouldn't even be able to guess at what could do well in a show ring (if they were going true to standard and not hyper=exaggeration) Sure there used to be people that understood both, but lets face it the last dual champion was in the 70's and those campaigners are getting older, disappearing entirely). The competitive show side isn't any better they have no idea what the field side does, no idea to what it takes for a dog to even hunt a day afield; most just choose to ignore field completely; just as they ignore that their dogs are looking more like a cross btw a (Newfoundland and Rottweiler) these days which hyperventilate in one pass around a show ring.

Plus side the lab population unlike other breeds is so big that it can handle a mulitple of dogs bred for different aspects, and there's still the middle of the road Labradors. You just got to know what you want, what you need and then look into where you can get it. 

I would like to see another DC, I believe there are field dogs that could still do it if the Show were brought back in line with standard. I also believe the show set are getting so bad; that unless they self regulate; public pressure and a kennel club or two will put reins on them eventually. Still if that ever came around I doubt many field people would even know what they are looking for.

If different handler-contestant on both sides believe they have done enough to prove themselves through competition that they "deserve a little holier than thou"; no wonder they can't get along. With such an attitude it's No wonder people get put off of both sports. They are just dawgs as great as they do in any show, trial, competition, they will still come home and think it's good fun to eat and roll around in poop


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Tobias said:


> You don't think the 'holier than thouness' goes both ways?


Kim breeds and competes her dogs as compared to those that sit on the internet all day and are armchair quarterbacks that believe the marketing balony


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> X ding ding ding give the dog a cookie
> 
> One of the major problems in the breed is that show can't stand field and field can't stand show; so they get spread further and further apart. To where there's hardly any competitive field people that know even the basics of conformation or standard; wouldn't even be able to guess at what could do well in a show ring (if they were going true to standard and not hyper=exaggeration) Sure there used to be people that understood both, but lets face it the last dual champion was in the 70's and those campaigners are getting older, disappearing entirely). The competitive show side isn't any better they have no idea what the field side does, no idea to what it takes for a dog to even hunt a day afield; most just choose to ignore field completely; just as they ignore that their dogs are looking more like a cross btw a (Newfoundland and Rottweiler) these days which hyperventilate in one pass around a show ring.
> 
> ...


I didn't bash show, I don't care what show does. The only holier than thou was at the ones preaching that field is ruining the breed. I don't care what anyone else breeds as long as they do right by their dogs (and aren't cheating a registry). Don't think the sports are suffering in numbers any more than the breed is, considering the issues with large entries in many areas of the country. Same old arguments, all the time, heard it for decades, gets boring.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

So without putting on any airs can I bring up a trend that has been bothering me for a while now? Imagine being a hunter seeking a dog who will flush pheasants, pick up ducks, play with the kids. Cripes 99% of the dog's life will be spent on or around the couch. This hunter knows that labs make great family dogs, shed less than goldens (ahem) and are all great hunters. He has two very vocal groups (leaving aside the obedience, rally, agility, tracking etc etc) telling him (and selling him) champion dogs, Each is passionate as the other and each is promising him exactly what he needs. Looks are important to him (see Silver Labs above) but he also wants the dog to "listen good" when he's hunting. Oh and he must be birdy and not gun shy (they're born that way, in case you didn't know).

A while back some folks saw the problem coming - dogs specialized in a particular area with traits being accented for that specialty with the excess being palmed off to support their habit - something, I submit continues and has been expanded (at best unconsciously). These folks began a different game called hunt testing. Many of the concepts were inherited from the field trial game, but the degree of difficulty lessened to accommodate a wider range of breedings. The intent was/is to maintain the dog as a hunter's companion. Over time this game has become extremely popular and has spread way beyond the original purpose. We now have a significant percentage of non hunters not only participating, but also judging these events; in effect influencing, if not controlling the future direction of the breeds. How long before hunt testing becomes irrelevant to the future of a breed for a hunter? Much as showing and field trialing are becoming. As less and less people run and train their own dogs, and as more and more people chase titles instead of birds, I believe it will happen sooner than later. 

How long will the small cadre of breeders still breeding labs to the original form and purpose survive if their litters aren't valued to the same decree as a CH litter? Or an FC litter? Or a MH litter?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> They are just dawgs as great as they do in any show, trial, competition, they will still come home and think it's good fun to eat and roll around in poop


I don't know about yours but MINE does not roll around in poop. He's too special for that kind of smell. LMAO
Trash talk, indeed.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

red devil said:


