# Bench Champion/Master Hunter/FC/AFC



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I am just interested to see if there are many other people out there interested in the all around dog. I am mostly speaking of Labradors, but all breeds included. I get so tired of hearing the only color I care about is blue, or one from a pro trainer who told me the broader the head the dummer the dog, even though his dog which just won a huge $$$ in the SRS has a show champion in her pedigree. I believe there should be a balance in the breed, I guess that is what the AKC breed standard is for, even though they don't actually judge to it in the dog shows. I have been approached by a number of people at the hunt test scene who once they see my dogs, and watch them run, are interested in breeding to them to add back some structure to their lines which have been lost. I love dogs that run hard, are smart, great markers, and can then turn it off and be inside the house with me and the kids. It seems that so many of the FT dogs are just kennel dogs because they can't turn it off, and most of the show dogs can't run to the mail box with out being winded for the day. Anyway, I am just wondering who else is out there with some of the same feelings. There are dogs that fit the bill, ie Van Ames dog Copper is an FC with good structure and is super fast, and I am planning on breeding my female out of both parents CH/MH's. Let me know your opinions.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Most people are interested in the all around dog. Some more with working ability than proper conformation and "type" some the other way. Most people make decision based on personal preferance not adherance to a breed standard. Ther are LOTS of dogs out there that reside closer to the standard while maintaining the working integrity of the breed. Most people however are looking to breed to titles, not to specimens that encompass the best of both halves. 
Who is going to breed to a black dog with AA points that is from "show" lines ??? 
Serious Trialers...NO Serious Show people....NO 
Only those willing to take less money and not get them into the "right" homes.
VVRRRRRRoooommm....my rant is building....time to cut this dead horse from the stall ties.
________
og kush pictures


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

If you want a dual champion retriever (bench CH and FC) get a Chesapeake 

4 living ones, all are DC AFC and 3 are also MH. THe newest Dual Champion is a bitch, Linda Harger's DC AFC Genny's Yakity Yak Don't Talk Back.


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

I'm with you on pursuing the dual purpose dog. Although Drake is right and it is not common to cross lines, I think a few people are starting to get show more interest in it. I think it would be excellent to have dogs capable of dual champions again in the labrador world. 

Part of this will depend on show judges stepping back and reviewing the conformation of the original/historic labs. Ken Archer has posted some pics before (and I think one is his avatar) of show champions from the 70's. Those dogs appeared very athletic and capable. For the last several years, however, there has been a trend in some show circles to go to shorter and shorter-limbed dogs. I think the breed standard describes an athletic dog, as stated in the LRC standards.

It will also be dependent on hunt test and field trial people acknowledging the retrieving ability and instinct of several of the dogs from more of the 'conformation' lines. It is not the norm, for sure, but there are some talented conformation lines out there. There are forty-something CH/MH's in labrador history and hopefully that number will keep increasing and eventually lead to another CH/FC.

I believe that breeders should strive for a _*balance*_ of a labrador's best traits. There will always be some extremes of the breed and that is fine. However, the dual purpose dog could bring a lot to the breed. There are many character/physical traits which should be considered - conformation, athleticism, attitude, intelligence, sensitivity, willingness to please, desire, etc, etc.

Like Drake said, a lot of it is the money. You can get a lot more for a FC x FC or a CH x CH litter than for a FC x CH litter. Also it is difficult many times to get a FC owner to let you breed with a CH, and vice versa. 

For what it's worth, I have a dog out of a cross between conformation and field lines. The conformation side had a great history of producing MH-level dogs in addition to show champions. The field line have many of the common players - Blackwater Rudy, Storm's Riptide Star, etc. I am very pleased with my dog - he gets comments on his looks all the time and he has lots of drive, intelligence, birdiness, enthusiasm, etc. I would love to have a CH/MH on him one day. Having this dog has made me believe that it is worth the effort to continually improve upon these kind of breedings and keep working towards better dual purpose dogs. 

This post is not meant to be negative towards the field trial breeders. They have produced some amazing dogs that are capable of performing extremely difficult tasks with a lot of style. It would be great if that could be incorporated into some of the more 'conformation-type' dogs!


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Check out my website, GoodDog, and you'll see that you are not alone. BTW we are one step ahead of you. We have a 2-week-old litter sired by Copper now and they sure look good.


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

Here are some photos of the old-time show champions and some dual champions (unfortunately, most of the dogs that look like them won't be competitive in the show ring today, especially not at specialties for lack of substance and angulation):


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)




----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

Good pics! I have several of those pictures and some of those dogs are ancestors to my pup Cash.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Those are some great pics, those are some nice looking dogs.

Hey Ken, so what one of your females has the Copper litter on the ground right now?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Gooddog, No, you are not alone, not at all. 

I want it all too, and though I have no "practical" desire (or ability) to do field trials or even today's MH tests probably (constraints at home), I want smart, trainable, conformationally and temperamentally sound dogs that live full lives-- 12-14+ yrs hopefully. 

My foundation girl came down from the old Hiwood lines, mentioned a day or so ago on another post. How I'd love to breed back into some of that, however, I have to wonder what we'd dredge up in terms of the new genetic tests. It's a long row to hoe to get "there".


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, I bred my HRCH field girl (FC/AFC sired) to a CH/MH. I kept a female pup from the breeding. She is 6 months old and with a HT pro. He likes her. He commented that she is a very happy dog. She's going through FF with a great attitude.

My clients are typically families desiring a hunting companion. Health, Hunting ability, temperament and looks all factor in...
More and more folks are looking for a well rounded dog. Don't give up!

jburn34 I checked out your site and book marked it. I'll be cheering Cash on from Alaska. He is a gorgeous boy.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Hey Windy Canyon, I checked out your site, and you have some absolutely beautiful dogs.


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

GoodDog said:


> Hey Ken, so what one of your females has the Copper litter on the ground right now?


My Copper litter is out of Dyna, Archway's Blueberry Wine (3 bm, 2 ym and 2 yf). I believe this litter is going to go a long way proving that there are still some great conformation genetics still available in field-bred Labs if you take your time and are very selective in what you breed. With grand parents like Running With The Devil, Winifox Penny From Heaven, Code Blue, Kweezy, The Boss and a litter mate to FC Colonel Bowie's Revenge, these pups should have a lot of go in addition to the show.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

GoodDog said:


> Hey Windy Canyon, I checked out your site, and you have some absolutely beautiful dogs.



Thank you!  I think my clients are cut from the same cloth as yours too. It's funny, but my foundation girl (Winnie-- out of the old Hiwood lines) was THE sweetest girl... but still as birdy as any normal hunter would want. That's really what I'm shooting for, only w/ even better conformation. What is sad (my opinion only) about the show ring is that they seem to reward so much extra weight on the dogs. 

