# British Lab's vs good ol American--preference?



## 7pntail (Jan 20, 2010)

The boy (Bramble) in my Avatar is from UK stock. I like, and prefer the squatty types as opposed to the the big dudes. 

My new pup is 100 percent American--even has stars and stripes on his underside.

He is a little guy, lean, snappy and quick. Though Bramble is not huge (Avatar pic--89 lbs), Briar, the pup, has longer legs and is more athletic. I am curious what you all prefer. I haven't had a race car before this Lil man, and am used to a Jeep 4x4.

I am told the Lab's here are typically bred larger-- Is that true? I picked mine accordingly, and there is no British invasion. Did I make a mistake?

Please educate! take care all


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

You might want to do a search on here, might be lots to see.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

This has been discussed on RTF & other forums ad nauseum. It's like asking someone if they prefer Ford trucks or Chevy.

But no it's a misconception about size, you can find all favors in the US & UK. Your statement about your new Am. pup answers your question for you. If you want more of this discussion do a search on this forum.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

US field Labs are diverse in sizes. I personally think there are more smaller Labs than there were years ago. I think most people are more interested in a dog they can reach their goals with, than the size and length of the legs.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Labels are so confussing. Especially the ones based on country origin.

What is an American Labrador? I was looking on the AMERICAN kennel club site and it seems the AKC Champion has a barrel chest.

If you were to move to London, would your puppies be considered British?

So, I ask you...Please educate!


----------



## SCOTT C. (Oct 20, 2004)

The four 100% American Field bred labs I have owned have been 1 male 74#, 1 male 64#, 1 female 69 # and 1 female 50#. I didn't buy any of them based on size. Like Nancy said they are all over the spectrum.


----------



## Dale (Dec 21, 2003)

I looked all over AKC"s web sight I can't find a standard for American or British labs. I only see Labrador Retriever.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Is the Lab in this pic American or British???










Hint:
http://www.irishfieldsports.com/gundogs.html


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

tom said:


> Is the Lab in this pic American or British???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably, but I do own one from Finland.....;-)


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

There is a lot of confusion caused by virtue of show breeders in the US calling their lollopy puddings "British". Importers of UK working Labs also use the term “British”, but the two ain’t the same. I believe the OP might have fallen foul of this, because UK working Labs are not generally speaking "squatty". 

The kennel Clubs on either side of the Great Water have differing standards for Labradors, as quoted below. The UK version has no reference to weight. Make of them what you will. 

*UK** ... *"Ideal height at withers: dogs: 56-57 cms (22-221/2 ins); bitches: 55-56 cms (211/2-22 ins)." 

*US ...* _"Size_--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds."

The black fellow below, a tireless worker, is 56 lbs in fighting trim and would be regarded as underweight by the American kennel Club, which just goes to show what a load of old rubbish the standards are. Both him and his older yellow mate are by British Field Trail champions, and pretty typical of what you actually see on shoots. A couple of fat plodders couldn't have cleared all those 20 ish birds 3-500 yards off both sides of the wooded ridge in the background, but these two medium sized athletic lads did.











Owners of working Labs in both US and UK have remarkably similar requirements and wind up with remarkably similar looking dogs. We are both I suspect equally poorly served by the respective Kennel Clubs.

In terms of size we all do the same; pays our money and makes our choice. I don't want one that's a weed with no engine room and neither do I want an asthmatic porker. Outside of that handsome is as handsome does. 

Eug


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

As Eugene noted, the differences between "British" and "American" Labs are minimal on paper. The real difference in both countries is between working (field) dogs and show dogs. Field dogs will weigh less and be much more athletic. Show dogs, sadly, are losing their working roots. They tend to be overweight to the extent that it compromises their ability to function in the field and are more likely to be bred without consideration of their actual ability as retrievers. 

Few things are more disheartening than going to a hunt test and watching a dog with "CH" in front of its name walking out into the field where a bird lies waiting. The dog sniffs it (maybe even rolls on it), wanders around for a while, and finally walks back to the line. Obviously, not every show dog is that bad, but I have witnessed this sequence more often than I have seen show dogs that evidenced excitement at the line and retrieved in the joyful style that I associate with Labs. 

There are some legitimate breeders of working Labs from British lines -- recognizing that all "American" Labs originally came from British lines. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of breeders of "British" Labs who seem to use that as an excuse for the fact that their dogs lack health clearances or evidence of any working titles. Hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, eye problems, EIC, and CNM do not have national boundaries. They are as likely to be found in British lines as in American ones. I would not buy from any breeder that did not have these basic health clearances done for their breeding stock. An English pedigree is not a health certificate.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> As Eugene noted, the differences between "British" and "American" Labs are minimal on paper. The real difference in both countries is between working (field) dogs and show dogs. Field dogs will weigh less and be much more athletic. Show dogs, sadly, are losing their working roots. They tend to be overweight to the extent that it compromises their ability to function in the field and are more likely to be bred without consideration of their actual ability as retrievers.
> 
> Few things are more disheartening than going to a hunt test and watching a dog with "CH" in front of its name walking out into the field where a bird lies waiting. The dog sniffs it (maybe even rolls on it), wanders around for a while, and finally walks back to the line. Obviously, not every show dog is that bad, but I have witnessed this sequence more often than I have seen show dogs that evidenced excitement at the line and retrieved in the joyful style that I associate with Labs.
> 
> There are some legitimate breeders of working Labs from British lines -- recognizing that all "American" Labs originally came from British lines. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of breeders of "British" Labs who seem to use that as an excuse for the fact that their dogs lack health clearances or evidence of any working titles. Hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, eye problems, EIC, and CNM do not have national boundaries. They are as likely to be found in British lines as in American ones. I would not buy from any breeder that did not have these basic health clearances done for their breeding stock. An English pedigree is not a health certificate.


Well put Jeff!


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

I love the look of the bench bred Lab and wish they would have half the drive of the field Lab. 

There is nothing more breath taking than watching a dog do with enthusiasim what it was bred to do, no matter what it looks like.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> *As Eugene noted, the differences between "British" and "American" Labs are minimal on paper. The real difference in both countries is between working (field) dogs and show dogs. Field dogs will weigh less and be much more athletic. Show dogs, sadly, are losing their working roots. They tend to be overweight to the extent that it compromises their ability to function in the field and are more likely to be bred without consideration of their actual ability as retrievers. *
> 
> Few things are more disheartening than going to a hunt test and watching a dog with "CH" in front of its name walking out into the field where a bird lies waiting. The dog sniffs it (maybe even rolls on it), wanders around for a while, and finally walks back to the line. Obviously, not every show dog is that bad, but I have witnessed this sequence more often than I have seen show dogs that evidenced excitement at the line and retrieved in the joyful style that I associate with Labs.
> 
> There are some legitimate breeders of working Labs from British lines -- recognizing that all "American" Labs originally came from British lines. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of breeders of "British" Labs who seem to use that as an excuse for the fact that their dogs lack health clearances or evidence of any working titles. Hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, eye problems, EIC, and CNM do not have national boundaries. They are as likely to be found in British lines as in American ones. I would not buy from any breeder that did not have these basic health clearances done for their breeding stock. An English pedigree is not a health certificate.


Sums it up. And will add there is nothing pleasing of the chunky show types to my eye.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> Sums it up. And will add there is nothing pleasing of the chunky show types to my eye.


Do you find this "chunky show type" all that hard to look at?









He only has more BIS wins than any Lab in history.

Ya know, it is possible to breed for both proper conformation and ability!
It's when we breed for *only* one or the other that we get *only* one or the other.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Do you find this "chunky show Lab" all that hard to look at?


Truthfully Tom, I prefer the bitch in my avatar. Twenty-two and a quarter inches tall and and 58 lbs.


----------



## gman0046 (May 7, 2009)

The dog in my avatar is a field bred Lab. Her head is not very blocky, her snout is a little longer then a lot of other Labs, her legs are longer and she was the most athletic and fastest running Lab I've ever seen. Her desire to retrieve was incredible and she was a Dock Diving Champion who could jump over 23' all day long. I never thought her legs were that long until she was competing in an SRS event and a man said she was one of those long legged Lab's. As a matter of fact she very much resembles the dog in Howard N's avatar, she always weighed 63#. Our yellow female is shorter, stockier and not nearly as athletic although she's a pretty decent retriever. If I had my choice, I'd rather have a field bred Lab. But thats a matter of choice kind of like the Ford- Chevy thing. The real good thing is all Lab's are great regardless of American. British or Field Bred.


----------



## pixel shooter (Mar 6, 2010)

I agree, its a Ford Chevy, personal preference in what you like and more importantly what your looking for. I have always had English, all have been great HT competitors and fabulous hunters, companions and all received the CH designations. My experience is they were all very slow to mature, dont like a ton of repetitions or pressure, when training they will do all that is asked with enthusiasm. My last pup I bought late last fall (pictured in my avatar) I went all the way to PA to find one that the breeder took as much interest in looks as they do in working dogs as in my area the majority are bred for show ring and pets. My pup finished his started at 8 months, has 91 birds already under him this early in the hunting season at 11 months, I'm working on handling now with the hope of doing seniors in the spring, fun to train and best a fabulous companion. For the last 30 years I have only owned English, have been able to dual title and really my primary purpose has always been hunting. Having said all this, have always shown an interest in field trials, to the point where I just purchased a pup out of proven bitch line with Land ahoy as her proud father. She is 5 months now, she is going to be a real barn burner and probably more dog than I can handle, but what a joy this is going to be. Water entry is WoW, already doing 100 yard retrieves and will go as many as Im willing to throw, desire is beyond exceptional, she vibrates ,no end in her. 

Only similiarities is they can both turn if off when in the house, both luv affection and are my best friends. Then when I have a bumper in my hand, all hell breaks loose. My boys compete level has risen because of her, he has always been aggressive on land, not so much in water, well that has turned 180 so might be good for both of them  . At the end of the day, I would never choose, luv them both and looking forward to the journey


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

tom said:


> Do you find this "chunky show type" all that hard to look at?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally I think the "show type" lab is more akin to beauty pagent contestants (human) if I can use that analogy. 

Nice to look at (maybe) but when it comes to actually having to live with one for a lifetime it's not very appealing. 

There are very few BIS labs or conformation champions with any real retrieving credentials (FC, AFC, MH's etc. ) from what I've seen and it's no different for Goldens. Obviously a few exceptions apply. 

If there was a reasonable chance of a show lab being a competative retreiver, I might look at it but for now I'll stick with the ones like the dog in my Avatar.....who I think looks just great but wouldn't get past the first round in a conformation ring.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

tom said:


> Do you find this "chunky show type" all that hard to look at?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does he have any HT titles?


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Yardley Labs posted


> An English pedigree is not a health certificate


Actually it is. Any reputable breeder importing dogs and pups from UK to USA can show you the health info and pedigree on the same bit of paper. 

A certified pedigree can only be supplied by the (British) Kennel Club, no other body, and part of the document will give the health status of the dog in question, plus those of both the sire and the dam. 

Puppies born from British stock in the US should follow the US conventions.

Here is a page from the documentation of one of my wifes dogs. Note the health info.










Eug


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

tom said:


> Do you find this "chunky show type" all that hard to look at?


Yes..........


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

American Labs, both bench & field, used to look like many field Labs look today. The "blocky head" look was never seen in American Labs, bench or field, until British show lines were introduced into this country primarily in the 1960s. The picture below shows good examples of both DCs & FCs of the 1950s in the US. The dogs in the picture have the look of many field bred Labs today. It's the look of American Labs as far back as there is documentation & the look I prefer.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Colonel Blimp said:


> Yardley Labs posted
> Actually it is. Any reputable breeder importing dogs and pups from UK to USA can show you the health info and pedigree on the same bit of paper.
> 
> A certified pedigree can only be supplied by the (British) Kennel Club, no other body, and part of the document will give the health status of the dog in question, plus those of both the sire and the dam.
> ...


The AKC registration certificate includes similar information, though not as complete. However, the "British" Labs that I have seen advertised as breeding stock seldom display much in the way of clearance information based on either British or American testing standards. I have actually questioned a couple and was told that "those" types of problems were only found in "American" Labs....Right...


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> American Labs, both bench & field, used to look like many field Labs look today. The "blocky head" look was never seen in American Labs, bench or field, until British show lines were introduced into this country primarily in the 1960s. The picture below shows good examples of both DCs & FCs of the 1950s in the US. The dogs in the picture have the look of many field bred Labs today. It's the look of American Labs as far back as there is documentation & the look I prefer.


*Nail hit squarely on the head! This photo was the eye-opener for me the first time I saw it. These dogs look like every lab I've ever owned.*


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Both were (Canadian) Triple Champions (CH-FC-OTCH)










Owner bred/trained/handled

Is also a (Canadian) Triple Champion








http://www.ambertrail.com/pushstuddog.html


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

labguy said:


> There are very few BIS labs or conformation champions with any real retrieving credentials (FC, AFC, MH's etc. ) from what I've seen and it's no different for Goldens. Obviously a few exceptions apply.


Actually there is a reason for that. There are only so many hours in a day.
Ask Mike and Val Ducross.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> American Labs, both bench & field, used to look like many field Labs look today. The "blocky head" look was never seen in American Labs, bench or field, until British show lines were introduced into this country primarily in the 1960s. The picture below shows good examples of both DCs & FCs of the 1950s in the US. The dogs in the picture have the look of many field bred Labs today. It's the look of American Labs as far back as there is documentation & the look I prefer.


What sticks out to me in that photo...something that I admire...two...I say 2... Dual Champion dogs. Very cool indeed.

That's something you don't see anymore. There is a fuger here I believe that owned a dual champion way back. The fella had the dog in his avatar. He and I shared some pm's about that dog some time ago. Wish I'da kept them.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Found the pm. It was a fella here named Ken Archer. I have him quoted as saying;

" dual champions should be the benchmark for this fine breed."

Everyone may not agree with that, but I don't think anyone could argue that it would certainly set the bar extremely high. I personally would like to see more dual champions...


...let the cream come to the top so to speak.

Just think, we could eliminate the British vs. American threads altogether by compairing them to the creme' de la creme'.

Edit; 
Seems like I'm now remembering the British dogs are dual champions. Not quite sure how that does work across the pond. Seems like I recall they do both. Someone correct me here please.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

I've said many times before. And I'll say it again. *The current conformation standard is a disservice to the Labrador breed.*


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

tom said:


> Both were (Canadian) Triple Champions (CH-FC-OTCH)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Losthwy said:


> I've said many times before. And I'll say it again. *The current conformation standard is a disservice to the Labrador breed.*


 Wheww...that Push is a nice looking dog. I showed him to my 4 year old son. He said "Dad...never seen a dog like that before. His hair is beautiful just like mine".


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Losthwy said:


> I've said many times before. And I'll say it again. *The current conformation standard is a disservice to the Labrador breed.*


What is wrong with the standard? Those show dogs winning ribbons don't conform to the standard. The issue is judges that give ribbons to overweight dogs. If they would bring out the scales and set them next to the wicket, there would be some change. Logically, dogs at the maximum weight should also be at the maximum height. Instead, what I have heard from bench competitors is that the standard is wrong because height standards should be lower like the British standard, and weights should be 20+ pounds higher. That's the kind of change I can't believe in.;-)


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Overweight By Whose Standard? The Lab In My Avatar, Duke Comes From A Bloodline That Is From All Over Europe (english, French, German, Hungarian And More) And He Hovers Around 100 Lbs. I've Had Is Hips And Elbows Checked. He's Not Fat, He's Just That Solid. He's Got A Huge Block Head, A Barrel Chest And Shorter Legs. He Has An Extensive Field And Show Bloodline, With Champions Of Both Types. He's A Bulldozer, A Real Cover Buster And I've Had Loyal Pointer Owners Amazed That He Doesn't Tire Or Slow Down. I Like The Look And The Drive He Has, Others Might Not. To Each His Own. I For One Don't Like The Lankier, Longer Muzzled So Called American Labs. If I Wanted That Look, I'd Have A Gsp. I DON'T MEAN THAT AS A KNOCK ON ANYBODY'S DOG - JUST THAT WASN'T THE LOOK I WANTED PERSONALLY. I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS POST THAT DUAL CHAMPS ARE THE WAY TO GO, DUKE'S GRANDDAD WAS A FRENCH FIELD AND BENCH CHAMP. I READ AN ARTICLE IN GUN DOG ON CONFORMATION THAT BASICALLY DOWN GRADED THE CONFORMATION DOGS, BUT DID ADD THAT SOME BREEDERS ARE RUNNING BENCH AND FIELD TRIALS TO GET DUAL CHAMPS.


----------



## BoilerMan1812 (Feb 6, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXFmnoOfqyg

Nuff Said :lol:


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

WALDMAN79 said:


> I For One Don't Like The Lankier, Longer Muzzled So Called American Labs. If I Wanted That Look, I'd Have A Gsp.


+1. Enjoying the redundant thread though.


----------



## 7pntail (Jan 20, 2010)

Didn't realize the controversy-----Luv em all--Jeep, Chevy, Hummer, Ford, Nissan, Dodge, Honda, Toyota

Okay, a bit of a stretch--but even a Hundai!


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Nicole said:


> +1. Enjoying the redundant thread though.


SORRY, DIDN'T MEAN TO BE REDUNDANT, I JUST GET TIRED OF HEARING THE SAME CRAP WHEN I GO TO TRIALS AND THEN READING IT HERE. RANKS RIGHT UP THERE WITH POINTING LABS (YES, DUKE IS A DOUBLE OUTCAST, HE POINTS TOO.) BY THE WAY CHECKED OUT YOUR KENNEL'S SITE, THERE ARE CERTAINLY SOME LARGE CRANIUMS IN THE GROUP PICTURE OF YOUR DOGS. A GOOD LOOKING BUNCH!


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Overweight By Whose Standard? The Lab In My Avatar, Duke Comes From A Bloodline That Is From All Over Europe (english, French, German, Hungarian And More) And He Hovers Around 100 Lbs. I've Had Is Hips And Elbows Checked. He's Not Fat, He's Just That Solid. He's Got A Huge Block Head, A Barrel Chest And Shorter Legs. He Has An Extensive Field And Show Bloodline, With Champions Of Both Types.


I'm not commenting, I'm simply providing information, FWIW.

http://www.akc.org/breeds/labrador_retriever/index.cfm
Size, Proportion and Substance
Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Hoytman said:


> Found the pm. It was a fella here named Ken Archer. I have him quoted as saying;
> 
> " dual champions should be the benchmark for this fine breed."
> 
> ...


Actually the divide in the UK is as wide if not wider than in the US. Problem is that the bench "look" has gone so far away from how Labs have historically looked that there is no turning back. The bench breeders have too much invested in their extreme look & have been drinking the coolaid too long to change - not to mention their politics that make FT politics look like kindergarden play. Bench breeders have truely separated form from function.

BTW, we have another member who has owned a DC - Lance Brown. In fact his dog may have been the last of the Lab DCs.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

TN_LAB said:


> I'm not commenting, I'm simply providing information, FWIW.
> 
> http://www.akc.org/breeds/labrador_retriever/index.cfm
> Size, Proportion and Substance
> Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds.


I SAID THAT KINDA TONGUE IN CHEEK, MEANING MY LAB'S A BEAST BUT A VERY IN SHAPE BEAST NOT FAT AT ALL AS SOME OF THE POSTS INFER THAT BIGGER = FAT. I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THE STANDARD THOUGH, I'VE HAD THREE LABS AND NONE OF THEM WERE LESS THAN 90 LBS. NONE WERE FAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT MY FIRST LAB, A CHOCOLATE MALE, LOOKED LIKE A CANINE BODYBUILDER BECAUSE WE LIVED ON A FARM AND COULDN'T KEEP HIM OUT OF THE POND.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

tom said:


> Do you find this "chunky show type" all that hard to look at?