> So without putting on any airs can I bring up a trend that has been bothering me for a while now? Imagine being a hunter seeking a dog who will flush pheasants, pick up ducks, play with the kids. Cripes 99% of the dog's life will be spent on or around the couch. This hunter knows that labs make great family dogs, shed less than goldens (ahem) and are all great hunters. He has two very vocal groups (leaving aside the obedience, rally, agility, tracking etc etc) telling him (and selling him) champion dogs, Each is passionate as the other and each is promising him exactly what he needs. Looks are important to him (see Silver Labs above) but he also wants the dog to "listen good" when he's hunting. Oh and he must be birdy and not gun shy (they're born that way, in case you didn't know).
> 
> A while back some folks saw the problem coming - dogs specialized in a particular area with traits being accented for that specialty with the excess being palmed off to support their habit - something, I submit continues and has been expanded (at best unconsciously). These folks began a different game called hunt testing. Many of the concepts were inherited from the field trial game, but the degree of difficulty lessened to accommodate a wider range of breedings. The intent was/is to maintain the dog as a hunter's companion. Over time this game has become extremely popular and has spread way beyond the original purpose. We now have a significant percentage of non hunters not only participating, but also judging these events; in effect influencing, if not controlling the future direction of the breeds. How long before hunt testing becomes irrelevant to the future of a breed for a hunter? Much as showing and field trialing are becoming. As less and less people run and train their own dogs, and as more and more people chase titles instead of birds, I believe it will happen sooner than later.
> 
> How long will the small cadre of breeders still breeding labs to the original form and purpose survive if their litters aren't valued to the same decree as a CH litter? Or an FC litter? Or a MH litter?


The obvious difference between FT and HT's is that if your dog can do the work (and yes, it's getting more difficult) you get the Q and eventually, you get the title.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

red devil said:


> So without putting on any airs can I bring up a trend that has been bothering me for a while now? Imagine being a hunter seeking a dog who will flush pheasants, pick up ducks, play with the kids. Cripes 99% of the dog's life will be spent on or around the couch. This hunter knows that labs make great family dogs, shed less than goldens (ahem) and are all great hunters. He has two very vocal groups (leaving aside the obedience, rally, agility, tracking etc etc) telling him (and selling him) champion dogs, Each is passionate as the other and each is promising him exactly what he needs. Looks are important to him (see Silver Labs above) but he also wants the dog to "listen good" when he's hunting. Oh and he must be birdy and not gun shy (they're born that way, in case you didn't know).
> 
> A while back some folks saw the problem coming - dogs specialized in a particular area with traits being accented for that specialty with the excess being palmed off to support their habit - something, I submit continues and has been expanded (at best unconsciously). These folks began a different game called hunt testing. Many of the concepts were inherited from the field trial game, but the degree of difficulty lessened to accommodate a wider range of breedings. The intent was/is to maintain the dog as a hunter's companion. Over time this game has become extremely popular and has spread way beyond the original purpose. We now have a significant percentage of non hunters not only participating, but also judging these events; in effect influencing, if not controlling the future direction of the breeds. How long before hunt testing becomes irrelevant to the future of a breed for a hunter? Much as showing and field trialing are becoming. As less and less people run and train their own dogs, and as more and more people chase titles instead of birds, I believe it will happen sooner than later.
> 
> How long will the small cadre of breeders still breeding labs to the original form and purpose survive if their litters aren't valued to the same decree as a CH litter? Or an FC litter? Or a MH litter?


How am I supposed to value, or even evaluate, a litter from parents who have done nothing in any venue? Take the breeder's word for it that their dogs will hunt? Or go hunting with them? The latter is fine if you can. But unless the breeder has been around a while and has proven offspring, then I guess the breeder doing nothing in any venue is just breeding average dogs and to be valued as such. Nothing wrong with an average dog. But some want more.

And on the contrary, I see the "tweener" or "gentleman's gundog" as the money-making niche these days. MH/QAA litters are a dime a dozen, you can get a decently bred dog from health-tested parents, MH/QAA sire, even a HT title on the dam, heck sometimes even FC AFC sired, for $1200 or less. While I see the tweener types, moderates, whatever you want to call them but there are no titles other than maybe some started titles, selling for $1500-2000 and over. Maybe some health clearances, but certainly a website and some ads utilizing that niche, family dog, real lab, gentleman's gundog, etc. and often at the same time bashing the hyped up field trial dog in comparison. 

Oddly, the majority of my buyers are the average family weekend warrior hunter types who love the field type. They come back for more. 

I don't disagree there are issues with judging. Nothing new there. But, I don't personally think it has a whole lot to do with whether one actually hunts or not. I've seen some pretty good hunters set up some pretty crappy tests and vice versa. There are rules for dealing with noise and bad line manners, etc in both FT and HT. Judges need to use them, I agree. Noise and creeping and just general bad line manners are often overlooked if the dog does well otherwise. But I don't see how a MH title is particularly bad for the breed in general.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Just pipe-dreaming... but $$$ has influence. It would take a H3LL of a lot of $$$ to even think about making the quest for the Dual CH. I know there hasn't been a Dual for 40 plus years, but at my age, that doesn't seem like that long ago. I am not saying that our so-much-money-they're-crazy owner would bribe judges, but they would have to be someone who conveys that this is a worthy effort to be taken seriously.