I'm going to attach a photo of Fuji (middle choc girl on my avatar) here--- but @7 wks preggers (vs before breeding)!!!! Most of us who do multiple venues w/ our dogs can't keep them at a weight so they will look terribly out of place in the ring, unfortunately, so we pick our (more fun) poison.  I keep being told it's all going to swing back around, and when it does, I hope to be ready!!!! Anne


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> With grand parents like Running With The Devil, Winifox Penny From Heaven, Code Blue, Kweezy, The Boss and a litter mate to FC Colonel Bowie's Revenge, these pups should have a lot of go in addition to the show.


Steve Shaver's yellow male, Pete, who is The Boss' son is quite the eye candy. I also think Al Wilson's Lean Mac son, FC AFC Twister is very handsome. I think in times past, both of those dogs would have been able to get conformation championships, IMO.


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> jburn34 I checked out your site and book marked it. I'll be cheering Cash on from Alaska. He is a gorgeous boy.


Thanks! We'll try to make you proud.

Windy, Fuji is beautiful. Glad to see there are others out there interested in the same thing.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Thanks for the pics Tatyana. All very good looking dogs who look physically capablee of what the breed is designed to do

It is amazing how far from the standard the show folks have strayed


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

jburn34 said:


> Thanks! We'll try to make you proud.
> 
> Windy, Fuji is beautiful. Glad to see there are others out there interested in the same thing.


Thanks Jburn. I look forward to some of those puppy photos from field breedings too, as that is where I'm headed here shortly again... 

Actually, a judge from your town (Shreveport, LA) put Fuji up as Best of Breed at the International (IABCA) shows last Feb. Jane Roppolo-- I believe her breed is Dobermans--- she certainly liked athleticism / movement and was a very nice woman to show to, also!!! Fuji ended up w/ a 3rd in the Sporting Group that show as well, finishing her Intl CH. That was my first weekend in the show ring, lol, so it was a great way to end it!!!  I found the Intl ring was much more relaxed, and probably a better place for those of us w/ performance lines to compete (as compared to AKC). Though Fuji's daughter Sonya out of 3xCH, 2xMH Bandit is looking AWFULLY nice... and she doesnt' seem lacking for drive either. She dislocated my thumb this summer at ~9 mos while we were watching a MH series from way back (400+ yds). She yanked me flat on my face after watching a triple fall..... thank god she stopped "in time" so she didn't interfere w/ the test!  So yes, I do believe we can have it all. I try not to listen to the ones that say otherwise.  Anne


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

GoodDog said:


> It seems that so many of the FT dogs are just kennel dogs because they can't turn it off


I don't think you could be more incorrect with that statement. My field trial dog is very animated at trials, but is a marshmellow in the house. He spends most of the year with a pro, but knows how to turn it down. I know many others who have similar dogs.

As far as the show & field cross. I don't care for the structure of the show dogs, and so would not consider a cross.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

I'm definately with you all (GoodDog, Anne, Tatyana, Ken, jburn, etc)! I like to have it all too- and I do believe it's achievable despite what others may say. I do think Drake is somewhat right about the probability of some of the more serious folks on either side taking a chance on such breedings, but I also happen to believe that what they are passing up and poo pooing will only bite them in the end. Therefore, there has to be breeders that hold true to that middle ground (and the true intents of the standard IMHO) such as yourselves (and eventually myself). Yes, it's a tougher road to take, but I feel it's more rewarding. And, I think Anne is right about everything eventually swinging back around someday, so there's still hope for that Dually someday (no matter how small and impossible it seems today)!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Steve said:


> I don't think you could be more incorrect with that statement. My field trial dog is very animated at trials, but is a marshmellow in the house. He spends most of the year with a pro, but knows how to turn it down. I know many others who have similar dogs.
> 
> As far as the show & field cross. I don't care for the structure of the show dogs, and so would not consider a cross.


Steve, I too used to have field dogs that were the greatest house dogs too-- but structure, though better than "average" was lacking in some areas. 

As far as "show structure" do you have a copy of the LRC Illustrated Standard? The LRC is well represented by a nice blend of field, show and performance folks. I seriously doubt you'd find fault w/ what the standard is supposed to represent. You can purchase a copy for $10 or enter a conformation certificate program held at a local/regional hunt test or field trial and you'll get one w/ your entry. You may be surprised!


----------



## drewsmith (Dec 29, 2007)

The decendents of the big English dogs (sounds like a contradition now) of the 30's and 40's like the Follytower dog pictured, were brought over years later by Janet Churchill of Maryland in the 60's???. Kennels started in this area came from these dogs and followed the dual purpose concept of breeding. Sadly many of these are not around and the concept seemed to have passed. There were many bench champs that came from that line are were run in the test circuit and hunted regulary. There are still many great looking labs in this area that come from these dogs. I had a BLF that came from Lawnwood's Hot Chocolate (two generations back) that lived 19 years.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

GoodDog said:


> ....It seems that so many of the FT dogs are just kennel dogs because they can't turn it off, and most of the show dogs can't run to the mail box with out being winded for the day.....


While this statement is a popular opinion expressed by both camps (field & show) & has been exhibited in certain dogs, I have not found either extreme to be the norm. I own 7 field-bred Labs from widely varying lines. All are good retrievers & very comfortable/well-mannered in the house. I have also been around several Labs from conformation lines who love retrieving & although they clearly could not compete in the FT game there are many field-bred Labs who can't compete at that level either.

I think the bigger issue is that the "look" popular in show lines these days is no closer to the standard than what we see in field-bred Labs where there is less concern for conformation than performance. My point is that the "vogue" look today in conformation lines for show competition misses the mark from both performance & form.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I agree with David. I went to a show in the summer just to get a first hand look at the labs competing there. I was actually shocked, because I had spent some time studying the standard before going, and just could not see the requirements in these dogs. Also, and maybe just because it was summer and hot, the dogs all seemed almost sleepy eyed. What made me notice it was that all the labs, puppies, yellow, black, chocolate, male or female had the same sort of droopy dull look. I had my boy there on a lead, and he was as bright and animated as always. Is that common in todays show choices?


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> I think the bigger issue is that the "look" popular in show lines these days is no closer to the standard than what we see in field-bred Labs where there is less concern for conformation than performance. My point is that the "vogue" look today in conformation lines for show competition misses the mark from both performance & form.


That's my point of view as well. I'm in favor of breeding for good coat, structure, movement, etc. but have to follow my own judgement as the "independent standard" of what is winning in shows is not relevant to the ideal Labrador. In my experience, if you cross unlike conformations, like typical field x typical bench, you can get odd, ungainly looking offspring.

I have been frustrated, showing my Chesapeakes, at losing to fat dogs with long coats when the standard says coat length over 1 1/2" is a *disqualification.* Reviewing the Labrador and Golden standards, though, I can see there's no point fussing about it. Major issues are just ignored.