Pretty hard


----------



## Bushmills (Sep 26, 2010)

I'd like to see this BIS Lab (the one in the photo) run 50 yards??? Let alone 250 yards, probably have to go out and pick him up!!!
A fat Lab is a dead Lab, don't these conformation people care about their dog's health....but then, I've seen some conformation people!!


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

wheelhorse said:


> I love the look of the bench bred Lab and wish they would have half the drive of the field Lab.
> 
> There is nothing more breath taking than watching a dog do with enthusiasim what it was bred to do, no matter what it looks like.


SOME DO, I LIVE WITH A BIG YELLA BEAST WHO'S A HARD HUNTIN' S.O.B.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

tom said:


> Do you find this "chunky show type" all that hard to look at?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I HEAR YA BROTHER! BECAUSE A SCULPTED HEAD AND A MUSCULAR BUILD IS SOOOOO UNATTRACTIVE... "CHUNKY SHOW TYPE MY A$$! IT TAKES A DOG WITH A BUILD LIKE THAT TO BUST THE BRUSH I HUNT. WE HUNT PUBLIC LAND AND PHEASANT SEASON OPENS THE SAME DAY AS RABBIT SEASON AND THE BOYS AND THEIR BEAGLES RUN THOSE ROOSTERS INTO THE TOUGH STUFF AND YOU NEED A TANK TO GET 'EM OUT OF IT!


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Bushmills said:


> I'd like to see this BIS Lab (the one in the photo) run 50 yards??? Let alone 250 yards, probably have to go out and pick him up!!!
> A fat Lab is a dead Lab, don't these conformation people care about their dog's health....but then, I've seen some conformation people!!


FAT?!? WHAT DOG ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT? SEE THE MUSCLUAR DEFINITION IN ITS NECK AND SHOULDERS? I'VE GOT A HUNDRED POUNDER THAT SWIMS HIS A$$ OFF AFTER DUCKS, RUNS CORNFIELDS AFTER GEESE, AND BUST BRUSH AFTER UPLAND BIRDS. AND I'VE NEVER HAD TO GO OUT AND PICK HIM UP! IF YOU WANT A SPRINTER, GET A POINTER!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

WALDMAN79 said:


> FAT?!? WHAT DOG ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT? SEE THE MUSCLUAR DEFINITION IN ITS NECK AND SHOULDERS? I'VE GOT A HUNDRED POUNDER THAT SWIMS HIS A$$ OFF AFTER DUCKS, RUNS CORNFIELDS AFTER GEESE, AND BUST BRUSH AFTER UPLAND BIRDS. AND I'VE NEVER HAD TO GO OUT AND PICK HIM UP! IF YOU WANT A SPRINTER, GET A POINTER!


Or a 75 pound, 24 inch tall Lab who meets the standard. I think everyone should get the type of dog they want. However, there is no question about the meaning of the standard when it comes to weight and height. It is a shame that point seems to get lost in the show ring.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Maybe The Standard Needs To Evolve?!? If Labs Are Progressively Getting Taller And Or Bigger Builds Doesn't Mean They're Fat Does It? I Look At It Like Human Sports, Football Players 40 Years Ago Were By No Means Anywhere Near The Size Of Players Today. Are There Fat Show Dogs? Yes. Are There Fat Hunting Dogs? Yes, Who Doesn't Know A Dog That Is "let To Go To Pot" After The Hunting Season Is Over And Then Has To Be Tuned Up In August Because The Season's Coming? Unless You Hunt And Run Trials, And Then It's A Year Round Deal.


----------



## Ironwood (Sep 25, 2007)

Waldman79
The yellow lab in the picture is a fine looking specimen. I like his looks, if he bust cover and quarters on the upland and uses head in figuring how to push pheasant to you in the ditches, then he is as fine a dog as you need for the duck blind or the late fall upland hunts. Do I wish I had a dog with the looks of the on in your picture *again*, you bet.
My wife's dog, Ironwood of Whistling Wings, was a field trial champion, amateur trial field champion with show points. He was produced from a breeding of FC AFC FTCH AFTCH Ironwood Tarnation (HAll of Fame) to Triple Champion Kenosse Jim Dandy. That breeding produced to my knowledge one other field champion.I often see very fine looking field trial dogs who could compete in show, but do not. It takes time to compete in show. I am guessing that is the main reason many in the field sports do not chase a show title. And the same for the the show people. They may not have time to work their dogs to the to the level that the dog could be a competitive animal. That may not be all bad as both sides can cross venues to seek out animals that may bring attributes we think we are missing in our breeding stock.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Hoytman posted


> Seems like I'm now remembering the British dogs are dual champions. Not quite sure how that does work across the pond. Seems like I recall they do both. Someone correct me here please.


I don't think their has been a UK Dual Champion Lab since the early fifties.

You might be thinking of something called the Working Gundog Certificate that show dogs have to gain before they can be titled. It's requirements are pretty minimal; under two FT judges, make one land retrieve and one water retrieve, no whining, no fighting and try not to piddle on the judge's wellies. Steadiness is not required and you can do it with dummies, not shot game. 

The certificate scheme does have a positive side; it's encouraged many non shooting owners to give their dogs a chance to do what they were bred for by seeking out training groups. We've had a few that have gone on to work "proper" dogs in the field, one lady has even gone on to Trial her Springer.

Personally I don't believe that in UK either the show or working sides of the breed are what they should be physically; I see a lot of whippety looking super quick workers with poor coats and small feet. The show dogs are just fat lumps with terrible hips. For me there isn't any single ideal dog shape and size; what I want in these rainy hills and thickets might not be what you need for coastal geese in Scotland, but in general terms some workers need an injection of bone and muscle. 

Eug


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Ironwood said:


> Waldman79
> The yellow lab in the picture is a fine looking specimen. I like his looks, if he bust cover and quarters on the upland and uses head in figuring how to push pheasant to you in the ditches, then he is as fine a dog as you need for the duck blind or the late fall upland hunts. Do I wish I had a dog with the looks of the on in your picture *again*, you bet.
> My wife's dog, Ironwood of Whistling Wings, was a field trial champion, amateur trial field champion with show points. He was produced from a breeding of FC AFC FTCH AFTCH Ironwood Tarnation (HAll of Fame) to Triple Champion Kenosse Jim Dandy. That breeding produced to my knowledge one other field champion.I often see very fine looking field trial dogs who could compete in show, but do not. It takes time to compete in show. I am guessing that is the main reason many in the field sports do not chase a show title. And the same for the the show people. They may not have time to work their dogs to the to the level that the dog could be a competitive animal. That may not be all bad as both sides can cross venues to seek out animals that may bring attributes we think we are missing in our breeding stock.


DUKE'S BREEDER WAS A HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE WIFE HANDLED THE BENCH WORK AND THE HUSBAND HANDLED THE FIELD. I JUST DISAGREE WITH ASSUMPTION OF SOME THAT A DOG WITH A LARGE BUILD EITHER SHOW OR FIELD IS FAT WITH JOINT PROBLEMS.


----------



## Midfield Kennels (Oct 11, 2010)

The "American Lab" is usually, but not always, smaller than the Euro. The blocky head and thick chest slows the Euros down in the field. I own 3 labs, one Euro and two American. All three dogs are retrieving fools and all three will hunt all day, but my Americans will out hunt my Euro. My Euro is slow and prone to getting really sore after a hard workout now that he is a bit older due to his build. I run a lot of hunt tests and most Euros seem just a little less birdy than the Americans to me. Not enough to make them undesirable for a hunter, but maybe that's why you rarely see them at Nation Field Trials. But also that could just be a geographic thing because the UKC titles some amazing dogs. I think American breeders are breeding Euros for conformation and pets and that could effect it too. But my feeling is if you live in the US and you want a dog to hunt over and run in trials or tests, go American. Just my opinion, but I'm around a lot of dogs.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Just a comment on the pics ... the Canadian Dual champions are very close to what I think my ideal Labs should like like. Grand rangy animals with plenty of bone and muscle... super.

The yellow Show dog is certainly short coupled and "squatty" but as we used to say in a different context "I wouldn't kick it out of bed". A dozen 500 yard retrieves up the Welsh hills might not be his bag, but providing it was fit and courageous it would make a grand cover buster in heavy country. A 'Keeper friend has one very similar and I've seen it pull birds out of the thick stuff in a really determined manner. 

Eug


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Maybe The Standard Needs To Evolve?!? If Labs Are Progressively Getting Taller And Or Bigger Builds Doesn't Mean They're Fat Does It? I Look At It Like Human Sports, Football Players 40 Years Ago Were By No Means Anywhere Near The Size Of Players Today. Are There Fat Show Dogs? Yes. Are There Fat Hunting Dogs? Yes, Who Doesn't Know A Dog That Is "let To Go To Pot" After The Hunting Season Is Over And Then Has To Be Tuned Up In August Because The Season's Coming? Unless You Hunt And Run Trials, And Then It's A Year Round Deal.


Actually the Lab breed standard was rewritten in 1994, much to the displeasure of the "pigador" crowd.
"Size, Proportion and Substance
Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. *Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification*. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds."
(note: the KC standard in the UK is one inch shorter than the standard here in the US)



> The "American Lab" is usually, but not always, smaller than the Euro.


According to the breed standards in the two countries it's the other way around.

This guy was also a DC-AFC-MH (As are/were a few other Chessies)
I would have let "Clipper" share my duck blind in a heartbeat!











Ironwood
The dog on the left in the pic posted earlier is Triple Champion Kenosse Jim Dandy
BTW, I know of a couple of FC-AFC River Oaks Way-Da-Go Rocky pups that had show points.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

WALDMAN79 said:


> Maybe The Standard Needs To Evolve?!? If Labs Are Progressively Getting Taller And Or Bigger Builds Doesn't Mean They're Fat Does It? I Look At It Like Human Sports, Football Players 40 Years Ago Were By No Means Anywhere Near The Size Of Players Today. Are There Fat Show Dogs? Yes. Are There Fat Hunting Dogs? Yes, Who Doesn't Know A Dog That Is "let To Go To Pot" After The Hunting Season Is Over And Then Has To Be Tuned Up In August Because The Season's Coming? Unless You Hunt And Run Trials, And Then It's A Year Round Deal.


In thinking about the "evolution" of the standard, it pays to remember that Labradors were bred to be a smaller and more versatile version of the Newfoundland. There was a period when Labs were being bred for field work in the 100 pound weight class, but that didn't last long in competition where those smaller dogs simply had more endurance. In fact, a number of field trial dogs challenge the low end of the weight range rather than the top. Unfortunately, in the show ring there seems to be more emphasis on bulk than on muscle. I agree that it is possible to have both and there are some 95 pound pups that I have bred that are in outstanding condition. However, both their parents conformed to AKC height and weight standards.


----------



## tankerlab (Feb 26, 2008)

Just an opinion here and probably work some folks up ... . Not trying to stir the pot JUST an OPINION...

American Labs are more high strung, Lots faster, More suitable for the Field Trials and SRS stuff and can excell at Hunt Test. British /UK Labs are slower, less high strung, More suitable for the Hunt Test because they are not as wound up for line manners. British / UK dog with an American Field Trial Champions line you would have a good combo. Like taking the best from FORD and the best from CHEVY and combining them On Looks as if that matters, I prefer the American to the shorter / squat Brit dogs...


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Bench breeders have truely separated form from function.


Succinctly stated.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Congratulations. You guys are tons more tolerant and educated of British FT Labs than some other boards that I lurk on. The mere mention of them practically sends some guys into a panick attack.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I judged a bench champion this weekend who was already a MH, and earned his HRCH under my co-judge and me this weekend. Very nice HT dog. There is still some nice working bench stock out there.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

tankerlab said:


> Just an opinion here and probably work some folks up ... . Not trying to stir the pot JUST an OPINION...
> 
> American Labs are more high strung, Lots faster, More suitable for the Field Trials and SRS stuff and can excell at Hunt Test. British /UK Labs are slower, less high strung, More suitable for the Hunt Test because they are not as wound up for line manners. British / UK dog with an American Field Trial Champions line you would have a good combo. Like taking the best from FORD and the best from CHEVY and combining them On Looks as if that matters, I prefer the American to the shorter / squat Brit dogs...


Actually - not really
Labs have crossed the pond so many times that there isn't much difference between what you will find in the US and what you will find in the UK. There are mellow US bred Labs, and wired UK bred Labs. That is simply a blood line issue, not a national issue.
That myth is only perpetuated by the dogs we choose to use for FT competition here.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

All I have to say is all these anti-show dog sentiments are exactly why my husband & I have choosen to take a hiatus from doing any field work. Did anyone ever stop to think that if they weren't so wrapped up in judging a book by its cover that they would actually see just how much instinct, work ethic, and fitness these dogs have? Just because someone wants a Maserati doesn't mean a Mustang can't do the job nicely...

Those that are so quick to point to the DCs of the past are clearly not students of the breed's history. If they were, they'd know those pictures are like those geeky grade school pictures of yourself that you wish your parents would burn instead of pointing out to all your friends...The US's breeding stock back then was nothing near the caliber it is today- nor were the games everyone plays, but that's another subject. Do you really think the European breeders were so eager to ship their best stock to the US? They were not and they did not. US breeders were forced to work with the stock they either had or could get- mainly European Field dogs. It wasn't until decades of hard work later, when US breeders had shown how much improvement they could make, that European Conformation breeders finally began to take an interest and allow better dogs to be sent here. So, yes, there are significant differences between the Conformation dogs of the past and today. However, it is not for the reasons many here think. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Having said that, it's not meant to show any disrespect for the dogs of the past. They were the best of their day and did help lay the foundation for what we have today. They deserved/deserve every bit of respect for their accomplishments. It's simply meant to set the record straight as to why those dogs clearly looked so different from the Conformation dogs of today.

Also, whoever said that the 1994 change in the breed standard favored the Conformation breeders clearly needs to take another look at their history. If the change favored the Conformation breeders so much, why were they ones who were (and still are) the most upset about it- some even to the point where they filed a lawsuit against the LRC?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

tom said:


> Actually - not really
> Labs have crossed the pond so many times that there isn't much difference between what you will find in the US and what you will find in the UK. There are mellow US bred Labs, and wired UK bred Labs. That is simply a blood line issue, not a national issue.
> *That myth is only perpetuated by the dogs we choose to use for FT competition here*.


And by some that breed "British" Labs here in the US whose marketing is based upon perpetuating that myth.

And as I type, one of my "high strung" American FT dogs is snoring at my feet.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

LabLady101 said:


> All I have to say is all these anti-show dog sentiments are exactly why my husband & I have choosen to take a hiatus from doing any field work. Did anyone ever stop to think that if they weren't so wrapped up in judging a book by its cover that they would actually see just how much instinct, work ethic, and fitness these dogs have? Just because someone wants a Maserati doesn't mean a Mustang can't do the job nicely...?


This is actually the point. The Mustang can't do the job that a Maserati does....it never will. and........... 

I'ts not about judging a book by it's cover it's about judging a book by it's content. 

The conformation dogs of today generally (again, there are exceptions) don't have the drive, desire, athleticism, work ethic or ability to compete in the high end dog work that's required for success in North American field trials today...........period.

And...it's not about being "anti show dog". It's about being realistic as to a dogs abilities. I'll say it again................there are very few conformation dogs that are capable of competing at the high levels required to be successful in todays field trial competitions........................just show me how many show dogs that have ever jammed one of todays field trials let alone placed before you start telling me how much "instinct work ethic and fitness" these dogs have!!!!!!

This notion of people defending the abilities of dogs that clearly can't live up to the hype really bugs the hell out of me.............I'ts fine to love your dog and be proud of it's accomplishements and abilities but please don't embellish them unless you can prove it.

It's like me claiming my FT dog is capable of winning a BIS because she has all the characteristics necessary to compete in that arena..............it's just not going to happen no matter how much I embellish and brag about her good looks, body structure, head, tail and coat. 

Actions speak far louder than words regards.


----------



## Bushmills (Sep 26, 2010)

Good reply....point well said.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

labguy said:


> This is actually the point. The Mustang can't do the job that a Maserati does....it never will. and...........
> 
> I'ts not about judging a book by it's cover it's about judging a book by it's content.
> 
> ...


DO YOU SHOVEL THAT CRAP OR BRING IT IN BY THE TRUCK LOAD? MOST OF THE DOGS IN MINE'S BLOODLINE IN EUROPE WON ALL THEY COULD WIN IN SHOW AND THEN TURNED TO FIELD TRIALS AND WON THERE TOO. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHO'S ABILITIES ARE HYPE AND WHOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ABILITIES ARE BEING EMBELISHED? THERE AREN'T ALOT OF OWNERS WHO HAVE THE TIME TO SHOW AND RUN TRIALS, MY BREEDER DID AND I BENEFITTED FROM IT BECAUSE I LIKE THE LOOK AND GOT THE ABILITIES TO BOOT. MAYBE MORE BREEDERS WOULD IF IT WASN'T FOR THIS BIAS CRAP.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> DO YOU SHOVEL THAT CRAP OR BRING IT IN BY THE TRUCK LOAD? MOST OF THE DOGS IN MINE'S BLOODLINE IN EUROPE WON ALL THEY COULD WIN IN SHOW AND THEN TURNED TO FIELD TRIALS AND WON THERE TOO. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHO'S ABILITIES ARE HYPE AND WHOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ABILITIES ARE BEING EMBELISHED? THERE AREN'T ALOT OF OWNERS WHO HAVE THE TIME TO SHOW AND RUN TRIALS, MY BREEDER DID AND I BENEFITTED FROM IT BECAUSE I LIKE THE LOOK AND GOT THE ABILITIES TO BOOT. MAYBE MORE BREEDERS WOULD IF IT WASN'T FOR THIS BIAS CRAP.


 
Gosh that's hard to read...please lose the caps...or do you make a habit of yelling.

So if the show ring isn't anyones cup o' tea, why not create our own show and hold them at each HT or FT? Just thinking outloud of course.


----------



## sandyg (Feb 10, 2010)

If I wanted a bulldog I would've bought a bulldog.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

labguy said:


> Personally I think the "show type" lab is more akin to beauty pagent contestants (human) if I can use that analogy.
> 
> Nice to look at (maybe) but when it comes to actually having to live with one for a lifetime it's not very appealing.
> 
> ...


hmmmmm....there are several very competent breeders producing dual purpose labs.. - in that i mean HT dogs primarily, but strong and above average HT dogs. the FT folks tend to stay with the lean athletic "hot" dogs and as you can see they have an "opinion" on the show lines, so you wont see many of them slipping in to the field trials, and as political as we hear the judging can be heaven help them at the call backs.. to be honest, the blockier build is obviously a major detriment, the FT's seem to have advanced beyond the physical ability of most well bred conformation dogs. my dog is as fit as he can be, but running a FT triple at 250-400 yds and a blind in hot weather would be much tougher for him than a dog his same height and 10 lbs thinner and sleeker. he would drag on the blind, but any fresh blind he throws a fair bit of grass and dirt up behind him. aint nobody ever seen him run used the word "piggish". quite the opposite.


i wont comment on all the preceding banter - but here are a couple pics worth a billion words.....

here's the looks.....









here's the drive......
















(hips good - elbows clear, waiting on EIC)

here's the results:

SH at 10 mos










Master pass at 20 mos









and in 3 weeks i get a pup that is a nephew to my boy above and by this MH/CH :











are you going to win a NFC with them? likely no, but _"Nice to look at (maybe) but when it comes to actually having to live with one for a lifetime it's not very appealing. "_ is a fairly ridiculous statement IMHO. MH and NMH are certainly far far from out of the picture......and there aint no way you can claim "that dog wont hunt".....

carry on!


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Nothing wrong with that little piggy...wait...I think I see two (2) ribs in that top photo.

Any rib that is visible clearly isn't an over nourished dog, no matter where it came from. That dog is what he is, a linebacker...and last I checked they don't play wide reciever. If a wide reciever is what you like, more power to you.

Bulldog...nah...not even close to some labs that I've seen, and many would fit that bill but that's a bit far fetched in my opinion for this dog.