As others have said... there is nothing in the Breed Standard that is an impediment in the field. This potential Dual would have to be a hard-charging, great marking dog who has had superb training and whose owner can afford to campaign him.

The ring judges would have to be willing to look at the dog, and not measure his thickness of coat, because a retriever's work is not done in the dead of winter, but during hunting season. "FC Holy Grail" will be somewhat sleeker than those he's up against. His crazy-rich owner would have no trouble fattening him up enough to hide his ribs, but most of the dog's weight will be in his musculature. And since the word "strong" appears in the standard several times, that should be to his advantage. I would imagine a good ring handler could make that clear with the way he shows the dog. This dog would exude power.

I know, I know... this is even nuts to contemplate. Like... who cares? All I can say in response is... when someone tries to do the impossible, it can fire everyone's imagination.


----------



## yellowtale (Mar 4, 2016)

tulip, you inspire me. Fashion changes and age has given me some wonderful gifts. I have been in the conformation ring with dogs that did well. Now, I have a well-bred, nice-looking field bitch. I thought about what it would be like to take her in the ring. Yes, she would be the odd dog and would never be winners bitch. However; if more of us who have nice FT dogs start showing up at shows in numbers, I wonder what the reaction would be? Field dogs move well and are well muscled. Mine has a great coat and a good bite. Just sayin'...


----------



## lucas (Sep 10, 2003)

yellowtale said:


> tulip, you inspire me. Fashion changes and age has given me some wonderful gifts. I have been in the conformation ring with dogs that did well. Now, I have a well-bred, nice-looking field bitch. I thought about what it would be like to take her in the ring. Yes, she would be the odd dog and would never be winners bitch. However; if more of us who have nice FT dogs start showing up at shows in numbers, I wonder what the reaction would be? Field dogs move well and are well muscled. Mine has a great coat and a good bite. Just sayin'...


The judge cannot 'put up', what her or she does not see...............................


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

Do the regional labrador specialties still offer field trial classes at their shows? In GSPs we see it pretty often. The dogs need to be field trial pointed to enter. It would be a starting point and gather quite a number of well put together field labs and dual purpose or field show cross labs who are kept at proper working (lean) weight.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

yellowtale said:


> tulip, you inspire me. Fashion changes and age has given me some wonderful gifts. I have been in the conformation ring with dogs that did well. Now, I have a well-bred, nice-looking field bitch. I thought about what it would be like to take her in the ring. Yes, she would be the odd dog and would never be winners bitch. However; if more of us who have nice FT dogs start showing up at shows in numbers, I wonder what the reaction would be? Field dogs move well and are well muscled. Mine has a great coat and a good bite. Just sayin'...


I say the few who have a "throw-back", great working retriever, that looks like the Duals of old should start showing their dog. Then those of us who have the rangy, arched tailed wild-and-crazy field dogs enter our clowns to drive up the point value. It would be a hoot. I know Ram Jet Rocket Dog would be there for comedy relief. And whereas I don't know how to show a dog in conformation (barely know what I'm doing on the line at a HT) there is for sure one thing I WOULD do. I would know enough to wear a sports bra. (What is it about those gals who waltz their dogs around the conformation ring? Have never been able to figure it out.)


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

1tulip said:


> I say the few who have a "throw-back", great working retriever, that looks like the Duals of old should start showing their dog. Then those of us who have the rangy, arched tailed wild-and-crazy field dogs enter our clowns to drive up the point value. It would be a hoot. I know Ram Jet Rocket Dog would be there for comedy relief. And whereas I don't know how to show a dog in conformation (barely know what I'm doing on the line at a HT) there is for sure one thing I WOULD do. * I would know enough to wear a sports bra*. (*What is it about those gals who waltz their dogs around the conformation ring? Have never been able to figure it out.*)


I believe they are showing what show breeders refer to as "substance". It's considered an asset for water dogs (and their handlers) as it provides extra buoyancy when in the water.

That's my theory for what it's worth.

Swack


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I can't wait for the swim suit competition.


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

If'n y'all look for GRHRCH/HRCH in the official names you're breeding to; you'll know right away that you can hunt with the dog, because he has "line manners"!!!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Swack said:


> I believe they are showing what show breeders refer to as "substance". It's considered an asset for water dogs (and their handlers) as it provides extra buoyancy when in the water.
> 
> That's my theory for what it's worth.
> 
> Swack


oh my Gawd...RTF has been made for the year...sports bra. .I'm going to die of laughter..still that funny right there Gawd please bless all those poor starving pigmys...terrible


----------