To give the bench Lab people their due, some of those dogs are impressive retrievers. Goldens, too. I'm all for encouraging the bench enthusiast to train his or her dogs.

Amy Dahl


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Some very good posts.
Amy Dahl is corect on SOME of the results of Field x Show breedings. 
Producing "odd" looking individuals. That is what commonly comes from an outcross of lines.

An old Iowa hog farmer once told me; If you want to produce a shorter backed hog. 
Don't go find yourself the shortest backed hog in the world, but find the short backed hog in YOUR barn.
________
Yamaha Wiki history


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Tatyana said:


> Steve Shaver's yellow male, Pete, who is The Boss' son is quite the eye candy. I also think Al Wilson's Lean Mac son, FC AFC Twister is very handsome. I think in times past, both of those dogs would have been able to get conformation championships, IMO.


 

Ahh gee thanks Tatyana, I agree. Pretty talented too. Who knows how far he could have gone with full time training instead of weekends and once in awhile training.
Me, I want nothing to do with a dual champion. I like a good looking dog and I know what I like but others may not like the same thing. I couldnt care less for a bench title because it is just another persons opinion or interpretation of what a dog should look like. A dual champion title might have some meat to if they looked like some of the pics posted by Tatyana and could do the field work but how can that happen????
I dont agree with the statement some field dogs are kennel dogs because they do not have an off switch. I feel just the opposite, they cant turn it off BECAUSE they are kennel dogs.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

GoodDog said:


> I believe there should be a balance in the breed, I guess that is what the AKC breed standard is for, even though they don't actually judge to it in the dog shows. I have been approached by a number of people at the hunt test scene who once they see my dogs, and watch them run, are interested in breeding to them to add back some structure to their lines which have been lost. I love dogs that run hard, are smart, great markers, and can then turn it off and be inside the house with me and the kids.


In my book, this approach is much more responsible than breeding FC AFC to FC AFC or CH to CH. Becuase it is about balance and maintaining the integrity of the breed. We loose that integrity when we breed solely for titles in specaility events like Bench Shows and Field Trials. 

Many of the Bench Dogs and Field Dogs are a mess physically in terms of what they are suppose to represent physically. There is so much genetic junk in today's Field breedings that I seriouly doubt I will buy another Lab strickly based on perfomance in the field. Just too many negatives to deal with, especially skelital problems. On the other side, the Bench dogs are just too big and clumsy to be field athletes. For the most part, they lack any real drive or intelligence. 

I would really like to see more folks interested in the total Lab come out of the closet! It is your efforts that will maintain the breeds intergrity in the long term and not the interest of the speciality interest which try to improve the breed in a specfic area to fit their venue.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> There is so much genetic junk in today's Field breedings that I seriouly doubt I will buy another Lab strickly based on perfomance in the field. Just too many negatives to deal with, especially skelital problems.


Are the problems really genetic, or do they come from the dogs going out an pounding themselves hard day in and day out? Most of these dogs have all their clearances to screen out the genetic skeletal problems don't they?

I wonder about the off switch thing too. How much has to do with the way they were raised as puppies? I have an FC/AFC x FC/AFC bred bitch laying in my office behind me sleeping right now. When I bring her to work, everyone is pleased to see her because she is so quiet, gentle, and well behaved. But bring out a duck and see her wild side come out. When you run yard drills with her, she attacks the piles like most dogs do a fun bumper. I'll take that any day...

The only structural problems I see is that her head is a bit on the narrow side. And great coat and big otter tail...

I have a FC/AFC x AFC male coming later this month. It'll be interesting to see what experience I have with that new experiment.


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

There are no absolutely clean lines in the show world either. Orthopedic problems are, if not common, definitely present. My own Scotty is an orthopedic trainwreck though both of his parents had their clearances as well as many other ancestors.

I agree with Amy that crossing field and show lines can produce odd individuals. If I decided to go the dual champion route, I would start with a nice field bitch and be very selective in the choice of a stud (probably outcross but within field lines). There are some nice looking FC AFC's out there some even with national and national amateur titles. I think within 5-10 generations, the looks can be improved dramatically but retaining the retrieving ability/desire would be imperative for me, thus the reason to stay with field lines.

That said, I don't think a DC will be possible unless the current trend in the show ring swings back to what it used to be in 30s-60s.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

How did the currently in vogue type of lab come to be the choice for the show ring? Was it a gradual change of taste, was there a particularly popular dog that had that body type and demeanor that had a large impact? I am really curious as to "who gets to choose" what the show winner will look like when it differs so from what I read in the standard. Does anyone know the answer here? I promise I'm not pot stirring, it just really piqued my curiousity when I went to that show.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Windycanyon,

could you please tell me what a "3xCH-2xMH" is?-paul


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> As far as "show structure" do you have a copy of the LRC Illustrated Standard? The LRC is well represented by a nice blend of field, show and performance folks. I seriously doubt you'd find fault w/ what the standard is supposed to represent. You can purchase a copy for $10 or enter a conformation certificate program held at a local/regional hunt test or field trial and you'll get one w/ your entry. You may be surprised!


I'm a member of the LRC. When I lived in St. Louis, I was heavily involved with the breed club and entered my FT dog in the field class for fun. He was the only one entered, so won 1st ;-)

I respect the interests of my show friends, but that type of dog is not for me.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Many of the Bench Dogs and Field Dogs are a mess physically in terms of what they are suppose to represent physically. There is so much genetic junk in today's Field breedings that I seriouly doubt I will buy another Lab strickly based on perfomance in the field. Just too many negatives to deal with, especially skelital problems. On the other side, the Bench dogs are just too big and clumsy to be field athletes. For the most part, they lack any real drive or intelligence.


 


Based on this statement where would you look for a pup?? The news paper? ;-)


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

This is my first post ? but this is a topic near and dear to me?so I decided to jump in. I own a breed champion lab (black male, 3 years old)?and did not begin his hunt test training until after he finished his championship (around 22 mo.); and I am now very much in love with this sport. My boy (he can be seen on my website at www.reedcreeklabs.com) brought much baggage with him based, in great part, on the age I started. This said, I am thrilled with his drive and his intelligence and believe, with proper training, he can go pretty far in the hunt test game ? we are currently working on his Senior title. Field Trial ? well, for him (and I can only speak for him) I cannot see it - I would be very concerned that the long distances required in FT would cause him structural issues. Honestly, I don?t think he would hold up?he is big, he is bulky and he runs with such power?thus I worry that his joints would break down. Does he have the heart, soul, drive and intelligence necessary to get his MH (and that is no small deal); only time will tell...and since I am new to this, I don?t have the experience behind me to know. I know it is entirely possible to take a breed champion to the levels of MH (it has been done, there are great breeders producing great dogs that accomplish this)?however, can they hold their own against FT dogs?.or for that matter can a FT dog (at least what I know of the structure of one) be acknowledged in the breed ring as meeting the standard that is required to become a breed champion?keep in mind that Labradors are one of the most hotly contested breeds in the show ring?well that is the other side of the coin. Those of us who show dogs in the breed ring, might have to be content with titling our dogs on two ends?.CH/MH?the days of dual championships might be a thing of the past.
________
Unicorn


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> How did the currently in vogue type of lab come to be the choice for the show ring? Was it a gradual change of taste, was there a particularly popular dog that had that body type and demeanor that had a large impact? I am really curious as to "who gets to choose" what the show winner will look like when it differs so from what I read in the standard. Does anyone know the answer here? I promise I'm not pot stirring, it just really piqued my curiousity when I went to that show.