This dog has the classic lab head and build that I grew up seeing and loving. That isn't to say I don't love and appreciate different styles of labs, I certainly do. I love labs...period.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

david gibson said:


> hmmmmm....there are several very competent breeders producing dual purpose labs.. - in that i mean HT dogs primarily, but strong and above average HT dogs. the FT folks tend to stay with the lean athletic "hot" dogs and as you can see they have an "opinion" on the show lines, so you wont see many of them slipping in to the field trials, and as political as we hear the judging can be heaven help them at the call backs.. to be honest, the blockier build is obviously a major detriment, the FT's seem to have advanced beyond the physical ability of most well bred conformation dogs. my dog is as fit as he can be, but running a FT triple at 250-400 yds and a blind in hot weather would be much tougher for him than a dog his same height and 10 lbs thinner and sleeker. he would drag on the blind, but any fresh blind he throws a fair bit of grass and dirt up behind him. aint nobody ever seen him run used the word "piggish". quite the opposite.



With all due respect David (and I mean that sincerely as I've read a number of your posts which are thoughtful, intelligent and well presented) I was and still am mainly talking about competative North American Field Trialing when making comparisons.

Hunt tests are another thing entirely as it's a pass/fail kind of a game. In field trials, the best dogs on that particular day are the only ones that get recognition.

I'ts no slight against "show" type dogs to say that they are not very competative when it comes to field trials.......they're not......... just as it is no slight to "field" type dogs to say that they are not very competative in the show ring...they're not either. This is simply stating a truth born out of history to date..........nothing to get upset about here. 

You have a very nice looking dog that anyone would be pleased to stand beside as does WALDMAN79.

I meant no disrespect to anyone who has a "show" type lab. We all own these dogs for various reasons and no one reason is any more valid than another.

What I would like to see in this discussion is some degree of reality when making claims and comparisons..................let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Like I said in the 2nd post, Ford & Chevy. And David nice looking dog.

That said, I prefer the historical look of the American Lab (as shown below & earlier). I don't understand why field enthusiasts want to support the latest bench look (or a modified version) in the field that is not the field or bench Lab as it has historically looked & performed -and then proclaim it as the "dual purpose" Lab. After all, the picture below shows that 2 of the 4 are clearly the ultimate dual purpose Lab in the US historically. And these four dogs all look very much like many of the dogs you will still see at most any FT.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

labguy said:


> With all due respect David (and I mean that sincerely as I've read a number of your posts which are thoughtful, intelligent and well presented) I was and still am mainly talking about competative North American Field Trialing when making comparisons.
> 
> Hunt tests are another thing entirely as it's a pass/fail kind of a game. In field trials, the best dogs on that particular day are the only ones that get recognition.
> 
> ...


i hear you but you DID say: "There are very few BIS labs or conformation champions with any real retrieving credentials (FC, AFC, *MH's* etc. ) "

so that brought HT's into the equation.

and i truly doubt the marking ability (or lack thereof) is whats keeping conformation type labs out of the FT's, more like i said - the FT's themselves are evolving to stretch the demands of distance to which only the sleeker can excel. a "longer" FT triple (say a 450, 275, and 225 yd triple) is not out of the question and thats 950 yds total, some 3 times the total distance a master test with 100 to 125 yd marks. that 10 lb difference can mean a lot, especially down here.....

so where will we be in 20 or 30 yrs? having to go to 500+ yds for all marks, and some even further, just to keep the challenge? Grandaddy has a good point above, but we are seeing some very sleek labs these days, much slimmer than the ones he posted. the breed will be divided even further as we go along.

i recently dropped a vet i have used for some 40 yrs (including his older partner in the same clinic before him) because of his attitude about my "show" yellow lab. i was shocked he would be so blatant and insinuate that i had bought a "loser" and could never be serious in HT's or FT's with him, and in not so flattering of language either. he literally said "why did you buy a dog like this?" and "i just dont like this type of dog" in the clinic - its one thing if it was his opinion at a FT or HT, but he said this _as he was examining my dog _- so pardon me if i sound a tad defensive, that really set me off, and he hasnt ever even seen the dog work. he will eventually (he is in the sport), but he will dang sure never see him in his clinic again.

talk about lab racism!


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

labguy said:


> With all due respect David...
> 
> What I would like to see in this discussion is some degree of reality when making claims and comparisons..................let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.


I don't really think you're disrespecting anyone but I do think there's a big difference between your vision and reality. My opinion used to be like yours but the "image" of the "ideal dog" has changed quite a bit for me. Physical characteristics obviously limit the dogs ability, therefore it's not about comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges...moreso discerning the difference between apples and oranges. 

The difference between you, others, and myself, is that I can accept the dogs for what they are, what their build will allow, and love them just the same....irregardless. Perhaps you do as well.

I see, hear, and read claims all the time where folks say there show lab can do the same things a HT or FT dog can do. Perhaps some can while others claim the HT/FT dogs to be "it"...but lets not let any of that go to our heads. 

Most people forget that there are many folks who raise labs, have labs strictly to guide hunts for folks and to put birds to wing for people everyday of hunting season...dogs that have to hunt all day long every day. I'm talking about labs that upland hunt mostly...seemingly a forgotten "kind" of labrador. Do a search and find some of those breeders. You may be surprised at what you find.

I've seen a few FT and HT dogs that were in great shape. They could run the long marks and blinds, but it's different when you find someone who has labs that hunt all day, everyday, in the upland field. Those dogs learn to find a rythym, or gate, and that rythym in itself would put alot of HT/FT dogs in a new "piggador" category...meaning they couldn't cut the grade.

Don't get me wrong, titles tell us alot, but the proof is in the pudding day in and day out, all day long, EVERYDAY putting birds to wing for paying clients. Do the search, ask those guides who use those dogs if these "touted" dogs really can "take it". You may be surprised of there answer. That answer may just be, "yes they could if their functional conformation would allow it".

There's a big difference training a few hours a day, everyday, to run a few minute test somewhere, a big difference waiting to retrieve ducks regardless of numbers retrieved...try running all day to find them, puttem' to wing...then chase'n em' and bringn' em' back...there's your hard working lab...don't care what he looks like, where he's from, or what his head is shaped like...that's hard work...and it takes functional conformation less typical of the type of dogs that are typically liked on any waterfowl/FT/HT/show dog forum.

Try doing a search, then get back and let us know what those "old" guides told you. I'm talkin' about guides on huge ranches with wild birds, not some little 100 acre killin' farm. You might just get a "new religion"...opinion or perspective of the best type of dog for you, whatever that may end up being.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

David, I love the look of your boy! Is that Vince that is the sire of your next puppy?


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> And by some that breed "British" Labs here in the US whose marketing is based upon perpetuating that myth.
> 
> And as I type, one of my "high strung" American FT dogs is snoring at my feet.


David,
I must admit, asleep is asleep, whether British or American.

I think if you'll study that photo in your last post, you'll find those dogs ears, at least two of the dogs, their ears are fairly relaxed. Perk them a bit more and you'd have a blockier head than I'm thinking you'd like.

Show conformation and functional conformation are two seperate and very different beasts. Take the foot for instance, a cat like foot, or a hare like foot. What about the dogs gate, caused by his build conformation. How does the chest width affect the dogs breathing while running? A wide chest or a deep chest? Ever seen a marathon runner who wasn't long and lean, even if they were short in stature? A football team comprised of all lineman or wide recievers wouldn't last long against a "normal" team...but they're all football players. 

Learn to love and appreciate them all...we hunters, and the dogs will benefit. I'll take one of each...a British, an American, a British American, an American British...well the list could go on and on...Scottish, Irish, Downunder...yada, yada, yada.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Hoytman said:


> I don't really think you're disrespecting anyone but I do think there's a big difference between your vision and reality. Physical characteristics obviously limit the dogs ability, therefore it's not about comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges...moreso discerning the difference between apples and oranges.
> 
> The difference between you, others, and myself, is that I can accept the dogs for what they are, what their build will allow, and love them just the same....irregardless.
> 
> ...


 I have no arguement with you about any of these points...........very well stated and completely in tune with "my" reality.................and I hate to burst your bubble but I already have that "new religion" and have had it now for 60 plus years. 

My FT lab picks up hundreds of ducks every year right up until Dec 25th in Canada in open water when the ice has been on the river for over a month and the temperature is well below zero. She hunts wild pheasants (not the ones released on 100 acre killin farms) for between 30 and 45 days every year and has that well established rythym and gate that allows her to pace herself while following wild, dog wisened roosters that will run ahead of the hunters for hours until they either bust out a mile ahead or give up and wait to be flushed......day in and day out. 

This is the kind of hunting I grew up with and that I still do so please, don't preach to me about any "new religion" when it comes to dogs and hunting.

I think our "realities" are much more in sync than you'd originally assumed. I'm sure we all know the problem when you "ass/u/me" something. You tend to make an /ass/ out of /u/ and /me/. 

No disrespect intended.................. Old guide regards.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

labguy said:


> With all due respect David (and I mean that sincerely as I've read a number of your posts which are thoughtful, intelligent and well presented) I was and still am mainly talking about competative North American Field Trialing when making comparisons.
> 
> Hunt tests are another thing entirely as it's a pass/fail kind of a game. In field trials, the best dogs on that particular day are the only ones that get recognition.
> 
> ...


If this is how you really feel, why such venum in your previous post? If it's not about an "anti-show dog" sentiment, you could've fooled me with that post. Having said that, I do appreciate the more level headed second post and I do think we can actually agree on many points.

With the Maserati/Mustang comment, I was simply saying that Conformation dogs can and do hunt. They can get the job (hunting) done nicely. I'm sorry you took that to mean I was talking about FTs- I was not. Sorry for the confusion.

In fact, I was actually saying quite the opposite...Conformation dogs were never intended for the kind of competition that today's FTs have evolved into. Therefore, it's completely unfair to make today's FTs the measure of their abilities- just as it would be unfair to expect a Field dog to get a major in the breed ring.

To me, it's not about some "my dog is better than your dog" arguement. If the dogs have the desire, are biddable, and can do the job well, it's good enough for me. I don't need a Maserati, I don't race (FTs). So, I'm perfectly happy with my Mustangs.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

The 2 initial paragraphs in that post were directed at your comments. The rest of the paragraphs, and "you's" therein, were meant for anyone else reading. If my writing skills were what I'd like them to be, perhaps that would have come across as I intended.

Aside from that I didn't intend to make it sound as if you were the only one blowing your horn. I simply don't see what all the fuss is about between British and American dogs. The way I see it, there are myths on both sides of the big pond. 


I didn't and don't assume much of anything, I merely skipped several posts and landed on yours and couldn't figure out who you and a few others were trying to convince of what. Anyway it's sliced its' still a "my dog is better than your dog" fight that is both needless and senseless that only serves to further drive a wedge between good people. My only arguement is that show, and FT/HT people think they've got everybody beat somehow, the great answer ,if you will. If that's a persons cup of tea, then fine. 


See Labguy, this is to you, you don't fit the bill I described. Your dog is a FT dog that gets to hunt quite a bit as it sounds. That's great! Awesome! I wish they all could. Somehow, I don't think that fella with strictly hunting dogs thinks any show dog or FT/HT dog could cut the mustard...and he'd probably be right, nor would he care about entering his dog in a test, which most likely he could not win.


You said;

"I have no arguement with you about any of these points...........very well stated and completely in tune with "my" reality..."

I appreciate that and surely your years of wisdom led you to those thoughts and to say those words to me. I'll take that as a compliment...

...and now I shall burst YOUR bubble sir...all in good clean fun of course...





...you just agreed with a young man who has only trained one (yep 1) dog to FTP and had to quit training that dog because of it's health issues.I choose who I study from wisely. Surely that study has payed off according to your own words that you agreed. Only in the last 4 years have I waterfowl hunted, and the only wild birds I have available are ones whose habitat I helped create, so I don't hunt them.

A few very important things stick out in my mind as the most important that I've learned from all of the authors, both books and internet authors.

1. They love the dogs.
2. A different means to the same end.
3. Alot can be learned just by reading about training, birds, and habitat.
4. And...that reading can turn you into an internet guru personality that can fool you.
5. One can have a bit of wisdom with little experience.;-)

So, from a man with your years of knowledge, your compliments do not fall on deaf ears, but taken to heart. Thank you, no disrepect intended...really.


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

So, the evolution of FT dogs was after the intention of conformation dogs, right? Huh what? Ha Ha...just another way of looking at what you said.

It is what it is because of personal tastes, not that anyones at fault for having those tastes. They're dang dogs with different personalities, different physiques, with different traits and levels of abilities and athleticism, just like their masters. God help us if people or dogs were all like me. It would all be screwed up then.


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

NICE DOG, DAVID GIBSON... THAT'S THE MORE THE BUILD OF DOG I HAVE. I'M MORE OF A "LINEBACKER" KINDA GUY, ACTUALLY MORE OF A TACKLE.:snipersmile:


----------



## Bushmills (Sep 26, 2010)

I think this post has been exhausted....before it becomes nasty.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Bushmills said:


> I think this post has been exhausted....before it becomes nasty.


perhaps winding down, but i dont think it has come anywhere close to nasty, in fact, it has mellowed as each side appears to understand the other more. cant people disagree without being nasty? sure looks like it in this thread. i have plenty of friends with FT lines and i love watching and petting and playing with them as much as any dog. my only_ real_ gripe is with my former vet......

cedarswamp - yes - thats vince!

waldman - same here - well, i used to be the linebacker type, now more like the equipment guy that gets to drive the golf cart around.... ;-)


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> All I have to say is all these anti-show dog sentiments are exactly why my husband & I have choosen to take a hiatus from doing any field work. Did anyone ever stop to think that if they weren't so wrapped up in judging a book by its cover that they would actually see just how much instinct, work ethic, and fitness these dogs have? Just because someone wants a Maserati doesn't mean a Mustang can't do the job nicely...
> 
> Those that are so quick to point to the DCs of the past are clearly not students of the breed's history. If they were, they'd know those pictures are like those geeky grade school pictures of yourself that you wish your parents would burn instead of pointing out to all your friends...The US's breeding stock back then was nothing near the caliber it is today- nor were the games everyone plays, but that's another subject. Do you really think the European breeders were so eager to ship their best stock to the US? They were not and they did not. US breeders were forced to work with the stock they either had or could get- mainly European Field dogs. It wasn't until decades of hard work later, when US breeders had shown how much improvement they could make, that European Conformation breeders finally began to take an interest and allow better dogs to be sent here. So, yes, there are significant differences between the Conformation dogs of the past and today. However, it is not for the reasons many here think. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
> 
> ...


Thank you for proving my point! Enjoy your dog.

Just so you know, every single one of the dogs I posted a pic of I have seen compete.
So they are *not* dogs of some distant past.
Also, just so you know we own/co-own 13 breed champions ((Beagles) at this time. So I more than likely know far more about the show world than you ever will.

5 pups - 5 champions
2008 National Specialty








The b*tch far left has now repeated the feat
5 pups - all 5 are now breed champions








Can they work, judge for yourself









Perhaps Labs would be well served if the LRC would put on an event somewhat like the "Triple Challenge" that the NBC does.

"Hounds must enter and complete all three phases of competition at the Triple Challenge in order to be eligible to receive any awards. The purpose of this event is not to determine which hounds are outstanding in any single performance competition, nor the best conformation hounds; it is a test of versatility meant to recognize and promote the complete beagle. We are looking for those beagles which are truly functional hunting hounds and of correct breed type... with the emphasis on the beagle's ability as an efficient hunting companion, regardless of the speed or style of his work. Hounds representing all factions of our sport are welcome and will receive equal consideration"
http://clubs.akc.org/NBC/triple_challenge.html


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

LabLady101 said:


> All I have to say is all these anti-show dog sentiments are exactly why my husband & I have choosen to take a hiatus from doing any field work. Did anyone ever stop to think that if they weren't so wrapped up in judging a book by its cover that they would actually see just how much instinct, work ethic, and fitness these dogs have? Just because someone wants a Maserati doesn't mean a Mustang can't do the job nicely...
> 
> *Those that are so quick to point to the DCs of the past are clearly not students of the breed's history.* If they were, they'd know those pictures are like those geeky grade school pictures of yourself that you wish your parents would burn instead of pointing out to all your friends...*The US's breeding stock back then was nothing near the caliber it is today-* nor were the games everyone plays, but that's another subject. Do you really think the European breeders were so eager to ship their best stock to the US? They were not and they did not. US breeders were forced to work with the stock they either had or could get- mainly European Field dogs. *It wasn't until decades of hard work later, when US breeders had shown how much improvement they could make, that European Conformation breeders finally began to take an interest and allow better dogs to be sent here.* So, yes, there are significant differences between the Conformation dogs of the past and today. However, it is not for the reasons many here think. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
> 
> ...


Like our politicians of today who either ignore our history or try to re-write history to suit their positions, you have come up with a classic revisionist position.

Actual history clearly indicates that the British history followed a near identical path as how the Lab history has played out in the US. Just like in the US in the later half of the 20th century, the bench enthusiasts completely abandoned the function of the Labrador Retriever in its pursuit of a "look", the British did the same in the preceding 100 yrs. The gap between the working Lab in the UK from the bench Lab in the UK is every bit as wide as it is in the US, maybe wider. It came about for one reason, function was completely abandoned for a "look". As to the US breeding stock in the 20th century, facts indicate the best field dogs of that period could confidently be expected to compete & win today in US FTs. The primary change has not been the dog, it has been the training. Anyone who is a student of the working Lab in the US would know this. And the decades of hard work you refer to above, is actually the eventual capitulation of the LRC which began to award bench ribbons to the British "look" in the mid-20th century here in the US. Until that time, the British bench "look" had been purposely avoided. It was avoided because function in the US was still held in high regard among the LRC & breed enthusiasts. There are specific breeders and officials of the then LRC that turned the tide in favor of a form first or separate from function. And the bench enthusiasts have been happily going down that path since, no longer being hampered by those who had historically controlled the breed's direction with a strong philosophy of form following function. Today the extreme "look" of the winning bench Labs is proof positive of what happens when the very function of the breed is abandoned. Today's bench champions have by & large very little in common with the working Lab. If they function at all, it is inspite of their form & because the retrieving desire still resides in the DNA, not because of or aided by the form. In fact the preferable form of the bench Lab is not suited for a normal day's retrieving work (notice the phrase 'day's work' as opposed to a few minutes work such as we see required to obtain working certificate).

And while you & others of your preference like to say FTs have become extreme in distance, a review of set-ups of 50 yrs ago clearly indicate that is not consistently so. Sure there are extreme examples of distance in some set-ups today (maybe needed because of the high level of training) but the avg test will have birds in the 100-350yd distance, not so much different that 50 yrs ago. During that same time, the preferred "look" of a bench champion has gone from that of the Grangmeade dogs (a picture can be viewed in this thread) to dogs that don't even resemble an historical US Labrador Retriever. History is history & in the US when form followed function (logical for a working dog), Labs looked like our field Labs of today.

Factual history regards,


----------



## Marissa E. (May 13, 2009)

tom said:


> Thank you for proving my point! Enjoy your dog.
> 
> Just so you know, every single one of the dogs I posted a pic of I have seen compete.
> So they are *not* dogs of some distant past.
> ...



VERY NICE beagles! 
Makes me want to run out and get more myself! 

I think beagle breeders have done a good job breeding form to function.
I've seen some pretty sorry looking long backed dogs that did ok in the field, but I don't think those dogs were as athletic nor as hardy as your traditional square powerhouse hounds. There is a reason the beagle has been around as long as it has and is as hardy and healthy of a breed and thats all thanks to the breeders. Granted they have health issues too but generally they are a good dog.

My beagle was just your typical ole huntin bred dawg. Shes a monster rabbit dog that goes through anything, she will trial a rabbit all day, once you shoot she could care less about the dead rabbit and she is off to find another (its so nice when your dogs don't try to eat your game!) she is fantastic with kids, and lives happily in our home. She is also as healthy as they come!

She was my first beagle, I didn't know a whole lot before I got her... but I think I got lucky!

I only have one picture of her with rabbits we are always to busy shooting guns to shoot cameras... she is two years old now but I bet we have shot around 30 rabbits already with her and we just don't get out as often as she would like.

Daisy-B


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> All I have to say is all these anti-show dog sentiments are exactly why my husband & I have choosen to take a hiatus from doing any field work. Did anyone ever stop to think that if they weren't so wrapped up in judging a book by its cover that they would actually see just how much instinct, work ethic, and fitness these dogs have?


There is no better way to prove the talent and athleticism of an English type dog than to compete the dog. There are enough competing in the hunt test levels that you are not unusual unless the dogs are not prepared, properly trained, or don't show natural abilities. The rest of your dissertation is very common in the non-working circles, our dogs are the real dog which I agree with David's post-shaped to fit the belief. What working levels have you believed that the dog was judged by the cover and not the work and where? I have only seen fairness-the dog was rewarded with doing the work regardless of the look. This is sounding like a sour grapes to me.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Granddaddy said:


> Like our politicians of today who either ignore our history or try to re-write history to suit their positions, you have come up with a classic revisionist position.
> 
> Actual history clearly indicates that the British history followed a near identical path as how the Lab history has played out in the US. Just like in the US in the later half of the 20th century, the bench enthusiasts completely abandoned the function of the Labrador Retriever in its pursuit of a "look", the British did the same in the preceding 100 yrs. The gap between the working Lab in the UK from the bench Lab in the UK is every bit as wide as it is in the US, maybe wider. It came about for one reason, function was completely abandoned for a "look". As to the US breeding stock in the 20th century, facts indicate the best field dogs of that period could confidently be expected to compete & win today in US FTs. The primary change has not been the dog, it has been the training. Anyone who is a student of the working Lab in the US would know this. And the decades of hard work you refer to above, is actually the eventual capitulation of the LRC which began to award bench ribbons to the British "look" in the mid-20th century here in the US. Until that time, the British bench "look" had been purposely avoided. It was avoided because function in the US was still held in high regard among the LRC & breed enthusiasts. There are specific breeders and officials of the then LRC that turned the tide in favor of a form first or separate from function. And the bench enthusiasts have been happily going down that path since, no longer being hampered by those who had historically controlled the breed's direction with a strong philosophy of form following function. Today the extreme "look" of the winning bench Labs is proof positive of what happens when the very function of the breed is abandoned. Today's bench champions have by & large very little in common with the working Lab. If they function at all, it is inspite of their form & because the retrieving desire still resides in the DNA, not because of or aided by the form. In fact the preferable form of the bench Lab is not suited for a normal day's retrieving work (notice the phrase 'day's work' as opposed to a few minutes work such as we see required to obtain working certificate).
> 
> ...



BINGO......................we have a winner ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

tom said:


> Thank you for proving my point! Enjoy your dog.
> 
> Just so you know, every single one of the dogs I posted a pic of I have seen compete.
> So they are *not* dogs of some distant past.
> ...


Very nice dogs! Congrats on your success!

I would really relish the idea of the LRC having Versatility, ROM, etc programs like so many other breeds do. However, sadly, the LRC seems asleep at the wheel these days...

The closest any Labrador owner can get to a versatility award these days is the AKC's VCDs (which require a Tracking title and not a HT title, something I personally disagree with- but that's another subject) and UKC's Total Dog award.


----------



## Real Green (Feb 10, 2010)

What is the estimated number of current FC's that are with in confirmation?

I would think a lab breeder should be considering confirmation as much as much as performance. 

Unless you are trying to develop a "specialty dog." 

How much would competition at the FC level change if there was a "confirmation requirement?"

How much would the show ring change if there was a minimum field requirement?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There is a minimum working title for a champion by the LRC...its ignored


----------



## Maxs Mom (Sep 17, 2009)

Two sided sword... 

For the bench labs I think a lot is at the fault of the judges. Recently I went to a show, and watched the labs. I swear there were ones making the floor vibrate, they had way too much extra whatever you want to call it, but it was not muscle as it jiggled. I commended the judge for NOT choosing that dog. However I have been to other shows where the more conventional looking dog in my opinion was not used. I have a friend who breeds for conformation, her dogs are VERY nice looking, fit, athletic, with a waist and a tuck, not like you see in today's "field" dogs but no fat and good looking dogs. 

However the direction some breeders are going with the field dogs is no better. Some are losing the lab look. I have seen them with coats that resemble a german shorthair more than a lab. Tails long and spindly, with tiny little feet at the end of LONG legs. Their heads are long and narrow, and the ears look so large they look like hounds. I think the breeders truly trying to breed one way or the other are not helping the breed. My opinion. 

I know other breeders who work towards a balanced dog with good structure. THAT IS THE BREEDER I LOOK FOR! My pup I have comes from a UKC CH stud, with a mom who is by WayDaGoRocky. Trying to meld the best of both worlds to get the dog a Labrador should be. 

There will be arguments to the end of time on this discussion. My opinion is structure, brains, athletic ability should be the cornerstone. These dogs will be produced by breeders looking at the BIG picture, including health as well as genetics. 

I also want to add, I love golden retrievers too. Fortunately for the show ring they are returning to a less extreme dog. However in my recent search for a puppy I was rather disappointed with how many breeders didn't fully respect the clearances. I am glad I found a breeder who did AND did not line breed too tightly. That is a thing of mine that scares me. I know it is done successfully, it just makes "me" nervous.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Real Green said:


> What is the estimated number of current FC's that are with in confirmation?
> 
> I would think a lab breeder should be considering confirmation as much as much as performance.
> 
> ...


That makes just as much sense (actually a little less sense) than saying that all bench champions require a JH title. I suspect that most field champions would have little trouble getting a conformation certificate and virtually all would meet both the weight and height standards. I doubt that most CH's could claim to meet the weight standard, or pass a JH test. The one big difference is that field trials are not breed specific.

The Lab conformation standard is very clear on the purpose of the breed and its relationship to appearance:
The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to *function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions*; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion. Physical features and mental characteristics should denote a dog bred to perform as *an efficient Retriever of game with a stable temperament suitable for a variety of pursuits beyond the hunting environment.* The most distinguishing characteristics of the Labrador Retriever are its short, dense, weather resistant coat; an "otter" tail; a clean-cut head with broad back skull and moderate stop; powerful jaws; and its "kind" friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament. 
​An overweight dog, not a dog like Dave's, but a dog resembling those that usually seem to win at Westminster, does not appear to be capable of spending hours in the field hunting waterfowl or upland game under difficult conditions. Dogs that do not possess that fundamental athleticism should, in my opinion, be dropped in any conformation competition _because they do not conform_. In the same manner, dogs that cannot perform the required retrieves should be dropped in any field trial or hunt test because they did not perform. Nobody is suggesting that conformation champions should need to be capable of becoming field trial dogs, or even master hunters. But the standard does require that they at least look the part of an effective, efficient retriever which an overweight dog does not. By contrast, field trial standards do not require dogs to look anything like the standard for their breed, only that they be AKC registered as one of the breeds allowed.


As a Lab breeder, I always consider breed standard conformation. However, I make it clear that I am not breeding dogs that would be capable of performing in the show ring. However, I do expect them to be able to perform effectively in the field -- whether as hunting dogs, or in hunt test or field trial events.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Very nice dogs! Congrats on your success!
> 
> I would really relish the idea of the LRC having Versatility, ROM, etc programs like so many other breeds do. However, sadly, the LRC seems asleep at the wheel these days...
> 
> The closest any Labrador owner can get to a versatility award these days is the AKC's VCDs (which require a Tracking title and not a HT title, something I personally disagree with- but that's another subject) and UKC's Total Dog award.


 
Actually the LRC has a very cool program this week at the specialty in CA:
http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=The+Challenge

Of course you have to go to participate (bummer this is still harvest for me). One of my owners has done this ("Lab for All Reasons" was the challenge when it was in Portland in 07 and in the midwest last year). I think this one (Challenge) is even better.

I was just chatting w/ a Golden Retriever friend who just got back from her specialty (and think Jean Grammer was there too). They only hold WC/WCX and a Field Trial for the field events-- no hunt tests! Fortunately we (LRC) hold hunt tests (and this year, 2 JH and 2 SH along w/ the MH). And I believe we hold far more obedience & agility trials. http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Planned+Events

So... I think the grass is pretty green on this side of the fence personally. Anne


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Very nice dogs! Congrats on your success!
> 
> I would really relish the idea of the LRC having Versatility, ROM, etc programs like so many other breeds do. However, sadly, the LRC seems asleep at the wheel these days...
> 
> The closest any Labrador owner can get to a versatility award these days is the AKC's VCDs (which require a Tracking title and not a HT title, something I personally disagree with- but that's another subject) and UKC's Total Dog award.


Agreed- NICE dogs!

I'm currently competing in The LRC, Inc Nationals this entire week (we earned two JH passes this weekend)- doing rally and conformation as well. They always have the "Dog For All Reasons" award at the nationals (the dogs have to compete in at least 3 of the events offered, earn a passing score, etc) which is what I'm going for with my dog. This year, they also have "The Challenge," where the dogs have to earn points in multiple events and they award a bronze, silver, and gold medal. One of my friends is entered in SH, agility, rally, tracking, and obedience, and a special conformation class for spayed/neutered and "non-show-dogs" that was added specifically for this all-around competition. I hope he wins it!  They're definitely working on trying to promote the breed's versatility more and more. Coming from a background competing with my quarter horses, the versatility and temperament were key reasons I chose Labrador retrievers, so I'm thrilled to see these trends.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> An overweight dog, not a dog like Dave's, but a dog resembling those that usually seem to win at Westminster, does not appear to be capable of spending hours in the field hunting waterfowl or upland game under difficult conditions. Dogs that do not possess that fundamental athleticism should, in my opinion, be dropped in any conformation competition _because they do not conform_. In the same manner, dogs that cannot perform the required retrieves should be dropped in any field trial or hunt test because they did not perform. Nobody is suggesting that conformation champions should need to be capable of becoming field trial dogs, or even master hunters. But the standard does require that they at least look the part of an effective, efficient retriever which an overweight dog does not. By contrast, field trial standards do not require dogs to look anything like the standard for their breed, only that they be AKC registered as one of the breeds allowed.
> 
> 
> As a Lab breeder, I always consider breed standard conformation. However, I make it clear that I am not breeding dogs that would be capable of performing in the show ring. However, I do expect them to be able to perform effectively in the field -- whether as hunting dogs, or in hunt test or field trial events.


Good post. I agree 100%. I also focus on the whole package, but have all but given up on producing anything for the serious show competitor. When or if the day comes that the height/weight range is taken into account, I may go play in the AKC ring but until then, I'll be sticking to the Intl shows that go by the FCI standard, where overdone and out of shape dogs are penalized.  Mine have done very nicely in the Intl shows, and I have often been asked by folks w/ other breeds why they don't see Labs (like mine) that "look like they can still hunt" in the AKC ring. Interesting that folks from so many other breeds recognize a problem that our own cant seem to see.

Anyone here who has seen my dogs run in hunt tests over the years will tell you I have had no shortage of drive, even in my "almost all" show bred dogs. The key has been to breed into proven working lines-- though they *are* becoming harder to find. I have had nice luck w/ some of the Swedish and French dual lines so far though and have just bred to a son of a mult CH/French Trialer (that's an interesting and impressive title, btw- imo). I only have done 1 breeding to a show CH with no working titles within 3 generations and learned alot from it. I definitely saw a difference... was very disappointed with the litter from the working angle as I saw a much lower % that took to water quickly, etc. 

I am most enjoying my 50/50 blend right now who is linebred on a GMHR mult CH / MH. Envy is 22 mos and is an excellent marker, excellent obedience dog (already has 2 of 3 Q's toward her CDX) -- and has the looks I think *most everyone* here could stomach, along with brains, athleticism, personality and health. She's the black in this pic taken just yesterday w/ their loot earned in Aug/Sept at obed trials and hunt tests. The choc isn't doing too shabby either-- Kiku is 17 mos and already has her CD, RN and 3 for 3 (along w/ the black) in JH tests also demonstrating excellent marking and speed. Now to work on both of their "enthusiasm" a bit... a wee bit vocal on the send, esp the choc. If "DMA" reads this he'll verify... I'm not going to live down the noise on the water for a long time I'm afraid. 

Here's a link to their land series recently. Envy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpS1naYRNJc&feature=email
Kiku (2nd mark was missed by the person videoing it, new to hunt tests, as she had to run #1 dog-- but she pinned it... this one is 7/8 show bred. I loved how she takes the sage brush cover on the way back--- no avoidance there, she leaps it! Agility will surely be fun w/ her too): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnTulJrkzN8&feature=related

That was w/ really quite little hrt training outside of FF, a few winger marks here, and a couple group sessions. I had another litter to raise (mine is 6 mos from that one) and was working a little harder on competition obed this summer than hrts. Anyhow, I think there is hope if I can curb some of the vocalness that is!  Anne


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Anne & Julie, I did see that program for the National this year and I do think it's a fantastic step in the right direction. However, what I was aluding to is a more permanant type of recognition program vs. a one-time recognition program- one that isn't tied to a one time event. For example, the FCRSA (Flat-Coated Retriever Society of America) & GRCA (Golden Retriver Club of America) both have Versatility and Hall Of Fame awards that are permanant part of their breed club records. They are not tied to just one event but are earned through accumulated efforts. Other breeds have ROM programs as well. The LRC has had ample opportunity to incorporate programs such as these and has sat on their hands...It's sad!

Congrats on your Junior legs, Julie!! Good luck with the rest of the week!


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Montview said:


> Agreed- NICE dogs!
> 
> I'm currently competing in The LRC, Inc Nationals this entire week (we earned two JH passes this weekend)- doing rally and conformation as well. They always have the "Dog For All Reasons" award at the nationals (the dogs have to compete in at least 3 of the events offered, earn a passing score, etc) which is what I'm going for with my dog. This year, they also have "The Challenge," where the dogs have to earn points in multiple events and they award a bronze, silver, and gold medal. One of my friends is entered in SH, agility, rally, tracking, and obedience, and a special conformation class for spayed/neutered and "non-show-dogs" that was added specifically for this all-around competition. I hope he wins it!  They're definitely working on trying to promote the breed's versatility more and more. Coming from a background competing with my quarter horses, the versatility and temperament were key reasons I chose Labrador retrievers, so I'm thrilled to see these trends.


Ty for the complements. You don't even want to know how many years, blood sweat tears, and oops were involved in doing that. 

Over the years I think these people have done the best job.
http://www.brittanybreed.info/DualChampions/


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Anne & Julie, I did see that program for the National this year and I do think it's a fantastic step in the right direction. However, what I was aluding to is a more permanant type of recognition program vs. a one-time recognition program- one that isn't tied to a one time event.


Give it time and be sure to let your regional LRC representative know of your interest in such a program if that is important to you. 

In the meantime, I'd ask you to reconsider your position on training/competing for field events. I think it's a cop out, personally. We have a responsibility to prove our dogs' working abilities. So what that someone w/ preconceived ideas gives you a hard time? Prove them wrong. I dare you... :idea: It's fun too. 

But really, that attitude is EXACTLY why it's becoming so hard to find good show bred dogs to breed to. If they aren't being proven (and especially if the rest of the pedigree isn't either), they are going to be a hard sell to those of us who insist on seeing some evidence, just as we want to see depth in OFAs, etc. I'm not ready to fall into that trap of "my dog CAN do THAT, I just don't have the" time, money, patience (etc-- fill in the blank-- I've heard them all) again. And believe me, it does NOT take a pro to train a JH.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I have been in the hunt test game (off and on) and around field trials for about 20 years and have been waterfowl hunting since the early 1970's.I think the axiom "would you want to hunt over this dog" is the prime criteria for what a lab is.I have seen a only handful of show bred dogs go beyond JH.The lack of desire for birds is the thing I dislike most when one is breeding strictly for conformation.I have seen the scism between show bred GSP vs field bred GSP, which there isn't quite the gap as with labs, but the same outside the stated breed standard size mentality and judges who should disqualify dogs they put up many times.Do you think the backyard bred dog in my avatar is ugly? ( Shadow x Ice by the way).
If the dog does the job I don't care what the lines are from ( for the most part) 
Sorry about the rant

Jeff G


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

labsforme said:


> I have seen a only handful of show bred dogs go beyond JH.The lack of desire for birds is the thing I dislike most when one is breeding strictly for conformation.
> 
> Jeff G


 
I know this is only one exception to the above comment. 

However, how can it then be explained that my dog is as birdy as any HRCH/MH dog I've ever seen in the field at a test or the hunting field? My dog came from English breeding (I didn't care, didn't know what it was at the time...only that it was a lab), a female @ 75 lbs. fighting weight, and from show stock that hadn't been hunted for several generations. I hear what your saying, but how can this be with this dog? The breeder didn't think they'd hunt...if she only knew.

More often than not I have to believe it's becuase of several factors as to how the pup is introduced to training and birds. I think much of it, if not most of it (of course from dogs who haven't hunted for generation), has to do with the trainer and how the natural instincts are triggered.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Some years ago I bought a "Tanner" pup from June Miller http://millmarlabradors.com/main.html (he is in the (retired column)
The day she got here she was introduced to clip wing pigeons and puppy bumpers, and puppy training from that point on.
We returned the pup because of a bite problem when her adult teeth came in (Also the best puppy guarantee I have ever encountered)
They called me after they got her back laughing like crazy (seems like they also have a duck pond in back)

The point I'm trying to make is most show breeders/buyers don't do the things that we consider common practice with our dogs, and then they wonder why they are not birdy.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Hoytman, I was speaking from observation not speculation.It does not mean that all show bred labs are hopeless or won't make good duck dogs.If yours does the work then you have what we all hope for.I have had one pup out of a litter that was as line bred Honcho as you can get that could have cared less about birds.She loved people.I had her spayed and got her a good famiy home.I would not perpetuate her attitude.Her littermate sisters were awesome.I was not saying that ALL show bred dogs(not the same as so called English bred) won't hunt but that from what I have seen in the hunt tests I have observed as a gunner and participant that most don't go past JH.It may be the owners but I can't judge that.

Best to you and yours,

Jeff


----------



## Hoytman (Jun 23, 2003)

labsforme said:


> Hoytman, I was speaking from observation not speculation.It does not mean that all show bred labs are hopeless or won't make good duck dogs.If yours does the work then you have what we all hope for.I have had one pup out of a litter that was as line bred Honcho as you can get that could have cared less about birds.She loved people.I had her spayed and got her a good famiy home.I would not perpetuate her attitude.Her littermate sisters were awesome.I was not saying that ALL show bred dogs(not the same as so called English bred) won't hunt but that from what I have seen in the hunt tests I have observed as a gunner and participant that most don't go past JH.It may be the owners but I can't judge that.
> 
> Best to you and yours,
> 
> Jeff


I understand what you're saying. I've talked to many who have observed the same as you from some of these pets. I was just making a general comment about 1 dog. I'm sure there are many, yet still few, exceptions to the rule like my dog.

My point was, more often than not I feel the dogs still have "it" we just have to find how to bring it out.

A friend of mine has bought 3 "pound dogs" that were full grown. They ended up making decent hunting dogs, far from a HT/FT dog, but they were decent. These dogs were a year old or more. The 4th dog he bought at a pound...well...it wasn't worth shooting. Again, my friend most likely got lucky with 3 of 'em. Ya' never know. Still I'd rather stack the odds in my favor if for anything else, the health clearances.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

labguy said:


> With all due respect David (and I mean that sincerely as I've read a number of your posts which are thoughtful, intelligent and well presented) I was and still am mainly talking about *competative North American Field Trialing when making comparisons.
> *
> Hunt tests are another thing entirely as it's a pass/fail kind of a game. In field trials, the best dogs on that particular day are the only ones that get recognition.
> 
> ...


i fully respect your thoughts and opinions, no real argument here, but in light of what you said that i bolded above, may i offer this? :::

here i am an admittedly cocky yet also admittedly extremely amateur trainer and handler. ask anyone that has seen me run my dog - i dont have a clue, but i do learn with each experience so i am gaining more clues. my dog makes me look good, not the opposite. plenty of people here in RTF have judged us, so this is not debatable.. ;-)

so - if a rank AM like me can get a dog like this to the HT level i have at 99% solo training and following no real program - - do you not think this dog would at least have a shot at an FC under a top pro his entire career?

so maybe more conformation dogs with the "chutzpah" should find their way to top pro programs?