From what I've seen, it's been a gradual change. I think Ch Dickendall Arnold had a lot of influence and he had the more substantial body type. I think the popularity of the specialties also played a role in almost a split within the show type into all-breed and specialty subtypes. I'm sure you can find a show forum to ask this question and get a better answer.

The Standard, as any written word, is not perfect and is vague. It's full of words such as "moderate," "approximately," "perceptibly," etc. You can have as many interpretations of the Standard as there are interpreters. What is moderate and athletic to me probably is not moderate and athletic to the next person. In addition, the Standard is an ideal; no individual fits it perfectly. It's the degree of variation from the Standard that's important.


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> I know it is entirely possible to take a breed champion to the levels of MH (it has been done, there are great breeders producing great dogs that accomplish this)…however, can they hold their own against FT dogs….or for that matter can a FT dog (at least what I know of the structure of one) be acknowledged in the breed ring as meeting the standard that is required to become a breed champion…


You are comparing apples to oranges. In hunt tests, you don't compete against other dogs; in the show ring, you do. It's not fair in my opinion to equivocate a pass/fail achievement with a competitive achievement. As there are show dogs who succeed in hunt tests, so there are field dogs who have conformation certificates. The only show dog that I know of who has been somewhat successful in field trials is CH Kobe MH who has some Qual JAMs. I'm not sure if CH Laddy MH has competed in any Quals, maybe he has.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

paul young said:


> Windycanyon,
> 
> could you please tell me what a "3xCH-2xMH" is?-paul


The dog I was referencing has 3 show Champion titles Am/Mex/Intl(FCI) and 2 MH titles (GMHR and AKC MH). He's very moderate, hence, has been bred probably more to field bitches than show bitches (the ring is demanding more bone these days but again, hopefully that is changing). He's now 14.5 yrs old, still healthy, still breeding... just sired a litter ~3 mos ago to a field bitch. http://www.janrod.com/bandit.htm
I find the package he's produced for me is outstanding. Very birdy, smart, affectionate and pretty dogs.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

ReedCreek said:


> This is my first post – but this is a topic near and dear to me…so I decided to jump in. I own a breed champion lab (black male, 3 years old)…and did not begin his hunt test training until after he finished his championship (around 22 mo.); and I am now very much in love with this sport.


If you don't mind my asking, how much does your boy weigh? It seems to me that bench dogs simply ignore the weight guidelines in the standard while enforcing the height guidelines rigorously to keep out those "leggy" field types. Doesn't the mix of height and weight give specificity to the standard's otherwise vague use of words like medium and moderate?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Welcome ReedCreek! Your boy has alot of nice performance producers behind him. It's not a big surprise to me that he's a go getter.  Anne


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

thanks for the clarification.-paul


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> If you don't mind my asking, how much does your boy weigh? It seems to me that bench dogs simply ignore the weight guidelines in the standard while enforcing the height guidelines rigorously to keep out those "leggy" field types. Doesn't the mix of height and weight give specificity to the standard's otherwise vague use of words like medium and moderate?


Jeff, 
I think you ask a valid question. I won't answer for others, but in my case, the 55-70# range for bitches encompasses what I've got here. However, they don't have near "enough" for the AKC ring currently (all 3 in the avatar are littermates and Intl CH's though). My younger bitches who are more "showlike" are only 21.25 - 21.5" tall and ~58-60# in good working condition, so it's not as though they are big! 

I posed the question to Bandit's owner as well. According to my notes, when he was competing in MH tests, he ranged from 68-72#. He was campaigned at ~80# for his specialty showing. At the time (mid 90's), adding 10# to a dog seemed to be the norm for the show ring. Now, I'd hate to guess what it is, but it is probably 20#, maybe more, from what I saw recently. To me, it takes so much away from the beauty of the dog, but that is my own opinion.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> If you don't mind my asking, how much does your boy weigh? It seems to me that bench dogs simply ignore the weight guidelines in the standard while enforcing the height guidelines rigorously to keep out those "leggy" field types. Doesn't the mix of height and weight give specificity to the standard's otherwise vague use of words like medium and moderate?


Currently, he weighs 83lbs. However, his "show weight" was 90 lbs. and his height is 23 1/2" at the withers...and yes, that is considered "over the standard" however, I do not believe the standard says that the weight is a disqualification (...it does say height is)..it says "Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition, well-muscled and without excess fat." Bonus was very well muscled.
________
Trichome


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> Welcome ReedCreek! Your boy has alot of nice performance producers behind him. It's not a big surprise to me that he's a go getter.  Anne


Thank you, on both counts!
________
Extreme Vaporizer Review


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Call me biased (I am), but I tend to like my dogs to look solid but fully capable of flight, including running out 300+ yards without worrying about a heart attack.




























Sadie weighs in at 60 pounds soaking wet and can retrieve a goose at 200 yards in water. She's actually 5 weeks pregnant in the last two photos.


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

Tatyana said:


> The only show dog that I know of who has been somewhat successful in field trials is CH Kobe MH who has some Qual JAMs. I'm not sure if CH Laddy MH has competed in any Quals, maybe he has.


CH Topform Edward MH was qualified all age with a 2nd place and a JAM. He was the first and at least back in 2000 was the only one. He was sired by Dickendall Ruffy and the half-brother of Dickendall Arnold. 

Regardless of what the dog looks like, that is a good accomplishment. It is also conceivable that a dog with his look could be at a disadvantage due to predjudice and stereotyping of his ability due to his 'conformation.' Thus I think it says even more about his abilities. Granted he probably was trained by an excellent trainer, but he accomplished it either way. I also think a MH on a show dog says a lot. One might not like the 'show' look, but with an MH title at least you can agree the dog has good desire, intelligence, etc, and at least meets some sort of minimum physical standard to be able to complete that type of work. 

IMO it is a shame that a dog must put on so much weight for the show ring. That takes away from the good looks of a well muscled, lean dog. There are some great physical (and mental/personality) traits in many of the show lines, but so much is done in excess. Thus the need for some kind of *BALANCE*. 

As they are, many of the show dogs, even if they have the desire, are not physically fit either genetically or just from being too heavy to consistently run long marks, blinds, etc.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> Based on this statement where would you look for a pup?? The news paper? ;-)


 I would look within the FT ranks for a sire that represented the breed well. There are some, one just has to look really hard for them. FC AFC is not a prerequisite but, soundness, type and ability are. The bitch would have to have strong working abilities and also sound, with great type. In my book, yes some dogs have more inherited ability than others. However, the more important factors in FT success has to do with how deep ones pockets are and how wise are we in getting the right training and handling.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Tatayana,

What do you consioder a "show" dog ?
A dog that is a CH ? 
A dog with points ? 
That has been in the ring ? 
That has a show pedigree ?

There are others with trial accomplishments, you just gotta know how to find them.
________
ultimate fighters


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> Tatayana,
> 
> What do you consioder a "show" dog ?
> A dog that is a CH ?
> ...


I consider a dog to be show type if its parents are from show lines. Like with field trial lines, titles males are often bred to untitled females, so I suppose it's the same as "what is field type." My Lab is show type. His dad is a show champion, his mom is untitled but was shown some. He was sold as pet because he cannot be competitive in the conformation ring, so he's not a show dog. So, show type = show pedigree; show dog = been in the ring.

Also, I did not say Kobe was the only one there with field trial accomplishments, just that he was the only one that I knew of.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Let me tell you all where I am coming from. I know there are FC dogs that are great house/family companions and can turn it off. I understand the structure issues with both sides of the arguments, field to thin, show to fat. I am an avid hunter and have long leaned to the field breed side of the Labrador world, I love a hard charging, big water entry dog. In fact I went to through college and into the veterinary world before I got into the pharm side of the business, and started into the HT world. I love Labradors first! I currently have 3 Labs, first a 10 year old FC breed bitch, whom we love very much,second a 2 year old yellow male, Skip, out of Ch Waterbound Locke on Laddy MH and his bitch is a duaghter of Ch Belles Tradition Obroad Reach MH, and third a 1 year old bitch out of Am Can Ch Loral's Got Our Power Play CD MH and Am Can Ch Pembroke Black Mist Poplar Forest MH. I hunt test both of the younger dogs, I am running Seniors with my male and Juniors with my young female. On the weekends when not hunting or going to tests, I run my dogs at a pheasant ranch called Show Me Birds on their Eurpean hunts. The European hunts range from 300 to 1500 birds with 20 shooters and 10 dog handlers, I guarantee my dogs can cover ground, make good marks, bring them back and go all day. Heck just one weekend of the Pheasant farm and my dogs have seen more birds than most will in a lifetime. I don't intend to offend anyone here, I have just felt a need in the recent years that the Lab world has gone to far down to seperate roads. I have am just trying to find the happy medium. I am tired of seeing show dogs so big, with such short legs, they could'nt hunt a full day without ever, and I am tired of seeing field breed dogs with coats so poor that they need a neoprene coat to keep them warm if the temp gets below 30 degree's, that is how my old girl is, her coat is quite poor. Is there anything wrong with wanting it all? I actually think the harder sell would be to the show people. I wish you all good hunting, and happy training.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

One other thing, I have noticed a couple of times it has been mentioned that an outcross can produce some gangly, odd looking dogs. That is true, but it can also produce some noce looking, hard charging dogs in the same litter. I like the looks of Jeremy's dog a lot, Cash, and he has plenty of go.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

You don't think the AKC could change this overnight if they wanted to?

As was (is?) the case in the UK, simply require a minimum field title (SH? MH?) for a retriever before a dog can compete in the ring. The AKC supports both venues, they'd only need to tie the 2 together and quit being contradictory in their field and ring judging standards. Something (field or ring) would have to give.

The AKC has not only all but eliminated dual champions for retriever breeds, but take a look at field vs ring setters and spaniels, too. I don't know that anyone could show a FDSB setter or alternately hunt with a CH setter.

My $.02,

Mark


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

> You don't think the AKC could change this overnight if they wanted to?
> 
> As was (is?) the case in the UK, simply require a minimum field title (SH? MH?) for a retriever before a dog can compete in the ring. The AKC supports both venues, they'd only need to tie the 2 together and quit being contradictory in their field and ring judging standards. Something (field or ring) would have to give.
> 
> The AKC has not only all but eliminated dual champions for retriever breeds, but take a look at field vs ring setters and spaniels, too. I don't know that anyone could show a FDSB setter or alternately hunt with a CH setter.


Just to clarify, it's not the AKC that is promoting any particular type of Lab, it's the parent club. The AKC does not set nor enforce the breed standard and they do not pick the judges for the dog shows. Judges (unless from Lab breeder ranks) simply go by the breed club's standard and pick the dog they think most represents that standard.

I don't know what the answer is because I've seen shows where the judges were putting up more moderate Lab types (some quite nice looking) but I was appalled at what was winning in the breed rings at a big Lab specialty. It seems to be the Lab specialty shows that put up the more extreme types (kegs on stump legs, heads with extreme stops and rottweiler type muzzles too short to hold a duck).


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

I've never been to a dog show, so I didn't know who judged, and don't know if the AKC has reps that train conformation judges, attend and comment at events as the Performance group does.

But since its still the AKC that recognizes the wins in the ring and puts the letters in front of the dog's name; I'd think that if they choose to require a minimum field accomplishment as a prerequesite to participating in confirmation events, then the "kegs with legs" (I like that, BTW) might have go outside and act like a retriever before they can show in the ring.

ml


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

You know, not that you mention it, I do like the idea of the requirements of the UK. In England, I believe I read that to become a field champion a dog has to have at least 1 show point, and to become a show champ they have to passed a field test. I like the idea of making sure a dog can do what it is supposed to.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

Why ask that they do field first? Why not have dogs be required to have so many points towards their show CH before they're allowed to compete in the field? A golden retriever, toller, chessie, etc can do the field work, that doesn't make them a labrador retriever.

Not all of us show "kegs with legs" btw.


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

GoodDog said:


> I like the looks of Jeremy's dog a lot, Cash, and he has plenty of go.


Thanks! Your dogs are pretty good looking too...


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

GoodDog said:


> You know, not that you mention it, I do like the idea of the requirements of the UK. In England, I believe I read that to become a field champion a dog has to have at least 1 show point, and to become a show champ they have to passed a field test. I like the idea of making sure a dog can do what it is supposed to.


This subject comes up semi-annually on some Lab chat lists (the dreaded Field vs Show debate...). 