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

windycanyon said:


> Give it time and be sure to let your regional LRC representative know of your interest in such a program if that is important to you.
> 
> In the meantime, I'd ask you to reconsider your position on training/competing for field events. I think it's a cop out, personally. We have a responsibility to prove our dogs' working abilities. So what that someone w/ preconceived ideas gives you a hard time? Prove them wrong. I dare you... :idea: It's fun too.
> 
> But really, that attitude is EXACTLY why it's becoming so hard to find good show bred dogs to breed to. If they aren't being proven (and especially if the rest of the pedigree isn't either), they are going to be a hard sell to those of us who insist on seeing some evidence, just as we want to see depth in OFAs, etc. I'm not ready to fall into that trap of "my dog CAN do THAT, I just don't have the" time, money, patience (etc-- fill in the blank-- I've heard them all) again. And believe me, it does NOT take a pro to train a JH.


I AGREE, I DIDN'T GET MY DOG TO SHOW OR TRIAL BUT IN HIS PEDIGREE, HIS KIN ARE CHAMPS IN BOTH. I JUST GOT HIM BECAUSE HE'S A TANK AND HE HUNTS. BUT AFTER RUNNING IN A FEW "FOR FUN" EVENTS, I'M WORKING TOWARDS HIS UPLAND HUNTER UKC TITLE FOR STARTERS. HE JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE DOGS HE'S COMPETING AGAINST.


----------



## kgirot (Mar 11, 2007)

I always enjoy these debates. If we all liked the same type, size, color, abililty, etc, etc, it would be a boring lot of dogs out there. Nobody is right or wrong, it all depends on personal preference and what your goal is with the dog. 

When someone asks if Vince is British or American, I say "He's from Ohio".


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

kgirot said:


> I always enjoy these debates. If we all liked the same type, size, color, abililty, etc, etc, it would be a boring lot of dogs out there. Nobody is right or wrong, it all depends on personal preference and what your goal is with the dog.
> 
> When someone asks if Vince is British or American, I say "He's from Ohio".


SMALL WORLD, YOUR VINCE AND MY DUKE SHARE SOME KIN


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Does he have any HT titles?


BIS, BISS Am. Can. Ch. Aquarius Centercourt Delight, JH, WC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEiwpQKlT14


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

tom said:


> BIS, BISS Am. Can. Ch. Aquarius Centercourt Delight, JH, WC
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEiwpQKlT14



Wow very impressive not only is he the winningest Labrador in history he is also the "top five sporting dog", I can only guess that must be a new title for JH, WC dogs? More importantly he call pull off wearing the Buzz Lightyear Halloween costume with dignity.
LOL.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

tom said:


> BIS, BISS Am. Can. Ch. Aquarius Centercourt Delight, JH, WC
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEiwpQKlT14


OK, he is actually a little more moderate so going in the right direction and he does have some muscle, moves nice, but Tom, what's up with the "top five sporting dog" balony with a JH. Where can they possibly be getting that from and who is buying that?


----------



## Marissa E. (May 13, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> OK, he is actually a little more moderate so going in the right direction and he does have some muscle, moves nice, but Tom, what's up with the "top five sporting dog" balony with a JH. Where can they possibly be getting that from and who is buying that?


Perhaps only 5 dogs showed up? 

Just kidding of course. Those are all great accomplishments!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Top 5 sporting dog.....doesn't that mean the sporting dog group in conformation shows?
So he would be top 5 among all the breeds in that group.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

Top five sporting dogs is a ranking of group placements from the sporting group. Who is buying that? Anyone who knows what a lab should look like.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> Top 5 sporting dog.....doesn't that mean the sporting dog group in conformation shows?
> So he would be top 5 among all the breeds in that group.


OK, guess I don't speak conformation.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> OK, guess I don't speak conformation.


Lol @ me for knowing that.
Guess I do watch Westminster dog show sometimes......;-)


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Conformation rankings are based on number of dogs defeated.
The two major systems used are number of dog in breed defeated, and number of dogs all breeds defeated. (in dog shows)
So you get those rankings by winning the big shows where there are lots of dogs entered.
Buzz was ranked #1 Labrador, and #5 sporting group.
BTW the Golden is also the all time top winning dog for it's breed


----------



## gman0046 (May 7, 2009)

I'm with Labguy and can only speak from my own experience of having both types of Labs. The bitch in my avatar Molly would make bench people cringe. She is from MH stock. She is the exact description of an American Lab. Thin, trim, long legged, thin snout and long eared but the most athletic Lab I've ever seen. She was the fastest running and the most driven to retrieve Lab I've ever seen. When ESPN came to Kentucky for a Dock Diving competition, and after watching it, I said she could do this and entered her in the next month's competition. The first time she ever jumped in competition she won first place. The next month she came in third to Little Morgan the once World Champion. She could jump over 23' all day long and never missed making the Final Four in any event she participated in. She was a tireless retriever who always weighed a constant 63#.
My now two year old yellow female 57# Maggie who looks much like David Gibsons yellow dog and comes from the line of Kerrybrooks "Pete" both MH & CH. She is shorter, stockier who retrieves well but does not have the athletic ability our Field Bred Molly had. 
I seriously doubt that a 110# behemoth with a head like a St. Bernard could ever come close to our FT Molly. Like someone said in a previous post, its like comparing a wide receiver to an offensive lineman, it can't be done. That saying, I love them all. It's just a matter of preference


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Nicole said:


> Top five sporting dogs is a ranking of group placements from the sporting group. Who is buying that? Anyone who knows what a lab should look like.


Actually, I think even BIS wins are counted for Group rankings, but I agree 110% on the rest of it, Nicole.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> OK, he is actually a little more moderate so going in the right direction and he does have some muscle, moves nice,


Nancy-- sadly, he's 12 yrs old now, so I am not sure your above statement about moving in the right direction is applicable.  I remember a few years ago when a friend was ready to breed their bitch to him. At the time, he was a little more substantial than what I cared for. Now I look at the photos and say, wow, that's a nice moderate dog who looks like he could have done more than a JH (which wasn't done until just a couple years ago, if I remember right). 

I've always had a preference for the old style, classic look but it's really getting tough to find anymore.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> Nancy-- sadly, he's 12 yrs old now, so I am not sure your above statement about moving in the right direction is applicable.  I remember a few years ago when a friend was ready to breed their bitch to him. At the time, he was a little more substantial than what I cared for. Now I look at the photos and say, wow, that's a nice moderate dog who looks like he could have done more than a JH (which wasn't done until just a couple years ago, if I remember right).
> 
> I've always had a preference for the old style, classic look but it's really getting tough to find anymore.


So in other words, he accomplished most of that when he was young-I saw 15 BIS by 4 years-was pretty young in those pictures and ended up a lot more substancial as a mature dog? Oh well.


----------



## Sholar Powell (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm a newbie on this forum, and have enjoyed the posts. Relatively inexperienced w/regard to training Labs, and my early experience was with dogs that favored the English confirmation (short coupled, otter tail, etc.)...and based on hunting (doves, quail, pheasant), thought I had relatively decent dogs. My old one is on his downhill side, and I picked up a puppy off of Small Craft Advisory last December......11 months old, and based on a standard of the English dogs, is "ugly as a mud fence"....tall, sharp head and nose, longer ears, slender body. But based on hunting ability, inherent problem solving capabilities, speed, enthusiasm, etc. I finally realized, "you don't know what a 'good' dog is until you have one"...at 11 months, this dog is developmentally where my other dogs were at more than 2years of age. He's still ugly as a mud fence, but based on performance, I'm getting over it......


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Sholar Powell said:


> I'm a newbie on this forum, and have enjoyed the posts. Relatively inexperienced w/regard to training Labs, and my early experience was with dogs that favored the English confirmation (short coupled, otter tail, etc.)...and based on hunting (doves, quail, pheasant), thought I had relatively decent dogs. My old one is on his downhill side, and I picked up a puppy off of Small Craft Advisory last December......11 months old, and based on a standard of the English dogs, is "ugly as a mud fence"....tall, sharp head and nose, longer ears, slender body. But based on hunting ability, inherent problem solving capabilities, speed, enthusiasm, etc. I finally realized, "you don't know what a 'good' dog is until you have one"...at 11 months, this dog is developmentally where my other dogs were at more than 2years of age. He's still ugly as a mud fence, but based on performance, I'm getting over it......


GLAD YOU'VE GOT A GOOD DOG, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE BOTH. A DOG CAN HAVE HUNTING ABILITY, INHERENT PROBLEM SOLVING CAPABILITIES, SPEED & ENTHUSIASM AND CONFORMATION. PROOF IS LAYING ON THE FLOOR NEXT TO ME NOW.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

i haven't been on rtf for a week and wow, a thirteen page american/british/bench thread. i luv this stuff and read every post.

like i tell my bud's at the duck club when they want to bring their dogs in the lodge, "remember, nobody loves *your* dog but *you*!" respectfully, some of the dogs in ya'lls avatars sho nuff fugly.

john mc


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> So in other words, he accomplished most of that when he was young-I saw 15 BIS by 4 years-was pretty young in those pictures and ended up a lot more substancial as a mature dog? Oh well.


Ummm no (though you are right in the fact he won alot when young). 
I'm saying he'd likely not be "enough" by today's preferences based on what I see winning, so no, you can't say the show ring is going in the "right" direction. It IS what it is.


----------



## Tori (Mar 6, 2010)

A dog who is in great shape, put together clean and tightly, and moves out well will look like a nice dog no matter how you slice it. Might not be your cup of tea breed, but don't tell me you can't look at any breed of dog and say it is or is not well built or bred.

An athletic dog will outperform an unathletic one even if both dogs want the bird. Just the way it is, certain body types lend themselves to certain activities and field labs just do a better job spending hours in the field working hard and fast. Their bodies are built for just that, and while not necessarily bred for "conformation" in the show standard sense, you don't try to breed a dog with poor conformation in the structural sense since that gets you down the long dirt road of nothing. 

Personally I like labs who have a square but not overdone head and powerful (not thick) build, but still have the leg length to work in the field for a good length of time. I'm not a day in day out hunter though, so I don't need a dog that can perform at a higher level and thus can have a more moderate build. I can admit that what in my head is a gorgeous lab is not the type of dog that can keep up with nor be succesful at anything more than a MH level physically. Maybe they have all the drive in the world but that only gets you so far. 

It's hard to follow a "standard" that limits the physical capabilities of the dog regarding what it can do. I have yet to meet a true show dog that can be called a "lean mean hunting machine" or a "firebreather" when it comes to drive. I'm sorry, but I just haven't met one that has the fire in it's belly quite like a strictly born and bred field/hunting lab. Yet, I like the look of a more moderate dog. If you want a dog that fits the standard well, it seems to me you have to give up a little drive or a little conformation or both. 


Once again there are exceptions but on a whole the two jobs just require a different body type plain and simple. I think breeding for soundness, structure and movement and a tempermant that can be a jack of all trades is really what lab people should focus on. Though for me, a good head is icing on the cake ;-) I have no problem with breeding just for work ethic and job performing ability though ifthat's what is wanted, since there is a goal in mind to create a harder working dog who can phyisically do their job better then the last generation can. Don't see how you can fault that, no matter which side of the arguement your on. No good breeding for looks if they don't enjoy or can't be useful in hunting which is what they are supposed to do. 

Sure some people won't agree with me but this is how I see the situation and figure it is what it is and I like the way my dog looks and he has just enough drive for me so what else could I ask for. To me show labs and field labs are different breeds and I am ok with that. Same name, different job description, and body types to follow function. Just the way it is now. (I did not include the middle of the road labs in any of this. Talking only about extremes here)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

WALDMAN79 said:


> GLAD YOU'VE GOT A GOOD DOG, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE BOTH. A DOG CAN HAVE HUNTING ABILITY, INHERENT PROBLEM SOLVING CAPABILITIES, SPEED & ENTHUSIASM AND *CONFORMATION.* PROOF IS LAYING ON THE FLOOR NEXT TO ME NOW.


"Conformation" implies a standard to which a dog conforms. You have indicated your dog weighs 100#+. Therefore your dog clearly doesn't conform to the AKC, CKC or KC breed conformation std for the Labrador Retriever. Everyone has an opinion but we test to stds so that our words means something. I'm sure you have a nice dog that you clearly love, but testing the dog against established stds in the field or on the bench provides the proof by which dog owners can demonstrate the abilities of their dogs. Therefore proof actually comes from testing. Opinions are what we all have about our dogs.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Granddaddy said:


> "Conformation" implies a standard to which a dog conforms. You have indicated your dog weighs 100#+. Therefore your dog clearly doesn't conform to the AKC, CKC or KC breed conformation std for the Labrador Retriever. Everyone has an opinion but we test to stds so that our words means something. I'm sure you have a nice dog that you clearly love, but testing the dog against established stds in the field or on the bench provides the proof by which dog owners can demonstrate the abilities of their dogs. Therefore proof actually comes from testing. Opinions are what we all have about our dogs.


I've seen plenty of instances in the field where those standards have been clearly ignored as well. Judges have been setting up tests that are "outside the box" for years supposedly because of "better training". However, when the standards are ignored, your word is only worth as much. So, if you're going to start talking standards, it's best to give due diligence to problems with the standards on both sides of the fence. Keep it clean and above the belt...Now fight! lol;-)


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

LabLady101 said:


> So, if you're going to start talking standards, it's best to give due diligence to problems with the standards on both sides of the fence.


Golly..............I thought he did that.

"but testing the dog against established stds in the field or on the bench provides the proof by which dog owners can demonstrate the abilities of their dogs"

Note the "in the field" part of that sentence............................maybe you missed it first time around.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

WALDMAN79 said:


> GLAD YOU'VE GOT A GOOD DOG, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE BOTH. A DOG CAN HAVE HUNTING ABILITY, INHERENT PROBLEM SOLVING CAPABILITIES, SPEED & ENTHUSIASM AND CONFORMATION. PROOF IS LAYING ON THE FLOOR NEXT TO ME NOW.



Then I strongly encourage you to prove it.......please........................talk to us when he has a MH title or has finished an American Field trial.......either Qualifying or Open all age. 

No disrespect but honestly Waldman, almost every one of your posts in this thread have been about braggin your dog's retrieving abilities up, when you seemingly have nothing to validate your claims from anything I've read. 

Obvioulsy he's a very handsome boy and you love him dearly but lets see some credentials to add credibility to your 13 or so posts about his retrieving abilities. 

My feeling is that you probably don't have much experience in competative retrieving which is fine...all of us started with no experience but you come on like such a know it all about what's required for a dog to do well as a retriever.

Try training your dog to the point of being able to compete in these venues. See how much time, effort, energy and knowlege is involved in having a dog that is capable of preforming well at these levels as opposed to parading one around a show ring. 

Then you might gain a greater understanding of what instinct, desire, drive, intelligence, memory, athleticism, and retrieving ability really means. 

Again, I mean no disrespect but I'm finding this very tiresome. 

Re-read Grandaddy's post about form vs function.......you just might possibly learn something.

I know that I should let this lie and that your going to yell at me, and that no good whatsoever will come from my comments and that tomorrow I'm going to regret hitting the "submit reply" button but the evening is getting on and I'm tired and.........ooops........to late...........


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I've seen plenty of instances in the field where those standards have been clearly ignored as well. Judges have been setting up tests that are "outside the box" for years supposedly because of "better training".


Previously I asked and you did not answer.


> What working levels have you believed that the dog was judged by the cover and not the work and where?


Again I ask, where have you seen this-in JH or in SH and have you actually been entered? What is you example where you were judged by the cover? Was the mark too long? Be specific.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

LabLady101 said:


> *I've seen plenty of instances in the field where those standards have been clearly ignored as well.* Judges have been setting up tests that are "outside the box" for years supposedly because of "better training". However, when the standards are ignored, your word is only worth as much. So, if you're going to start talking standards, it's best to give due diligence to problems with the standards on both sides of the fence. Keep it clean and above the belt...Now fight! lol;-)


True enough that there are field dogs that don't meet the AKC conformation std. But I'm not on here boasting that my dog has "conformation". As for the "those (conformation) standards being ignored", 'those' stds are not judged in an AKC field test or stake, however, 'those' stds are the very essence of the bench competitions where those stds are truly ignored. Therefore if a dog's conformation is ignored in a conformation competition, what exactly is being rewarded or judged? It would appear the judgement is nothing but an opinion which we all have & which devalues the placement/award. In field trials, it is a true competition, where the best 4 dogs in the entire field are placed by their performance. In a HT, the entered dogs are judged against a defined std of performance & either pass or fail. On the bench, the conformation std is ignored & an opinion is substituted - therein lies the problem & explains why we now have 100#+ Labs & Labs that look as much like Rottweilers as a Lab (& may have no more retrieving desire or ability).

Just being objective.........


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Just came back from the Lab Specialty they ran a CE conformation evaluation, in Conjuntion with the Hunt test portion. Where-in conformation judges evauated all comers, Sort've like a WC in reverse. Being the specailty there was pretty good coverage of both types. Alot of us hunt test people entered it as a joke, figured we'd get brutalized. The judges were actually _Really_ surprised by how well the field bred have maintained standard, and very impressed with their ease on movement. Took awhile to figure out what a trot was, aka. walking to a field dog. Contra they were pretty hard on the pure Bench dogs, mainly weight, Weak hock-rear end, and their gate. These were the judges that were judging conformation the next day. It was a catch 22 they Kept saying get the weight off, followed by I know you have to the substance to compete.
Sure there were outliers on both sides, we've got some tall muscular 90lb. dogs and they don't like our long tails; but we still conform I got a certficate to prove it .


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> Previously I asked and you did not answer. Again I ask, where have you seen this-in JH or in SH and have you actually been entered? What is you example where you were judged by the cover? Was the mark too long? Be specific.


First, you didn't ask me before and, if you did, it wasn't to me directly. Second, you don't have to be entered to observe. That said, I've seen various things at all levels- too numerous to name all or it would be a book. However, I'll jot down a few that are a little fresher in mind...

I've seen several Junior tests where the dogs have been forced to make so many land/water transitions any Master dog would've forgotten where the bird was. I can understand a couple of transitions to demonstrate courage and preserverance, but these were excessive. I've also seen a few instances in Juniors where, because either the judges thought it would make the test "challenging" or it was just plain poor bird placement, in order to even get to the area of the fall the dogs had to be handled- yes, handled in a Junior! I also saw a Senior test where the decoys were placed about 25-50 yards beyond the area of the fall, yet in direct line of sight of the dog. That test took out 4 Test dogs and about the first half of the field and the only reason the rest succeeded was because enough scent had been laid down and the path so beaten at that point that even a Pomeranian would've found the bird. I was not entered in that test, so I asked the judges about it. They said an AKC Rep had told them that's where the decoys should go. Now, I ask, in a real hunting situation, is that where you'd place your decoys??? I know I certainly don't. Therefore, it's not a hunting situation- which is the whole point of HTs (to test the dog's level of working ability at different levels in realistic hunting situations). I've also seen Masters that were the exact same set up as a FT stake a couple of weeks before- minus the extreme distance. I believe this is where the "Mini FT" term comes into play, and that's exactly how it was judged as well- dropping dogs left and right for what would be minute mistakes according to standards.

Are there other instances? Plenty, but, like I said, too numerous to write down here.