In the LRC, a member can't advertise their dog as a show CH unless it possesses at least a WC. It's be interesting to have an equal requirement of a CC (conformation cert) in FT dogs... but probably won't happen anytime too soon.  Both WC and CC are very basic, attainable certificates, so to me, it'd be a step in the right direction.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Nicole said:


> Why ask that they do field first? Why not have dogs be required to have so many points towards their show CH before they're allowed to compete in the field? A golden retriever, toller, chessie, etc can do the field work, that doesn't make them a labrador retriever.
> 
> Not all of us show "kegs with legs" btw.


My dogs aren't even close to physical maturity until age 3, and then it's questionable.  By then, I will have several titles earned in multiple venues (hrts, obed, rally, agility). It'd be a real pity to waste all that puppy energy waiting for them to grow up first!


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

A WC is a pretty pityfull example of a working dog, IMO.
A WC is trumped by a JH, which proves a dog can go out and pickup shot birds it sees fall.
Where does that say anything about trainability ?
If the dog can not handled to birds it does not see fall can it really be condsidered a conservation tool ?

Form Follows Function....if it can not function as a true conservation tool, who cares what form it comes in.
________
Chevrolet K5 Blazer


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Nicole said:


> Why ask that they do field first? Why not have dogs be required to have so many points towards their show CH before they're allowed to compete in the field? A golden retriever, toller, chessie, etc can do the field work, that doesn't make them a labrador retriever.
> 
> Not all of us show "kegs with legs" btw.


No, but it makes them a member of the Sporting Group if they're all hunting breeds. I think you answered your own question. Shouldn't dogs in the Working Group or Sporting Group be able to perform the tasks they were bred for? And shouldn't those tasks follow the guidelines prescribed by the governing body? (ie, Hunting Test or Field Trials?)

I don't mean anything derogatory by this (honestly), but what does a show dog have to do besides stand, walk at heel, get groomed, be house-broken, and not bite the judge? What differentiates a Shar-pei from a Labrador from a Mastiff if all they have to do is appeal to a judge's eye vs a written standard?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Nicole said:


> Why ask that they do field first?


It all depends on your priorities I guess. Obviously each camp will came at it from opposite directions...


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

because they are RETRIEVERS.........-paul


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

GoodDog said:


> You know, not that you mention it, I do like the idea of the requirements of the UK. In England, I believe I read that to become a field champion a dog has to have at least 1 show point, and to become a show champ they have to passed a field test. I like the idea of making sure a dog can do what it is supposed to.


You must've read it in the Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walkies Rulebook...'t'ain't true; if anything there's a wider chasm (I've suppressed the urge to say piggier chasm) between bench and field in Labs in the UK than in the US.

MG


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> Why ask that they do field first? Why not have dogs be required to have so many points towards their show CH before they're allowed to compete in the field? A golden retriever, toller, chessie, etc can do the field work, that doesn't make them a labrador retriever.


If you require field dogs to earn conformation championship points, what would be the equivalent requirement for show dogs then? The only fair answer would be field championship points, which are just as unattainable for a dog with show pedigree as show championship points are unattainable for a dog with field pedigree.

There are dogs with field pedigrees and field titles who have their conformation certificates. There is not a non-competitive event in conformation that can parallel the hunt tests. Maybe there should be one. And I don't think anybody at field trials gets confused whether it's a Labrador, Golden or a CBR running (I don't think many Tollers or other kind of retrievers run in field trials).


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Is anyone here a member of the national LRC?

Angie


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Is anyone here a member of the national LRC?
> 
> Angie


I'm sure the answer is yes


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

The reason I ask is do any of the other members besides myself find it ironic that the LRC officers and board are all field trialers? Not a show person on it that I recongnize. If I have missed them I apologize. Also the national specialty does not host a field trial. Not even a derby/qualifying. That too I find strange?

From what I understand the show end of the LRC was historically treated as a poor second cousin until recently. That the breed club was first and foremost a field trial club.

Also the current standard for the labrador is all but dismissed by the show end. At least that's what people that are active nationally with the show end have told me. The standard was revised recently, meaning in the last 10 years and many of the show end were greatly displeased and basically dismiss it. Much like the WC needed to have the breed club recognize the CH. The real hardcore show folks could care less and don't acknowledge it.....

Just interesting the LRC was not first based in show.....

Angie


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Angie B said:


> That the breed club was first and foremost a field trial club.


Hear, hear, and be thankful for it: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031879.U.pdf

MG


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Angie B said:


> The reason I ask is do any of the other members besides myself find it ironic that the LRC officers and board are all field trialers? Not a show person on it that I recongnize. If I have missed them I apologize. Also the national specialty does not host a field trial. Not even a derby/qualifying. That too I find strange?
> 
> From what I understand the show end of the LRC was historically treated as a poor second cousin until recently. That the breed club was first and foremost a field trial club.
> 
> ...


To become a member of the LRC, one needs two member sponsors. I've tried to find two members down here in the past and can't find the first one! If anyone wnats to sponsor me, please PM you name and address and I'll us you as a sponsor on the application. Thanks for your support!

My guess is to why there is no FT stakes at the Lab Speciality is because every weekend trial is a Lab Speciality. Their HT is pobably of more interest to the general lab fancy.

I was aware of the change in the breed standard. The only thing that they really changed was in increasing the weight limits, which of course plays into showing fatter dogs. Bench folks have always dismissed the weight limits as being unimportant.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I'll sponsor ya Franco... Just right your letter and I'll sign it.  

I'm not sure of the standard changes. The show folks were having a fit over it though. Sounded to me like that a more average dog was favored. Maybe it got changed again?? That I don't know.

What was explained to me is that the specialty was totally lacking of a field trial because that's how the parent club wanted it. Remember the show end was looked down on. Just because that historically was the case doesn't mean it should continue. For gosh sakes they could at least have a D/Q. Yes the LRC has field trials all the time all over the country but I still think it's important that a licensed field trial should be addressed at their specialty. At least to show the 2 extreme sides can support one another....

Just my 2 cents.

Angie


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Does anybody want to see a dual champion labrador again ????

Here's the simple solution. 

Hold conformation shows at field trials with old school judges and get the Pros to enter only FC"s....problem solved. No "Speciality Show" Labradors will be there and they have to pick a winner. So there you go.
________
glass bubblers


----------



## Terry Thomas (Jun 27, 2005)

paul young said:


> because they are RETRIEVERS.........-paul


And that sort of says it all!