Funny thing is, I always hear everything chalked up to "train, don't complain". However, if the HT standards are supposed to be defined standards, why should anyone have to train for the things that are clearly unrealistic and outside of those standards?? It seems everyone is content to let all these unwritten evolutions slide in the name of "better training". Those who are not willing to do so are called "sour grapes", "poor losers", etc. However, there are set standards for a reason and they shouldn't be just thrown out the window just because some pair of judges want to make their test so "challenging" it will be talked about for weeks.

If the judges set up a straight forward test according to the standard and every dog passes, then every dog passes. It's not supposed to be some "Mini FT" where the judges pull out all the tricks & technical elements so they can drop as many dogs as possible before lunch. I've heard plenty of judges say "I want to pass every dog in the field today", but then watched as their actions spoke to a WAY different truth- and it had nothing to do with the dogs' work.

Now, having rambled, I'm not saying judges should pass every dog just to pass every dog. I do believe in there being a standard and the dogs need to be held to it. The dogs still need to demonstrate they can do the work required. However, I would like to see more straight forward, realistic tests in HTs- which is what the standards have defined. Leave the tricks and the techinical set ups for the FTs.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> Sort've like a WC in reverse


I like that! Great way to introduce conformation judges to field bred dogs so that they can see what the breed looks like without the extra pounds.
What I find amazing in the show world is how hard it is to get a BOB or major on a Lab, and how few ever get a group placement.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Just came back from the Lab Specialty they ran a CE conformation evaluation, in Conjuntion with the Hunt test portion. Where-in conformation judges evauated all comers, Sort've like a WC in reverse. Being the specailty there was pretty good coverage of both types. Alot of us hunt test people entered it as a joke, figured we'd get brutalized. The judges were actually _Really_ surprised by how well the field bred have maintained standard, and very impressed with their ease on movement. Took awhile to figure out what a trot was, aka. walking to a field dog. Contra they were pretty hard on the pure Bench dogs, mainly weight, Weak hock-rear end, and their gate. These were the judges that were judging conformation the next day. It was a catch 22 they Kept saying get the weight off, followed by I know you have to the substance to compete.
> Sure there were outliers on both sides, we've got some tall muscular 90lb. dogs and they don't like our long tails; but we still conform I got a certficate to prove it .


Good for you! I'm glad you had the courage to attend and go through with it! Congrats on your certificate! Did you stick around to watch what those judges put up the next day?

Having said that, and I'm not picking on your dog specifically here so please don't be offended, I've seen plenty of Field dogs that are about that weight and I've also seen several well-muscled, moderate Conformation dogs about that weight as well. How is it that it's perfectly acceptable for Field dogs to be over the weight standard, yet that's the first thing that is picked on when it comes to Conformation dogs? Have any of you laid your hands on those dogs? If you haven't, how do you know they are truly fat? 

Pictures can be, and often are, VERY deceiving. For example, at first sight, there are plenty of folks who would think that my one girl is fat. However, she's very short coupled with a good spring of rib and a thick, double coat which pretty effectively hides her ribs and waist. I often invite folks to run their hands over her and I almost always get to see that look of surprise when they can easily feel her ribs. There are plenty of dogs that look fat, but aren't. There are also plenty of dogs that are thin and/or moderate, but we'd all be surprised at how much they weigh. (Btw, my girl is only about 70#.)

Having said that, yes, I've seen some fat dogs. Fat is not the same as substance, but I know there are some folks (including judges) who mistakenly think it is- especially when it comes to Specialties. Either a dog has enough substance or it doesn't. Fat can't change that. It can change the look of it, but it can't change it physically and any good judge worth their salt should be able to tell the difference. However, that's exactly why you can't judge a dog on looks alone. You can't tell if a dog is truly fit or fat until you put your hands on them.

For those that don't know my husband, he was a pure, hard-core Field guy mentally. You couldn't get him within 100 feet a Conformation show- he was "allergic", lol. He would hear nothing of the breed standard and it was entirely a huge waste of breath to convince him that Conformation dogs were anything but fat pigs who couldn't work. That all changed when we entered an OB & Rally Trial in conjunction with a specialty a few years back. There, at the specialty, we met up with a friend of mine. Of course, he cuffahhed and groaned as he watched some of the dogs "parade" around the ring. However, my friend then invited him to run his hands over her dogs...and, boy, did we see the light bulb come on and the complete change in his face when he realized just how well-muscled some of these dogs were. He said, "OMG! They're built like Mac trucks!...I have to get me one of these!". He gained a new pair of eyes that day for sure and, from there, he was the one who actually did make the final decision for us to take the leap and get a Conformation dog. We have 2 Conformation dogs now and he actually giggles when I mention the "old" days when he was so adamently against them. Now, I'm not saying that everyone would feel the same given the same chance. Everyone is different. However, I bet there would be at least some who would look at things differently if they did.

Btw, for those that are more concerned about performance, a Specialty is probably the worst place to look at the dogs because some (read: SOME, not ALL) do pack the pounds on the dogs for those. I don't agree with that and I don't do it, but it does happen. IMHO, If you want a better look at certain dogs, All Breeds are probably a better place to look.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

tom said:


> I like that! Great way to introduce conformation judges to field bred dogs so that they can see what the breed looks like without the extra pounds.
> What I find amazing in the show world is how hard it is to get a BOB or major on a Lab, and how few ever get a group placement.


Majors are a numbers thing only. They have nothing to do with the quality of the dogs. However, BOB will almost always be awarded at every show, so plenty of Labs have the opportunity for that honor.

Groups placements are another story. There are several reasons Labradors have, historically, not done well in Group- at least at the "big" shows. Because Labs are not as flashy as some Pointers, Setters, and even some other Retriever breeds, it's difficult for a Lab to get a Group placement. Often times, it's difficult for a judge to overlook the flash. I don't think there's many folks who, if presented with a beautiful Setter and a rather plain jane Labrador, would choose the Labrador. Almost everyone's eyes would be looking for a stand out- it's human nature. However, it's something the Labrador is not, and shouldn't be, by design. Other reasons have to do with politics, but that could fill an entirely different thread.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Granddaddy said:


> As for the "those (conformation) standards being ignored", 'those' stds are not judged in an AKC field test or stake, however, 'those' stds are the very essence of the bench competitions where those stds are truly ignored. Therefore if a dog's conformation is ignored in a conformation competition, what exactly is being rewarded or judged? It would appear the judgement is nothing but an opinion which we all have & which devalues the placement/award.


Bingo again...............That is exactly the problem (actually one of the many problems) with conformation competitions.

You can enter the same dog against the same field on Saturday and get nothing and compete again next day against exactly the same field of dogs but with a different judge and get a placement or even better. Nothing changed from one day to the next except the "opinion" of the days judge. 

What's wrong with that picture? That's why many people believe that today's conformation titles are pretty much meaningless. Just enter enough times and sooner of later you'll get it..........but then I guess you can sell a bunch of puppies to people who somehow believe that form is superior to function.

Dear God give me the strength to wean myself off this thread..............................


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> First, you didn't ask me before and, if you did, it wasn't to me directly. Second, you don't have to be entered to observe.


I most certainly did quote you and ask-see post #85.

So you haven't entered but "observed".



> I've seen several Junior tests where the dogs have been forced to make so many land/water transitions any Master dog would've forgotten where the bird was.


Then you haven't observed many Master tests and obviously not trained at that level. How about the actual club, area, or hunt test date. It would be easy to look up the number entered, and the amount that passed? If half of the field passed it was not difficult for those that train. I don't see any HT in ND, was it SD ? Nebraska? Minnesota? I'm sure you know where you observed these tests.



> However,* if the HT standards are supposed to be defined standards, why should anyone have to train for the things that are clearly unrealistic and outside of those standards??* It seems everyone is content to let all these unwritten evolutions slide in the name of "better training". Those who are not willing to do so are called "sour grapes", "poor losers", etc. However, there are set standards for a reason and they shouldn't be just thrown out the window just because some pair of judges want to make their test so "challenging" it will be talked about for weeks.
> 
> If the judges set up a straight forward test according to the standard and every dog passes, then every dog passes. It's not supposed to be some "Mini FT" where the judges pull out all the tricks & technical elements so they can drop as many dogs as possible before lunch. I've heard plenty of judges say "I want to pass every dog in the field today", but then watched as their actions spoke to a WAY different truth- and it had nothing to do with the dogs' work.


Have you read the standards? Can you please quote where it says only straight forward tests should be set up for Junior? I don't see that at all. I see marking is of primary importance.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The 90lbs. muscular dog did not get his CE, He's not in standard, aside from the weight, he's 3-4 inches too tall, disqualified. Difference btw him and the bench 90lbs. is there's no way to take his weight down without him being malnourished, He's the appropriate weight for his size/height as in huge. A 90lb. field dog is an apparition. We don't breed for that, a dog that large is to big for thick cover, and significantly slower on retrieves. Most field labs are the 50-70lb @ standard height, it's what works best in the field.
Field and Conformation people like to play with each other. They took him in as an extreme too see what they could get away with; probably as a direct comparsion of what a 90lb. Lab should look like. :wink: There's a big difference btw a 90lbs. field lab of solid defined muscle, absolutely no fat, who competes at in MH and SRS all day-day after day; and a solid 90 lbs. bench Lab who can't run multiple 100 yrd. retrieves. The field lab's not carrying extra substance that messes up his performance and will do a number on his health and joints in the long run.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> I see marking is of primary importance.


Should add that marking is not finding a bird that is laying out on the lawn.

There is this other thing that is suppose to be judged at a hunt test called perseverance and courage.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> I most certainly did quote you and ask-see post #85.
> 
> So you haven't entered but "observed".
> 
> ...


Yes, I have entered HTs- I've passed some and failed some just like everyone else. Yes, I've read the standards and I reread them on a regular basis- which I think is more than some judges do.

You only need to ask anyone who has been running HTs for many years if the tests have changed. I have and their answers are almost invariably a big, resounding "YES". How is it then that the tests have changed when the standards have not? I get the same answer to that as well- "better training". I ask you, if the standards are clearly defined and those standards have not changed, why should "better training" affect the tests? I have yet to hear a good answer to that. Instead, the usual response I get are attempts to criticize my character and make it seem as though I couldn't possibly have the experiences or knowledge to know what I'm talking about- yours is very typical.

"Train, don't complain" has only given judges an excuse to set up over the top, technical tests and move the HT game further into being the FT game. I have seen some tests where the only difference has been that more than one dog "won". What would you call a Master with about 65 entrants that only 4 dogs passed? This was a field full of dogs who were already skilled Master dogs- some were already titled, some close to titling, and some had one or two passes. How is it that only 4 dogs of that kind of caliber met the standard that day? How is it that those same dogs can meet the standard one day and not the next?? Perhaps it is due to judges' opinions and personal interpretations of the standard. Oh, but wait, that's the same reason a Conformation dog might go BOB one day and walk away with nothing the next. Gee, I'm starting to see a parallel that most are claiming is not there!!


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> Majors are a numbers thing only. They have nothing to do with the quality of the dogs. However, BOB will almost always be awarded at every show


Ya you can always go to the 1 point shows and maybe pick up a BOB, otherwise it too is a numbers game, just like a major.
Oh and Labs do so poorly in the group ring only because they deserve to do so poorly.
Take the excess weight off of them and they would do fine in the group ring, even tho' "all black" is a known obstacle in any breed.
Ya know, many of us that show dogs, figure that the show starts after they tear down the breed rings.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> Yes, I have entered HTs- I've passed some and failed some just like everyone else. Yes, I've read the standards and I reread them on a regular basis- which I think is more than some judges do.
> 
> You only need to ask anyone who has been running HTs for many years if the tests have changed. I have and their answers are almost invariably a big, resounding "YES". How is it then that the tests have changed when the standards have not? I get the same answer to that as well- "better training". I ask you, if the standards are clearly defined and those standards have not changed, why should "better training" affect the tests? I have yet to hear a good answer to that. Instead, the usual response I get are attempts to criticize my character and make it seem as though I couldn't possibly have the experiences or knowledge to know what I'm talking about- yours is very typical.
> 
> "Train, don't complain" has only given judges an excuse to set up over the top, technical tests and move the HT game further into being the FT game. I have seen some tests where the only difference has been that more than one dog "won". What would you call a Master with about 65 entrants that only 4 dogs passed? This was a field full of dogs who were already skilled Master dogs- some were already titled, some close to titling, and some had one or two passes. How is it that only 4 dogs of that kind of caliber met the standard that day? How is it that those same dogs can meet the standard one day and not the next?? Perhaps it is due to judges' opinions and personal interpretations of the standard. Oh, but wait, that's the same reason a Conformation dog might go BOB one day and walk away with nothing the next. Gee, I'm starting to see a parallel that most are claiming is not there!!


You are not answering my simple questions. Where did you see this awful junior that master dogs would get confused with? I have skimmed through the junior tests and haven't come up with any where a substancial number failed. We were talking about junior passes, not jumping to master passes where dogs are expected to be finished. You can't cherry pick a test out and say it is representative of all tests, especially if the master was in Minnesota. What stake in FT do you think the master looks like? I can guarantee if you ran FT you will know the difference. 
Specifically show me where this standard is that's being violated? I will show you what "the standard" says:
"*Section 3. Junior Hunting Tests. *Dogs shall be tested
on four single marks, two on land and two on water.
Judges in keeping with simulation of realistic but relatively
simple hunting situations must remember the​
use of *numerous decoys*, islands, points of land, rolling
terrain, cover, ditch lines, wind direction, etc. are important
factors to consider when designing test scenarios to​evaluate Junior dogs as capable hunting companions."

That is what is listed under Junior Hunt test. Notice decoy use is written in bold by AKC. ​​Yes, no longer are JH tests being run on cut grass with marks at 40 yards where dogs that have never seen a bird or decoys before with owners that expect them to pass. Even a JH title has to mean something. Yes, you do have to train, even for a JH now. 
Easier to add all those other entry level initials.
Oh Julie, where are you? Our Points-for-a-Pulse gal.​


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

labguy said:


> Then I strongly encourage you to prove it.......please........................talk to us when he has a MH title or has finished an American Field trial.......either Qualifying or Open all age.
> 
> No disrespect but honestly Waldman, almost every one of your posts in this thread have been about braggin your dog's retrieving abilities up, when you seemingly have nothing to validate your claims from anything I've read.
> 
> ...


YOU'RE RIGHT I AM FAIRLY INEXPERIENCED WITH AKC AND RUN MOSTLY UKC/UFTA - MAINLY BECAUSE I HUNT UPLAND MORE THAN WATERFOWL. SO I DO TRAIN TOWARDS "VENUES" JUST NOT YOURS. I HAVE HAD SUCCESS WITH OTHER DOGS JUST NOT THIS ONE - YET.

MY DUKE IS A RELATIVE OF KGIROT'S HRCH CH KERRYBROOK'S VINCE MH, HE'S DONE FAIRLY WELL FIELD AND SHOW I'D SAY (MUSTA GOT THAT "CH" PARADING AROUND THE SHOW RING - WHICH I DON'T DO BY THE WAY.) AND I WAS HAPPY TO MEET HIM ON THIS SITE AS IT GIVES ME FURTHER INSIGHT AS TO WHAT MY DOG IS CAPABLE OF. SO AT LEAST ONE GOOD THING HAS COME OF ALL THIS.

THE ONLY REASON I SPOKE UP WAS THAT I WAS TIRED OF THE IGNORANT WORDS LIKE CHUNKY, FAT, AND PIGADOR BEING USED TO DESCRIBE SOME WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE VERY HANDSOME DOGS WITH LARGER BUILDS, THAT IS WHAT I FIND VERY TIRESOME. IT WASN'T BRAGGING ABOUT HIS ABILITIES, IT WAS DEFENDING THEM BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA BY SOME THAT COMMENTED THAT HAVING HIS SIZE OR SOME SHOW IN HIS BLOODLINE SOMEHOW SHOULD AFFECT HOW HE RETRIEVES. AS SOON AS HE HAS BUNCH LETTERS BEFORE OR AFTER HIS NAME AS PROOF OF HIS ABILITIES, I'LL BE SURE TO POST.

I DO UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT STYLES AND THEY REFLECT DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES. AND HONESTLY I TOOK SOME OFFENSE TO THE SNOBERY OF IT ALL - WHO'S STYLE OF DOG OR WHO'S TRIAL OR TEST IS BETTER, REALLY? I MAYBE A NEWBIE TO YOUR SITE, BUT AN INSULT'S AN INSULT. I DON'T DISAGREE THAT MY DOG DOESN'T MEET STANDARDS - HE'S A BIG BOY, BUT DON'T FIND IT A REASON FOR ANYONE TO DOWNGRADE HIS ABILITY BASED ON WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS A WEAKENING OF THE BREED. 

AND INSTINCT, DESIRE, DRIVE, INTELLIGENCE, AND MEMORY ARE MENTAL TRAITS, NOT PHYSICAL TRAITS, CORRECT? SO MEETING A STANDARD AND COMPETING IN THE RIGHT EVENTS MAKES A DOG SMARTER? AND AGAIN ATHLETICISM AND RETRIEVING ABILITY CAN ONLY BE POSSESSED BY A CERTAIN STYLE OF DOG - AS LONG AS ITS YOURS?

SO AS LONG AS WE SAY THAT WE'RE JUST BEING HONEST AND NO DISRESPECT IS MEANT WE CAN SAY WHATEVER WE WANT? AND I HAVE LEARNED ALOT BY READING SOME OF THESE POSTS...THAT A LOT OF ARROGANT AND STEREOTYPICAL THINGS GET SAID HERE.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

WALDMAN79 said:


> SO AS LONG AS WE SAY THAT WE'RE JUST BEING HONEST AND NO DISRESPECT IS MEANT WE CAN SAY WHATEVER WE WANT?


Yes.... but it'd sure help if you turned off your CAPS key so people wouldn't think you are YELLING at them.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> I've seen several Junior tests where the dogs have been forced to make so many land/water transitions any Master dog would've forgotten where the bird was. I can understand a couple of transitions to demonstrate courage and preserverance, but these were excessive.


I've been running JH for several years now (titled one SH), and have also seen a land/water/land (island)/water/land (tall grass) set up at JH where I went "oh my" while watching the test dog.... but much to my shock, my girl who had NEVER seen such transitions before (only ran her over a point of land on water) was the only dog of the group to line it the way it was supposed to be run and the judge acknowledged it to me as she lined the bird. That's not to say they failed dogs for taking a cheating route though because they didn't. As I recall, what looked to be a wicked test initially, ended up w/ a fairly normal pass rate of 2/3 or so. So apparently the dogs running it had decent marking, perserverence, etc abilities. 

I went home with a good feeling that my dog COULD do it, and am proud to this day because she didn't break down (she's my wimpiest, softest one I've ever had!). I accepted the fact finally that I'd apparently not adequately challenged them to their capabilities, so to me, it was nice to see that end of the spectrum so I knew what else I should be training for. Afterall, in a hunting scenario, that could well have happened. The marks were very "legal" in every sense, but were the judges invited back in the near future to judge JH, no, not that I've seen. They are judging at higher levels, however. 

To be honest, the JH tests I've seen the past 3-4 yrs here have *mostly* been overly simple to the point that I hold my breath that mine won't blow past the 50 yd fall on the flat. I'd much rather have some meat tossed in to the test (terrain changes, cover etc) than a glorified WC.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Just came back from the Lab Specialty they ran a CE conformation evaluation, in Conjuntion with the Hunt test portion. Where-in conformation judges evauated all comers, Sort've like a WC in reverse. Being the specailty there was pretty good coverage of both types. Alot of us hunt test people entered it as a joke, figured we'd get brutalized. The judges were actually _Really_ surprised by how well the field bred have maintained standard, and very impressed with their ease on movement. Took awhile to figure out what a trot was, aka. walking to a field dog. Contra they were pretty hard on the pure Bench dogs, mainly weight, Weak hock-rear end, and their gate. *These were the judges that were judging conformation the next day.* It was a catch 22 they Kept saying get the weight off, followed by I know you have to the substance to compete.
> Sure there were outliers on both sides, we've got some tall muscular 90lb. dogs and they don't like our long tails; but we still conform I got a certficate to prove it .