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

I believe the controversy with the revision was more over the height requirements than weight. The old standard either had "approximately" for the height range (like the weight range does now) or no height range. I guess certain people believed that some/many show dogs were short, so the new standard set a firm range and the show dogs were measured/wicketed and dismissed from the ring if they were too short. I don't know how many show dogs became disqualified because of that change. I don't think there was anything else "major" in the new Standard.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Angie B said:


> The reason I ask is do any of the other members besides myself find it ironic that the LRC officers and board are all field trialers? Not a show person on it that I recongnize. If I have missed them I apologize. Also the national specialty does not host a field trial. Not even a derby/qualifying. That too I find strange?
> Angie


Angie, 
If you are a member, then why not get more involved? I just applied this past summer, and was accepted. They apparently like versatile members... I was asked to join a couple years ago after chairing the first club hosted Conformation Certificate at our hunt test but just got around to it this past summer after they asked me to secretary the CC at 2007 Nationals in OR. I asked about the Rescue Task Force and immediately was drafted onto the force. So please, don't just sit back and say "why don't they do this or that" without involving yourself. I have a pretty good idea of what went into the planning of that National since there was a special Yahoo list set up and running, a year in advance, by the looks of it. They are already working on next year's.... 

As for holding a field trial, the grounds were a big enough issue for the hunt tests in mid October here in the NW that they had to move the hrts to the front end of the week. It's hunting season or too close to it for the normal hunt test grounds (wildlife area). They had to rent private grounds -- gorgeous set up!! And then there are the needs for worker bees! Right after the hunt test, they held 2 Agility trials, Tracking tests, 2 Obedience and Rally trails, and finally, the Conformation events. Some people took easily 2 wks off work to make it click. I drove 200+ miles each way the Sunday of the JH and CC to participate and again that next Weds/Thurs for an overnighter to do Open obedience (my 2.5 yo took a blue!)and see some of the conformation.... during my busy work season, no less. So if I sound a bit abrupt here this morning, I'm sorry, but it takes many many hands to put on such an event as a field trial, and when it's one of MANY events, you may imagine how tough it is. 

Btw, Nina Mann is a long time show/hunt test/obed competitor and is our NW rep to the board and has been for years, btw. Marianne Foote is well rooted in the show/versatility areas (I believe she editted the book, "The Versatile Labrador" which I've got out on loan currently, so hope that is the correct title.. great book. Linda Oldham is a breed judge and obed competitor (NJ, I believe). I recognize many more names on the Board, but don't know them personally, yet. Anne


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

From "Training Gun Dogs to Retrieve" by Dave Elliot:

"...the willingness to retrieve was considered a characteristic worth intensifying and was therefore used in selecting individuals in breeding programs."

I'm all for proper topline, angulation, etc., but when the inherent qualities that made the breed desirable in the first place are an afterthought (if thought about at all) & are trumped by breeding a dog with an ever increasing physical structure that make it nearly impossible-if he has the desire in the first place-to enthusiastically spend the day hunting-someone has short-changed the breed.

M


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Hey Anne,

Let me get the DFWLRC going first.... ;-) I'm getting the clubs hunt test back again with a CC being offered this spring. That took a year and a half, hopefully a field trial will follow. I'm well aware of what it entails to work a national event. I work the national open every year and I don't even participate,hahaha.......

Anywho,,, the golden club and the flat coat club have a ft at their specialty.... I think there's more of an issue going on there with the Lab club then the work force. At least historically. Like I said things can change. And when I get time...... 

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Every once and a while we get an anomaly into the kennel for their basics. This one was/is alot of fun....

CH Yellow Rose's Rio Bravo SH. He's 3 years old and acquired his CH while training for his SH last winter. Hopefully he'll have the MH this year....

Angie


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Does anybody want to see a dual champion labrador again ????
> 
> Here's the simple solution.
> 
> Hold conformation shows at field trials with old school judges and get the Pros to enter only FC"s....problem solved. No "Speciality Show" Labradors will be there and they have to pick a winner. So there you go.



No, they don't have to put a winner up. All dogs can be excused for lack of merit. Plus, many field bred dogs are no closer to the standard than many show bred dogs. The idea of the DC is that they represent the both form and function of the breed.

Tom


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Steve Shaver said:


> Based on this statement where would you look for a pup?? The news paper? ;-)


There are dogs being bred out there with a look towards conformation as Mr Booty mentioned. Look at what a stud dog looks like and what his pups look like. Abe threw very nice looking pups. Nate Baxter bred his show type bitch to Abe and got the dam of our moderator-in-chief's pup.

When selection criteria is very narrow other less desireable traits become acceptable. After a while "breed type" is lost. People that get involved in dogs sports tend to be attracted to what they are familiar with. Some people who came into the dogs sports from retriever field trials are not bothered by a lab whose profile more resembles a greyhound than a lab. Some who come in via conformation might say the only thing labrador about the above dog is their color.

Another factor confounding the problem is the number of labs being bred each year. This adds even more variety to the melting pot!

Tom


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

I would love to see more balance in the breed. I think my guy is a pretty good example of a mix of show and field though he is bigger than I would like at 101# in this photo. He runs hard, is a great family dog and lives to pick up the chickens. Conformation wise he is to big for the standard but he has great lines and structure. Some bench people had taken an early interest in him until he became to “leggy”. I don’t think he would ever be of competition in a FT but no one has ever complained about his retrieving abilities. I had a guy who has a QAA bitch tell me he had the go but I needed to get more control and he is right, I am his biggest fault. If I could start over I would have just bit the bullet and gone ahead and shown him anyway. Judges can only pick one type of dog to win when that is all they are presented with. I have a feeling that maybe things would change if a more moderate type of dog was put in the show ring. 

Just my opinion and it doesn’t really mean squat.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Hey Anne,
> 
> Let me get the DFWLRC going first.... ;-) I'm getting the clubs hunt test back again with a CC being offered this spring. That took a year and a half, hopefully a field trial will follow. I'm well aware of what it entails to work a national event. I work the national open every year and I don't even participate,hahaha.......
> 
> ...


I am going to take a guess here, but the FT at the specialties are open only to THOSE breeds, is this correct? So, why _wouldn't_ the Golden club and the FC club hold field trials at their specialties? It's a wonderful chance to only have to compete against your own breed, right???????? And I'm going to guess again that the majority of FT winners are not Flat Coats or Goldens (though I am well aware of the fact that there are some nice running GRs). 

I'd be willing to bet if a local field trial club were willing to put the time and effort into basically "putting on" a FT at the specialty, they'd listen. But as it is, I know that PSLRA and RCLRC and even our hrt club from C. WA helped out at the Natl hunt test this year. That meant dragging club trailers, club equipment, etc all the way to Portland (not positive about that but I think PSLRA may have brought some equipment). So one weekend is tied up w/ the hunt test. When would the Field trial be? Before or after? Can't have it at the same time as other events as some of us are doing multiple venues, so that probably would have meant holding any field trial earlier since I know the OR hunting season had something to do w/ the changes this year. Anne


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> I am going to take a guess here, but the FT at the specialties are open only to THOSE breeds, is this correct? So, why _wouldn't_ the Golden club and the FC club hold field trials at their specialties? It's a wonderful chance to only have to compete against your own breed, right???????? And I'm going to guess again that the majority of FT winners are not Flat Coats or Goldens (though I am well aware of the fact that there are some nice running GRs).