Congratulations!!!! Glad you did the *CC* (note it's CC = Conformation Certificate, not CE) and learned some things along the way. I've had the same happen where I went away w/ a field bred bitch feeling pretty darned good about all the nice compliments. 

But.. I do have to correct that sentence in bold/italics. Your CC judges WERE NOT the same who judged the show. http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/Judges.php
Juxi Burr is listed as an AKC hunt test judge, not licensed for conformation yet (though may have sweepstakes judging experience, I'm not positive). Nancy Talbot is a licensed conformation judge for some of the sporting breeds. The CC requires at least one of the judges to be AKC licensed and the other needs to have either judged sweepstakes or have similar experience in the breed. 

Anne


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

WALDMAN79 said:


> YOU'RE RIGHT I AM FAIRLY INEXPERIENCED WITH AKC AND RUN MOSTLY UKC/UFTA - MAINLY BECAUSE I HUNT UPLAND MORE THAN WATERFOWL. SO I DO TRAIN TOWARDS "VENUES" JUST NOT YOURS. I HAVE HAD SUCCESS WITH OTHER DOGS JUST NOT THIS ONE - YET.
> 
> MY DUKE IS A RELATIVE OF KGIROT'S HRCH CH KERRYBROOK'S VINCE MH, HE'S DONE FAIRLY WELL FIELD AND SHOW I'D SAY (MUSTA GOT THAT "CH" PARADING AROUND THE SHOW RING - WHICH I DON'T DO BY THE WAY.) AND I WAS HAPPY TO MEET HIM ON THIS SITE AS IT GIVES ME FURTHER INSIGHT AS TO WHAT MY DOG IS CAPABLE OF. SO AT LEAST ONE GOOD THING HAS COME OF ALL THIS.
> 
> ...


Just happened to notice that this "Retrieving Machine" is well over 4 years old and is "WORKING TOWARDS HIS UPLAND HUNTER UKC TITLE".

Ought to be seeing results any day now regards

Bubba


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Bubba said:


> Just happened to notice that this "Retrieving Machine" is well over 4 years old and is "WORKING TOWARDS HIS UPLAND HUNTER UKC TITLE".
> 
> Ought to be seeing results any day now regards
> 
> Bubba


EXCUSE ME, HAD 3 KIDS NOT IN SCHOOL YET WHEN I GOT HIM.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Point is that you really haven't had the opportunity to compare his performance with other dogs. Hard to put a lot of credence in your claims without some objective 3rd party opinions to buttress them.

A crowded elevator smells different to a midget regards

Bubba


----------



## WALDMAN79 (Sep 30, 2010)

Bubba said:


> Point is that you really haven't had the opportunity to compare his performance with other dogs. Hard to put a lot of credence in your claims without some objective 3rd party opinions to buttress them.
> 
> A crowded elevator smells different to a midget regards
> 
> Bubba


AND MINE WAS WHAT'S THE POINT MAKING SMARTA$$ REMARKS ABOUT HIS AGE WITHOUT KNOWING MY REASONS FOR THE LATE START? WE'VE HAD 5 KIDS SINCE I LAST HAD THE TIME TO COMPETITIVELY RUN A DOG, AND HAD A CHANGE IN PRIORITIES. MY WIFE WAS PREGNANT WITH #5 WHEN I GOT DUKE. #4 JUST STARTED KINDERGARDEN SO I HAVE MORE TIME TO FINE TUNE. DIDN'T MEAN I DIDN'T TRAIN HIM OR DIDN'T COMPETE, JUST NOT TOWARDS A TITLE UNTIL NOW. WHERE I'M LOCATED, THEY DON'T START OFFERING THE UPLAND CONTESTS TIL WINTER. AND THE ONLY "CLAIMS" I'VE MADE WERE IN DEFENSE THAT HE WASN'T A FAT SHOW DOG BECAUSE OF HIS LARGER BUILD IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WAS BEING SAID IN SOME OF THE POSTS. BUT, BECAUSE IT SEEMS OK TO KNOCK THAT STYLE OF DOG BUT NOT TO DEFEND THEM, I'LL BOW OUT OF THIS THREAD.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> You are not answering my simple questions. Where did you see this awful junior that master dogs would get confused with? I have skimmed through the junior tests and haven't come up with any where a substancial number failed. We were talking about junior passes, not jumping to master passes where dogs are expected to be finished. You can't cherry pick a test out and say it is representative of all tests, especially if the master was in Minnesota. What stake in FT do you think the master looks like? I can guarantee if you ran FT you will know the difference.
> Specifically show me where this standard is that's being violated? I will show you what "the standard" says:
> "*Section 3. Junior Hunting Tests. *Dogs shall be tested
> on four single marks, two on land and two on water.
> ...


I'm not going to say where or what tests they were. I don't believe in throwing folks under the bus like some I have seen here.

I never said I believed a Junior test should be only 40 yards on cut grass or not involve any training or decoys. I've also never said there shouldn't be any "meat" to a test. Good grief, the last test our girl passed, there were weeds and grass so tall, we lost sight of her for a good 30 seconds. Never complained one bit about that because it's something that could and does happen while hunting. Also passed another test where the bird was thrown a bit flat and was almost indistinguishable from the trees. Never complained about that either as that's also a very realistic expectation- to have to mark a bird against trees/wooded areas. I only said that many of the tests I have seen (but not all) have been over the top and way more technical than the standards call for. It may feel good to pass them, but that doesn't change what they are. And since when does a JH get anything more than the "bottom of the totem pole" of respect around here anyway?...One only has to look at the recent value of titles thread to see that- and the way things are going, even SH is losing more and more respect daily.

I have seen several different FT stakes of all kinds- Quals, Ams, and Opens/Limited/Special. I do know what is supposed to be the difference(s) between a FT and a HT, but it's been clear to me (as well as others) there are certain judges who do both that seem to not be able to seperate the two sometimes or forget which one they are judging.

Now, I understand the HT standards are open to personal interpretations. As that is the case, then they are not as solid or defined as some in this thread seem to think- at least not any more than the breed standard is, which is my point. Neither one is defined or solid, which means that neither is better than the other in evaluating dogs. Perhaps, they are each better in their respective venues, but neither is ultimately better than the other overall.

Lastly, I would also say that if observation does not qualify one for an opinion, there are many here who are clearly unqualified to make any sort of opinion about Conformation. If one has to enter to qualify for an opinion, there are many here who better be entered in the next Conformation show.


----------



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

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

A standard is a standard is a standard. It is what it is. Whether we be "bench", "field" or "tweener" bred, it is all laid out for us, there in black and white. Some have taken it to extreme on both sides. To the bench people I ask you, If your 100lb lab is not fat( and I have had hands on some and yes it was not fat) why are they outside of standard? Is it too much bone? Is it too much coat? When and who decided that more was better? If the "specialty" lab is the correct rep of the breed, why haven't you petitioned the LRC to change the standard? To the field breeder, what happened to the hallmark "otter" tail, to the level topline? There is plenty to go around when it come to blame. I am only a few years into the breed but as the owner of a " tweener" I can tell you that I am proud of the fact that I have a boy that meets the standard both in conformation and performance.He will never be a FT but he has the trademark looks and abilities of what a labrador should have. It's time to end the split and bring the Labrador back to being one of the top sporting breeds. I am sick of cocker spaniels taking Group!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> it's been clear to me (as well as others) there are certain judges who do both that seem to not be able to seperate the two sometimes or forget which one they are judging.


For the record, around here the best HT judges are those that have been in field trials for a long time because they understand bird placement and don't have to resort to tricks, but then we are talking about master and not Junior, which is what you were running and saying you were not going to run anymore. I have never seen a junior that master dogs would get lost on... ever..., nor have I ever seen a junior HT with marks as long as an average FT mark and I still think that the majority of dogs in that Junior passed, so what we have left is lack of preparation and training since your dog failed quite a few juniors listed on EE.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Its very sad, when dogs do poorly on tests, that the first reaction of some folks is "BLAME THE JUDGES!" I will admit I thought that way after a few "pencil whippings", but then quickly realized I should "blame the mirror" for the dog and I giving the pencil holders anything to judge.  There are way more underprepared handler dog teams than any "poor judges", though a few of the latter do exist. 

What is equally sad is when I am working my 59 pound "labrador" bitch in the pond at the city park, and invariably have multiple people ask me "Is that a full blood lab? She doesn't look fat enough to me......." Happens all the time.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

kona's mom said:


> http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed+Standard
> 
> A standard is a standard is a standard. It is what it is. Whether we be "bench", "field" or "tweener" bred, it is all laid out for us, there in black and white. Some have taken it to extreme on both sides. To the bench people I ask you, If your 100lb lab is not fat( and I have had hands on some and yes it was not fat) why are they outside of standard? Is it too much bone? Is it too much coat? When and who decided that more was better? If the "specialty" lab is the correct rep of the breed, why haven't you petitioned the LRC to change the standard? To the field breeder, what happened to the hallmark "otter" tail, to the level topline? There is plenty to go around when it come to blame. I am only a few years into the breed but as the owner of a " tweener" I can tell you that I am proud of the fact that I have a boy that meets the standard both in conformation and performance.He will never be a FT but he has the trademark looks and abilities of what a labrador should have. It's time to end the split and bring the Labrador back to being one of the top sporting breeds. I am sick of cocker spaniels taking Group!


I agree with you. However, IMHO, I think where it all went south is when the LRC set the disqualifications in the height. The standard says Labradors are "medium" sized dogs. I can't think of any other "medium" sized dog that is 25" tall. When you have a dog that is on the taller side of the standard, the problem becomes that it also has to have the substance the standard calls for- and, no, I'm not talking about fat or the dogs that have way too much bone (yes, there is such a thing as too much bone). If it has the substance the standard calls for at that height, it's likely not going to fit the weight standard. There were many dogs who were on the smaller side with the proper substance (and they likely were right in the weight range as well) that were disqualified when the standard was changed. In essence, the LRC shot their own foot and made their standard very contradictory in the process.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> For the record, around here the best HT judges are those that have been in field trials for a long time because they understand bird placement and don't have to resort to tricks, but then we are talking about master and not Junior, which is what you were running and saying you were not going to run anymore. I have never seen a junior that master dogs would get lost on... ever..., nor have I ever seen a junior HT with marks as long as an average FT mark and I still think that the majority of dogs in that Junior passed, so what we have left is lack of preparation and training since your dog failed quite a few juniors listed on EE.


Just because you've never seen it, doesn't negate the fact that it happens...And there goes the "train, don't complain" to let it all slide again.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> In essence, the LRC shot their own foot and made their standard very contradictory in the process.


So I take it you are not a member of LRC? Then join! Maybe you'll realize that some of the long timers behind the changes aren't such bad folks afterall. They were only trying to preserve the breed as it is/was known. Things were getting out of control in the early 90's with 19" Labs being shown (and some nice ones finished-- including the grandma of some of my dogs). There were of course the huge ones trickling in at the time too. So they wanted to "standardize" the standard... Was that so terrible? Only the height was put as a DQ, not weight (though perhaps it should have been). So as it is right now, we can have 21-24" bitches and 22-25" dogs... a 3" range. Compare THAT to the Goldens who have a 1" ideal range to work in with penalties assessed beyond that up to 1", then also are DQ'd outside of that 3" total range allowable:

*Size, Proportion, Substance*
Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21½-22½ inches. Dogs up to one inch above or below standard size should be proportionately penalized. Deviation in height of more than one inch from the standard shall _disqualify_. Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65-75 pounds; bitches 55-65 pounds. 


So how did we shoot ourselves in the foot again? 

Maybe LRC should have let it split w/ size groups like beagles and poodles. That'd have given more opps for CH titles. Don't know what exactly it'd have accomplished, but hey, it'd have made more people happy apparently. Too bad the 19" ones couldn't see some of the marks mine have run at hunt tests and the big 110# dudes can't be hoisted into a boat if needed-- even if they did the hunt tests to prove that end of the equation. And not enough are, and it's a really a shame. Not like they are in the (real) obed ring or at agility either around here. What a shame. We have no means of assessing working ability if they aren't out there.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Just because you've never seen it, doesn't negate the fact that it happens...And there goes the "train, don't complain" to let it all slide again.


A fair number of people (one pro handling show dogs included) weren't happy w/ the land series of the last hunt test I ran. I posted a video earlier of at least one of my girl's runs. They thought the terrain (hilly) and cover (sage-- pretty heavy) were too much for a JH dog, yet even my young 7/8 show bred dog w/ really very little training, had no problem pinning both her marks-- and she had to run as #1 dog. Not only that, but she leaped over some of the sage brush in her way instead of going around it. Our water marks were on a large reservoir in very gusty winds, w/ the live flyer requiring the dogs to swim into the wind and deal w/ waves. Extreme? Maybe... but one of our judges was a show person and she helped set it up, so it must have looked okay to her. In the end, the dogs that failed took themselves out on marking (lack of), but more often on courage (some wouldn't get in the water w/ the waves, sudden drop off at the bank, etc) and very basic trainability (lack of delivery to hand). We ended up w/ a very average 2/3 pass rate on that test overall, btw. Some of the dogs that failed were first timers who really weren't prepared for even a simple JH setup, and others had some chronic issues that their owners hadn't dealt with.

I've watched and run enough JH tests in the past 12 yrs (8 dogs worth) to have seen pretty much everything I think. And in the end, we still have had 60% plus pass rates, w/ an avg closer to 75% (at those tests-- my dogs' pass rates are much higher than that). That's similar to most Novice (for CD) Obedience rings and probably far higher than Nov agility trials, so certainly not out of the realm. Now if your tests had lower pass rates than that (I have no idea but could look them up on EE I bet), then you have a legit complaint, imo, and should have spoken to the hosting clubs.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> IMHO, I think where it all went south is when the LRC set the disqualifications in the height


This was the typical response of the smaller than standard "pigador" crowd.
The reality is that the height standard *was not changed*, the *ONLY* thing that changed is that it became a disqualification instead of a fault.

The problem in the late 80s - early 90s was that the trend in the show ring had almost reached the point of promoting dwarfism, so what choice did the LRC have besides taking the action that they did? 

Sorry but the change in the standard was in the best interest of the breed.
So blame the breeder if your dog doesn't meet the standard, not the LRC!!!


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

LabLady101 said:


> Just because you've never seen it, doesn't negate the fact that it happens...And there goes the "train, don't complain" to let it all slide again.


I've run enough and judged enough HT's and FT's to know that most people who complain about any tests are the ones who aren't prepared properly for the stake entered.

As a competator, when I got dropped at a FT or didn't pass a HT I went out and trained on the concept that foiled us....sometimes the same day.

Nothing wrong with "training instead of complaining"...........it's what makes the dogs and the handlers better.

As a judge, I've seen people "wank" about breed bias, show vs field bias, the terrain was too tough bias, the marks were too long bias, the setup was too tight bias and on and on and on...there's no end to it.

Judges make mistakes............it happens all the time but none I've ever seen or heard of purposly set anything up that they didn't think was a fair test at the time. Retrospect might change their opinion but on that day they did the best they could. If there were mistakes made that they recognize, a good judge will learn from that mistake...........Remember, they all volunteer their time and get nothing for this except a bunch of "wanking" from mostly poorly prepared competators. 

The "wankers" do this game a huge disservice. The "wankers" should step up and learn how to give back to the sport by learning how the judge themselves........... 

A good friend and trainer says, "Run your dog, shut the f... up and be happy there's somebody there to judge it".

Time to put the "big girl" panties on and........Train...............don't complain regards,


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> Time to put the "big girl" panties on and........Train...............don't complain


Can I quote you????

That's funny right there!


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

labguy said:


> I've run enough and judged enough HT's and FT's to know that most people who complain about any tests are the ones who aren't prepared properly for the stake entered.
> 
> As a competator, when I got dropped at a FT or didn't pass a HT I went out and trained on the concept that foiled us....sometimes the same day.
> 
> ...


You've done plenty of "wanking" of your own about Conformation in this thread. I guess it's time for you to put your "big boy" undies on and enter a Conformation show or a Conformation Certificate evaluation. If you don't, you have no more cause to "wank" about anything Conformation related anymore than I apparently do about the Field anymore.

Also, If you'd paid any attention at all, you'd have realized that I'm not against training for the concepts that should be tested at each level. I'm just not for giving judges an open license to throw in all the technical and over the top elements they please in the name of "better training". It has happened, whether by mistake or arrogance. Yes, some have learned from it, others still haven't.

Just one more thing...How am I supposed to train my dogs to retrieve a bird out of a tree (yes, actually suspended from a tree and off the water a good 10 feet)? That happened to me too (and, no, I was not given a rerun), and, since I'm supposed to "train, don't complain", how do I train for that? Golly, I just want my dog to be able to do that so we can pass that one next time...


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> Just one more thing...How am I supposed to train my dogs to retrieve a bird out of a tree (yes, actually suspended from a tree and off the water a good 10 feet)? That happened to me too (and, no, I was not given a rerun), and, since I'm supposed to "train, don't complain", how do I train for that? Golly, I just want my dog to be able to do that so we can pass that one next time...


I am calling BS on this one. IF and that is a very BIG IF this really did happen surely the names of the judges and the test giving club would be burned into your memory forever. It would be mine even given that I do my dead level best to kill off a boat load of brain cells daily.

The simple and easy way to establish your credibility on this is to cite the date and club where this obvious violation of the spirit and intent of the regulations allegedly took place. Certainly a egregious violation of this nature would have a club name and a year associated with it- it would for me as well as the names of the offending rascals that allowed it to happen.This way we could get some insight into who the dirty baskirds that you refer to are. The way to improve the sport is to chunk them common rascals under the bus at every opportunity. Give us the dirt girl!!!

Absent this very rudimentary evidence- you come off as just snivelling cause your poor little fat dog couldn't do the work.

Show me the money regards


Bubba


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> How am I supposed to train my dogs to retrieve a bird out of a tree (yes, actually suspended from a tree and off the water a good 10 feet)? That happened to me too (and, no, I was not given a rerun),


I'm having a hard time believing this too. That's as much of an automatic no bird as anything could be.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

LabLady101 said:


> Just one more thing...How am I supposed to train my dogs to retrieve a bird out of a tree (yes, actually suspended from a tree and off the water a good 10 feet)? That happened to me too (and, no, I was not given a rerun), and, since I'm supposed to "train, don't complain", how do I train for that? Golly, I just want my dog to be able to do that so we can pass that one next time...


I'm having a very hard time believing that any judge or HT committee would not insist on a re-run in this situation had they been aware of it. 

Possibilities (as I see it) are:

1. Judges didn't see that the bird was hanging in the tree.....easily possible. 

2. HT Committee members didn't see that the bird was hanging in the tree.....very possible. 

3. None of the gallery saw that the bird was hanging in the tree....possible but doubtful. 

4. The bird wasn't really hanging in the tree...possible. 

5. The bird was hanging in the tree for every running dog.........not very possible.

6. Your just toying with us and playing internet games.....who knows.


If this did happen as you say, why didn't you speak to the stake marshall or any one of the HT committee on the spot. Surely when your dog didn't pick the bird up and the gunner went to pick up the (unretrieved) bird, he/she would have reported that the bird was suspended.

How is it that this was overlooked or missed by so many people??? 

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if this in fact did happen as you say and no one noticed or reported it and you (for whatever reason) didn't bring it to the attention of the stake marshall or the HT committee then what in the world are you complaining about????? 

A mistake was made and nobody caught it..........that's all. Nothing sinister or evil or dishonest.............nobody was out to "get" you or your dog...........it was just a dumb mistake which is entirely possible but not intentional. 