The GRCA and ACC both have specialty FT's. But, to become an FC or AFC you need an all-breed win.

Tom


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

twall said:


> The GRCA and ACC both have specialty FT's. But, to become an FC or AFC you need an all-breed win.
> 
> Tom


But can't they pick up some other points at a breed event? Sorry, not up on the regs for FTs.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

twall said:


> When selection criteria is very narrow other less desireable traits become acceptable. After a while "breed type" is lost. People that get involved in dogs sports tend to be attracted to what they are familiar with. Some people who came into the dogs sports from retriever field trials are not bothered by a lab whose profile more resembles a greyhound than a lab. Some who come in via conformation might say the only thing labrador about the above dog is their color.
> 
> Another factor confounding the problem is the number of labs being bred each year. This adds even more variety to the melting pot!
> 
> Tom


Great observation!

I'll just add that many don't understand the importance of having a breed standard. One which defines a BREED both physically and mentally. When at the sake of winning ribbons in any venue, we disregard those basic factors which define the breed, then we do it at the expense of the breed's integrity.


----------



## dreamer2385 (Jan 21, 2007)

I have goldens, and my first golden was show quality and an outstanding field dog. I soon found out that this was not always the case! I am for good looking field goldens. I love to see a great looking golden work in the field,and do great at field events. There is nothing better to see,and something to aim for and dream about. Congrats to all those golden owners/breeders who still reach for those ideals. Have a golden day,maria


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

They could do a D/Q in conjunction with the hunt test..... I believe that's what the Flatcoat club does....

Angie


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Hey Crackered, my mistake on the show point needed for the FTCH in England, it is actually required in Ireland. Here is the link I read it on, http://www.uklabs.com/sires/ben_2006_profile.pdf.

I did like the description you gave though.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> But can't they pick up some other points at a breed event? Sorry, not up on the regs for FTs.


Yes, points will count towards the championships. But, an all-breed win is still required.

Tom


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Ken Archer said:


> My Copper litter is out of Dyna, Archway's Blueberry Wine (3 bm, 2 ym and 2 yf). I believe this litter is going to go a long way proving that there are still some great conformation genetics still available in field-bred Labs if you take your time and are very selective in what you breed. With grand parents like Running With The Devil, Winifox Penny From Heaven, Code Blue, Kweezy, The Boss and a litter mate to FC Colonel Bowie's Revenge, these pups should have a lot of go in addition to the show.


That will be interesting to see. You will have to keep everyone informed. I just sold my last Copper pup, but Darla definitely isn't a show dog. I don't even know what you call her structure. I know that I have big muscular puppies!


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

Does anyone know of any conformation/MH litters on the ground. My training buddy Paul told me he is looking for a dog with a block head. He has a skinny dog but wants some more brain room up there...


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Kerrybrook dot com or something Chris Wincek. The man KNOWS his dogs.
________
marijuana


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> I'd be willing to bet if a local field trial club were willing to put the time and effort into basically "putting on" a FT at the specialty, they'd listen.


A couple years ago, the national Lab specialty was held the same weekend that MVRC was holding our fall trial in St. Louis. To my knowledge the only communication between the national club and MVRC was related to requesting permission to have the hunt test on the same grounds. 

I don't know why they don't show any interest in having FTs at the specialty, at least a D/Q. There is a rule limiting clubs to 2 trials per year with all age stakes (if my memory is correct.)


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I think this is a good place to repeat a post I put on a similar thread once. It is a viewpoint I found about breeding in a good book I read - "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by Lindsay. The section is called, "Origins of Selective Breeding."

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



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


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



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


So, this leads me to wonder what is more damaging to the integrity of the breed. Breeding for looks, or breeding for function (retrieving)? I have seen show breeders claim that they are breeding for physical functionality, dogs that can hold up to the rigors of what we expect from them in the field. So, show that your good looking dog can go out and beat the ugly one at it's game...


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Hey Buzz. I like the quotes from the book, however I think you are forgetting some very important factors to the Labrador. Is retrieving a key factor, of course it is, but it isn't the only factor. Go to an average HT/FT and check the coates on the dogs, some are good, but some are very bad. Now take that dog out in the below freezing temps like I do every weekend, and see how long that dog holds up swimming in frigid water. There are dozens of other items like this, don't just think that a Labs only job is retrieving. This is why taking a look at the total picture before breeding is so important, if we breed strictly for retrieving and speed, then we will end up with black grey hounds that need full body wet suits to go duck hunting.


----------



## tropicalsun (Jun 18, 2007)

This fine lab lives not far from me. I want one of his pups real bad! In my humble and not very qualified opinion, Laddy is an absolutely gorgeous hunting machine!

www.lockeonlabradors.com

Tropicalsun


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

tropicalsun said:


> This fine lab lives not far from me. I want one of his pups real bad! In my humble and not very qualified opinion, Laddy is an absolutely gorgeous hunting machine!
> www.lockeonlabradors.com
> Tropicalsun


I couldn't agree more!


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

The yellow dog in my avatar is a son of Laddy. So of course I too agree.


----------



## Locke (Jan 4, 2004)

Thanks Guys and Gals for the complements on Laddy. I will give Laddy a big pat on the head, before we go hunting this weekend. And as TS mentioned, Laddy is first and foremost a Hunting Machine. Don't be deceived by his CH, that was earned in a very short stint of his career. Anyone who knows him via training, hunt test, or hunting over him, knows that he is unaware that is he not supposed to be so damn bird crazy/driven since he has a CH in front of his name.  Happy hunting.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Locke said:


> Thanks Guys and Gals for the complements on Laddy. I will give Laddy a big pat on the head, before we go hunting this weekend. And as TS mentioned, Laddy is first and foremost a Hunting Machine. Don't be deceived by his CH, that was earned in a very short stint of his career. Anyone who knows him via training, hunt test, or hunting over him, knows that he is unaware that is he not supposed to be so damn bird crazy/driven since he has a CH in front of his name.  Happy hunting.



It's a huge misconception that a show dog can't be a good working, bird crazed dog. I know plenty of them! Laddy, Bandit, and many more on that CH/MH list ARE extraordinary Labs who happen to have the total package. Don't short change your boy one bit!!!!  Anne


----------



## David Barrow (Jun 14, 2005)

Locke,

Nice looking dog.

I have a bitch out of a CH/MHxMH that has both Open AA and Am AA points, has won several gundog stakes, and passed the only 2 Master Hunt Tests she has run, she has that same look in the face.

David


----------