In this imperfect world, $hit happens and life's not fair..........You can get over it and move on............or................you can use it as a reason not to train.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Answering LadyLab101's question


> How am I supposed to train my dogs to retrieve a bird out of a tree


It's really pretty simple like most dog training; have a plan in mind, assemble the resources, and proceed in baby steps.










"Jack" started off climbing baby conifers; this is advanced work with a "Tom Putt" cider apple tree of about 20 feet. I'll give him an "over" then handle him up the branch onto the dummy.;-)

In all seriousness there are trainers who encourage their dogs to take an air scent when in thick overhead cover. Birds do sometimes get caught up and fail to come to ground. I stick a (blind) bumper or two into the thick hedges round our garden and keep casting from downwind. 

Regards
Eug


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

For those of you interested:

No, this is not an internet game. That is a scenario that did happen to us. Granted, it wasn't the scenario that was supposed to happen, but it happened none the less. Yes, the judges saw it. Yes, the gallery saw it. No, we were not given a rebird. We were told instead "better luck next time". What was even worse is there were Pros there who complained about their birds landing in a little bit of cover on the second mark and they all got reruns. I would've killed for that bit of cover that day...

If you really want the specifics on the Club, Judges, etc., you'll have to PM me because I will not publically throw folks under the bus.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

In a tree is a little much, in a bush I have seen several times. Sh** happens.

One thing that you can count on; in every series one dog will get the easiest bird (love the wing waving at the dog), and one dog will get the hardest bird (don't love the bird that lands in a hole)

Only question I have is was the bird within reach in the judges opinion?


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

tom said:


> In a tree is a little much, in a bush I have seen several times. Sh** happens.
> 
> One thing that you can count on; in every series one dog will get the easiest bird (love the wing waving at the dog), and one dog will get the hardest bird (don't love the bird that lands in a hole)
> 
> Only question I have is was the bird within reach in the judges opinion?


No, it wasn't. They're response was "Oh, that's too bad..." It even took the throwers about 5-10 minutes to get the bird as a pick up dog was out of the question. They eventually found a really long stick/branch to shake it loose.

Like I said, if I'm supposed to "train, don't complain" for these sorts of things, how do I do that? If we'd be out hunting, I'd normally make a good attempt to get the bird myself if it landed in a tree- no, I probably wouldn't climb the tree, but I'd try to find a branch or stick to shake it loose. I wouldn't send my dogs after it. They're retrievers, not tree climbers and it would seem an unreasonable task to ask of them. Therefore, I don't expect my dogs to be asked to do such a thing in a HT. However, I guess I'm supposed to just train for that and continue to give the judges an excuse to use these tactics in the future...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I'm betting the dog already failed for another reason. Why did the dog fail the other 6 juniors?


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> I'm betting the dog already failed for another reason. Why did the dog fail the other 6 juniors?


I don't know how the dog could fail for another reason when it was the first mark of the day- and, no, there was not a handler error. Nice try.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> I don't know how the dog could fail for another reason when it was the first mark of the day- and, no, there was not a handler error. Nice try.


I can think of several reasons.
Judging begins when you leave the holding blind, not when the first bird is thrown.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

tom said:


> I can think of several reasons.
> Judging begins when you leave the holding blind, not when the first bird is thrown.


Ok, let me put this way...There was no handler errors (i.e. no training/corrections, no talking before judge's release, etc.) and there were no dog errors (i.e. no breaking, creeping, etc.). Dog was in control when handler left the blind and as they sat on the line waiting for release. This was the first mark of the day.

If you can find a reason in that to still fail a dog, I'd say you're likely a very hard, pencil whipping judge and I'd add you to the list of judges (which, actually, is fairly small) I won't run under.

I know that it's very hard to believe that this happened. However, it did and trying to negate it doesn't help anything.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> OK, let me put this way...There was no handler errors (i.e. no talking before judge's release, etc.) and there were no dog errors (i.e. no breaking, creeping, etc.). This was the first mark of the day.


OK, what kind of collar was on the dog, what did you do with the lead when you took it off the dog, were any "training aids" visible, shall I go on??

There is a big ole list of do's and don't do's that you are suppose to know.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

tom said:


> OK, what kind of collar was on the dog, what did you do with the lead when you took it off the dog, were any "training aids" visible, shall I go on??
> 
> There is a big ole list of do's and don't do's that you are suppose to know.


Flat buckle collar. When lead was removed, it was tossed behind us per judges' instructions in the briefing- yes, I asked about this specifically as certain judge's have certain preferences.

I know the rules. I know what the common mistakes are and was very careful not to commit any infractions.

Like I said, I know it's hard to believe. I couldn't believe it myself at the time- neither could the gallery. (In fact, when we came away from the line, the folks in the gallery thought we were getting a rerun later.) However, it did happen.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> Ok, let me put this way...There was no handler errors (i.e. no training/corrections, no talking before judge's release, etc.) and there were no dog errors (i.e. no breaking, creeping, etc.). Dog was in control when handler left the blind and as they sat on the line waiting for release. This was the first mark of the day.
> 
> If you can find a reason in that to still fail a dog, I'd say you're likely a very hard, pencil whipping judge and I'd add you to the list of judges (which, actually, is fairly small) I won't run under.
> 
> I know that it's very hard to believe that this happened. However, it did and trying to negate it doesn't help anything.


Yeah well - it is readily apparent that you got caught in an outright fabrication.

Pants on fire regards

Bubba


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Bubba said:


> Yeah well - it is readily apparent that you got caught in an outright fabrication.
> 
> Pants on fire regards
> 
> Bubba


Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is completely true. I only wish it were complete BS, but it's sadly not. I don't believe in making up BS on a forum just to waste everyone's time. I have much better things to do than that.

So, I've yet to hear how I'm supposed to train for this. I really would prefer to train for this so I can pass it next time. Anyone have any ideas on how to teach a retriever to climb trees?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> Ok, let me put this way...There was no handler errors (i.e. no training/corrections, no talking before judge's release, etc.) and there were no dog errors (i.e. no breaking, creeping, etc.). Dog was in control when handler left the blind and as they sat on the line waiting for release. This was the first mark of the day.
> 
> If you can find a reason in that to still fail a dog, I'd say you're likely a very hard, pencil whipping judge and I'd add you to the list of judges (which, actually, is fairly small) I won't run under.
> 
> I know that it's very hard to believe that this happened. However, it did and trying to negate it doesn't help anything.


How about the dog didn't go at all, or didn't go to the area of the fall? ;-)

If you are saying that your dog went to the area of the fall and hunted beneath a bird stuck in the tree 10' in the air, that a birdboy had to use a long stick to get out, all with the knowledge of the judges and didn't get a rerun, then I'm with Bubba. Pants on fire regards.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Again, why did your dog fail the 5 or 6 other juniors?


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

Doug Main said:


> How about the dog didn't go at all, or didn't go to the area of the fall? ;-)


That's kinda what I was thinkin.'

Finally broke down and took a peek at this thread regards...


----------



## pixel shooter (Mar 6, 2010)

Ever heard the expression, beating a dead horse. Was entertaining at best but jeeshhhhhhhh. NOt sure how this correlates to the original question around preference. This is going no where


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> Again, why did your dog fail the 5 or 6 other juniors?


Does it really matter? We are talking about one isolated test in which the others do not matter. If you fail a test for one reason, does that mean you automatically fail the next for that same reason? Each test is unique- or, at least, should be. If that's the case, one test does not have the same exact elements as the next. Therefore, failing one test on one day does not automatically mean you will fail the next for the same concept/element...And, no, this test did not have the same element that failed us the day before- nor any element that failed us in the past that wasn't corrected by training. Again, nice try.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

LabLady101 said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is completely true. I only wish it were complete BS, but it's sadly not. I don't believe in making up BS on a forum just to waste everyone's time. I have much better things to do than that.
> 
> So, I've yet to hear how I'm supposed to train for this. I really would prefer to train for this so I can pass it next time. Anyone have any ideas on how to teach a retriever to climb trees?


Assuming the truth of your statements concerning a brd stuck in a tree, a failure to give a rerun in the absence of any other disqualifying fault would have been outrageous. By the same toke, an outrageous incident does not support your contention that junior tests have somehow become inappropriately difficult. I've run a couple of doze junior and senior hunt tests with both passes and failures. 

I have only seen one bird thrown that was arguably inappropriate for a junior level dog based on the fact that it required the dog to run through about 80 yards of 3 foot high grass which resulted in some absurd hunts, but still a high pass rate. In that case the judges simply had no choice given the property. 

Dogs that fail in junior normally are not really under control and focused, they don't deliver to hand, they lack drive, or they simply can't mark. I've had a few dogs in the first and second category, and have contributed some entry fees as a result. The fact that you had a dog that failed over and over -- while 60%+ of the other dogs passed -- and then passed 4/5 to receive a title suggest that your dog simply wasn't prepared when you began running, I had four failures while running four different dogs. Three were with dogs that I ran before they were force fetched and they had delivery problems. In the fourth, the dog's initial water entry (through a "wall" of high grass) took her completely past the bird and she swam out to a group of decoys 40 yards away. I picked her up rather than watch her hunt the entire pond and she titled the next day. I disagreed with one of the failures, but then I also disagreed with two of my passes. I saw no reason to argue. 

Senior tests are a little more variable in level of difficulty, and the pass rates reflect that. I have been in senior tests where only 10-15% of dogs passed and tests where 60% passed. The quality of the work did not vary that much, but test difficulty did. 

Your observations and comments suggesting that judges are somehow asking too much simply don't match with my observations across a large number of events. Based on pass rates, it also doesn't seem to apply to the tests you have entered. In the "worst" test you entered (based on EE), the majority of dogs still passed. I've seen very few junior dogs that were "over-qualified", and a lot that were not ready to be there. Those pass ratios seem about right.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

LabLady101 said:


> If you fail a test for one reason, does that mean you automatically fail the next for that same reason?


If a dog can't mark worth a lick, then yes.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> How about the dog didn't go at all, or didn't go to the area of the fall? ;-)
> 
> If you are saying that your dog went to the area of the fall and hunted beneath a bird stuck in the tree 10' in the air, that a birdboy had to use a long stick to get out, all with the knowledge of the judges and didn't get a rerun, then I'm with Bubba. Pants on fire regards.


You can call BS all you want. It did happen. That's the truth and I'm sticking to it. Unfortunately, it's not going to change just because you don't believe it.

There's a lot of things in this world that are hard to believe, but they are just as true.

No fire in my pants regards.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Melanie Foster said:


> If a dog can't mark worth a lick, then yes.


Marking was never an issue with this dog. You can ask anyone who trained with her.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

LabLady101 said:


> Marking was never an issue with this dog. You can ask anyone who trained with her.


No, that's OK. I'm not really concerned about your dog's talent or lack thereof. I was just responding to your question in general.

Best of luck in the future.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> Marking was never an issue with this dog. You can ask anyone who trained with her.


Then why did you fail so many times under 6 different sets of judges? Basically it's pretty hard to fail multiple tests if you say it's not the handler, the dog arrives at the line in control, and the dog can mark. There is something missing here. Is it vocalization? Not getting in the water? Being familiar with the lines I know that can happen if you don't know how to deal with it and keep trying to run. All those judges couldn't have been wrong.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Then why did you fail so many times under 6 different sets of judges? Basically it's pretty hard to fail multiple tests if you say it's not the handler, the dog arrives at the line in control, and the dog can mark. There is something missing here. Is it vocalization? Not getting in the water? Being familiar with the lines I know that can happen if you don't know how to deal with it and keep trying to run. All those judges couldn't have been wrong.


i find it hard to believe any dog failing 6 juniors, there has to be other issues there.


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

Wow.....this thread has actually made me a dumber human being. Glad I didn't waste time reading the whole thing.

PS: I also find it hard to believe any set of judges would not give a re-run for a bird in a tree 10 feet off the water. 

My bullsh*t detector is going off like like an air raid siren :razz:


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Folks, I quit even reading this forum for the longest time because of folks' inability to accept reality. I can see it hasn't changed any. Unfortunately, I've found folks are not any better in person- which is why we're not doing field work. Has nothing to do with our dogs' ability/talent/etc, which is sad. I've seen a lot of newcomers come & go for the same reasons. You'd think folks would learn. Unfortunately, there's some who never will.

No, I haven't played any games, I don't believe in that and I have much better things to do. However, I'm sure some of you won't waste the opportunity to say this post is proof of BS. Go for it! It wouldn't surprise me in the least that some would tear someone apart that isn't even here to defend themselves. I've seen it happen here in the past and I'm positive I won't be the last. Whether you can accept the fact that the events I described did happen or not, the truth doesn't change and it's not my responsibility to open your minds to the acceptance of it.

Did we fail a lot of tests? Sure. Most tests we did fail ourselves- not from any error that happens before being released/on or before the line, but from elements/concepts that we later trained for. However, there were, indeed, tests other than this one where it wasn't our doing as well. There was one were the dogs obviously needed to be handled to a mark to pass- yes, handled in a Junior! Whether it was due to poor bird placement or simple arrogance of the judges, I don't know and I'm not going to make that call. However, that happened too. It was observed by many of the other entrants as well- including the ones who passed.

Do I wish I could change the events of the day in question? Sure, who wouldn't? I absolutely wish that we would've failed that particular test for some other, trainable, reason. However, it did happen and, unless someone can come up with a training solution for it, I can't do anything to change it now.

Guess I'll just go back to not reading this forum and not caring about doing any field work again- which is the track my husband has stayed on and I should've. I can say that life was definitely much happier then anyway as it wasn't filled with the negativity and hatred that oozes from the field side of things. At this point, I honestly don't even know why I let myself think that, perhaps, things had changed. So, yes, in that respect, I did make a mistake- one I'm going to promptly correct.

Just want to sincerely thank folks for reminding me why I no longer put any effort or thought into field work anymore- and, no, that's not meant to be a joke or sarcastic or some "please stop me from leaving" ploy. I honestly just do not care what anyone believes or not anymore. It no longer matters.

Thanks everyone, I'm done. You can't fix stupid, so I'm just not even going to try anymore.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

david gibson said:


> i find it hard to believe any dog failing 6 juniors, there has to be other issues there.


Agree.
Any dog that fails that many junior tests is simply not trained, or has no ability at all.
I have never had a dog that had to run 6 junior tests, let alone failed 6.



> You can't fix stupid


Came to that conclusion several pages back!


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

LabLady101 said:


> There was one were the dogs obviously needed to be handled to a mark to pass- yes, handled in a Junior!


They *obviously* need to be handled to pass? Yeah right.

You are losing credibility with every post. As I said before, best of luck to you.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

No one held a gun to your head to post this:


> I've seen plenty of instances in the field where those standards have been clearly ignored as well. Judges have been setting up tests that are "outside the box" for years supposedly because of "better training". However, when the standards are ignored, your word is only worth as much. So, if you're going to start talking standards, it's best to give due diligence to problems with the standards on both sides of the fence. Keep it clean and above the belt...Now fight! lol:wink::smile:


 
You could give no examples of these elusive standards that have been ignored and you could not back up any of your accusations with facts, and yet we are the ones "filled with the negativity and hatred that oozes from the field side of things." 


> I'm done. You can't fix stupid, so I'm just not even going to try anymore.


Best line in the thread. Bye


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Good lord you people sure love to bang your heads against the wall.

Back to the original topic. People should own what they like, and it's a good thing that there are so many choices.

Would it be a good idea to buy a show bred dog if your goal is FC/AFC? Of course not.

But I'm of the opinion if you want a great family dog that can pick up every duck when hunting and even achieve MH if desired, a show bred dog would be a great choice.

95% owner trained (1st dog to train) show bred MH regards,


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Sean H said:


> Good lord you people sure love to bang your heads against the wall.
> 
> Back to the original topic. People should own what they like, and it's a good thing that there are so many choices.
> 
> ...


As someone with a show bred MH you should be able to see the problems with a dog that fails 6 JH tests. 
Someone needs to take that person by the hand and teach them how to train a dog, because they only *think* that they know how. (either that or they have a dog that should have been put out of it's misery)
Personally I have my share of show dogs (beagles). So, believe me, I see both sides of the picture.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Sean H said:


> Good lord you people sure love to bang your heads against the wall.
> 
> 95% owner trained (1st dog to train) show bred MH regards,


These threads always go on forever, don't they?

Evan


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

My question is how far up in the tree? I only ask because I've seen my own dog catch a wounded dove in a tree ~7-8 ft. off the ground. And another Lab actually climb a tree after a chukar, only problem was he couldn't get down, but then you don't get graded on your return. Seems like a realistic hunt situation to me.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

199 posts and almost 8,000 hits had me finally looking at why. The first thing I read is


> My question is how far up in the tree?


Never mind regards, Jim


----------



## Nimrod (Jan 18, 2003)

I have kept away from this one!

We all have our own preferences. The picture of the lab with the spaniels is one of mine and is an Irish bred dog, by the way.

My new all-Irish pup is doing well and is now 6 months old. I am just beginning basic work with him and should have him ready for the 2011/2012 season. We do things slower this side of the pond!

Good to see you are still on the sod Eugune! Rumour had it that you and I were both kicking up the dasies. Don't be a stranger.

Bill


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> 199 posts and almost 8,000 hits had me finally looking at why. The first thing I read is
> 
> 
> Never mind regards, Jim



Yup. Me too. Sadly, curiosity got the better of me and I just had to read the other posts after hearing about a hunt test with a mark in a tree (and not being called a no-bird).


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

david gibson said:


> cant blame you guys - but when a show lab person has 6 junior hunt test failures.....well........thats the type of show dog we *all *want expunged from the gene pool....and the type of breeder as well. i hate to say it, but it is the truth - we are all about _bettering _the breed - right??? and that just doesnt fit the bill IMHO.
> 
> 6 junior failures is a major problem on several levels. period.


Actually, the dog in question looks like she was an outstanding mix of field trial (FC AFC Cuda's Blue Ryder MH is sire) and show lines and, despite her death at the age of almost four, had accomplished enough in a variety of venues that she was clearly loved and cared for very deeply by her owners. She died six months ago, two months before her fourth birthday, having already earned obedience and rally titles as well as her bench champion title. I suspect that the dog failed in hunt tests simply from lack of training and maturity. Her failures happened when she was nt even a one year old. She finally titled with three consecutive passes at 15 months. That is a far cry from the plodding 4-6 year olds that don't even want to see a bird. Maybe she was imply being trained in too many disciplines simultaneously. I am sorry for her owners' loss.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> Actually, the dog in question looks like she was an outstanding mix of field trial (FC AFC Cuda's Blue Ryder MH is sire) and show lines and, despite her death at the age of almost four, had accomplished enough in a variety of venues that she was clearly loved and cared for very deeply by her owners. She died six months ago, two months before her fourth birthday, having already earned obedience and rally titles as well as her bench champion title. I suspect that the dog failed in hunt tests simply from lack of training and maturity. Her failures happened when she was nt even a one year old. She finally titled with three consecutive passes at 15 months. That is a far cry from the plodding 4-6 year olds that don't even want to see a bird. Maybe she was imply being trained in too many disciplines simultaneously. I am sorry for her owners' loss.


Well spoken Jeff. As usual you're a compasionate gentleman.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Rainmaker said:


> I'm not bashing for failing JH, stuff happens, especially to newbies, though I have a hard time swallowing an unreachable mark not getting a rerun, regardless, the dog has died and David's comment about being removed from the gene pool was out of line, apparently knowing nothing else about the dog than JH fails. I'd think he in particular might know better.
> 
> UCD Bel Air Blue Chip Of Kinderwood CD RE JH CGC Call Name: Blue
> Sire: FC AFC Cuda's Blue Ryder MH DOB: 06/25/2006
> ...


i didnt know the dog has passed. my intent was that with 6 jr fails it doesnt appear to have the retrieving qualities that would make it a desirable dog to breed. breeding only for looks adds more labs to the breed without retrieving ability, this dog was clearly a pet, and since it is a lab i am certain it was a great friend and companion, but not breeding stock.


----------

