# Dual Champions-Why are they so rare



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

An excellent read in the current Field Issue of the Golden Retriever News. Although it is an excellent article, one that I enjoyed reading, I am disturbed at the thought that there will be a permanent split in the breed. This article by Judy Rasmuson includes statistics for Labs, Goldens, and Chessies. BTW, it looks like the Chessies don't have this problem while Labs and Goldens do.

No more Dual Champion Goldens?:sad:

Read it if you can.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I have to add that I hope that Judy Rasmuson has it all wrong.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I guess I personally don't understand why it's so disturbing? Who cares??? We all gravitate to what we enjoy. If you enjoy showing overstuffed "specials" in the breed ring? Good for you. If you want to run field trials with a golden whippet with long hair? Good for you.

Our country love's extremes. They want the fastest, the biggest the prettiest,,, you name it. 

It's just the way it is. Gone is the day of the moderate good looking dog that can get an FC and a CH. Oh Well...

It's pretty much a dead horse in my HO.

Angie


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

What were some of Judy's reason. 
Chesapeakes have a numbers advantage in not being as popular. Less demand = less breeding = less diversity(a blessing and a curse) Our few FC's also have less show competition to complete the DCH. 

JMO

Tim


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

Because breeders are at fault. Owning goldens from pure field and bench lines I can attest to the health issues in the bench lines only. My field line dogs have no lingering health issues. Labs and Goldens have been bred in two different worlds. Wake up folks it is time for out cross breedings.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

No offense Angie, but I understand Why it's disturbing. The breed standard is SUPPOSED to reflect a working dog. The standard is supposed to be that if the dog meets that standard it is built to do it's job in the field. It is a shame that we have gravitated to the point were BOTH sides have gotten away from that. The Chessie people have been very good about trying to maintain that. I also read an interesting article recently that said the reason we are seeing more & more ACL problems is because we are breeding taller leaner dogs with straighter rear legs which puts more and more pressure on the ACL. 
Yes, we do tend to gravitate toward the extreme, just because that is our nature doesn't mean it is good for the breed. Just my humble opinion and not try to step on any toes.


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

http://k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=44966

Push comes to Shove. Canadian Champ.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Well,,, unless field trials change and the breed ring changes it's not going to happen. Wish all you want and gnash your teeth over the "hopelessness" of it all. But it is what it is...

BTW I've seen field goldens with terrible temperaments too so it's not just a show golden thing.

Blahblahblah....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Steve Peacock said:


> No offense Angie, but I understand Why it's disturbing. The breed standard is SUPPOSED to reflect a working dog. The standard is supposed to be that if the dog meets that standard it is built to do it's job in the field. It is a shame that we have gravitated to the point were BOTH sides have gotten away from that. The Chessie people have been very good about trying to maintain that. I also read an interesting article recently that said the reason we are seeing more & more ACL problems is because we are breeding taller leaner dogs with straighter rear legs which puts more and more pressure on the ACL.
> Yes, we do tend to gravitate toward the extreme, just because that is our nature doesn't mean it is good for the breed. Just my humble opinion and not try to step on any toes.


Why is it bad for the breed??? The breed serves those that maintain it. If extremes are what the fancy wants then so be it...

I know all about the ACL thing and structure. I'm not sure that adhering to the breed standard would solve all the problems.

Angie


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Angie B said:


> I guess I personally don't understand why it's so disturbing? Who cares??? We all gravitate to what we enjoy. If you enjoy showing overstuffed "specials" in the breed ring? Good for you. If you want to run field trials with a golden whippet with long hair? Good for you.
> 
> Our country love's extremes. They want the fastest, the biggest the prettiest,,, you name it.
> 
> ...


Angie, you have a point. My point of view is a result of my prejudices and experiences. I got my first golden in the 70's, I remember when GR News was a newsletter that was black and white and stapled, and I remember some of those dual champions. I have an antiquated idea that a good looking golden and a Field Trial Champion could be the same dog.

PS I also believe form should follow function.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

FC goldens are rare as hen's teeth anyways, it's the FC glass ceiling that is the problem. You could take just about any decent looking golden and with enough big handlers get the CH.
DC is "just a title." It doesn't mean that much if the dog needed miracles to get it. If we never see another one it doesn't mean the breed has gone to hell in a hand basket. I think it's neither sad nor good that our breed is both extremely diverse/divergent. It just is.
Good dogs don't live long enough to do what they could be capable of.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Angie B said:


> Well,,, unless field trials change and the breed ring changes it's not going to happen. Wish all you want and gnash your teeth over the "hopelessness" of it all. But it is what it is...
> 
> BTW I've seen field goldens with terrible temperaments too so it's not just a show golden thing.
> 
> ...


I've seen them too. They should not be bred, maybe put down. We probably agree on this.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Angie B said:


> I guess I personally don't understand why it's so disturbing? Who cares??? We all gravitate to what we enjoy. If you enjoy showing overstuffed "specials" in the breed ring? Good for you. If you want to run field trials with a golden whippet with long hair? Good for you.
> 
> *Our country love's extremes. They want the fastest, the biggest the prettiest,,, you name it.*
> 
> ...


THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

In fact, this is a _terrible, dire_ thing.

Breed splits are bad for the same reason ruthlessly culling every EIC carrier is a bad thing: it purposelessly tightens your gene pool for possible short term gain, and pretty predictable trouble down the road.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.
> 
> In fact, this is a _terrible, dire_ thing.
> 
> Breed splits are bad for the same reason ruthlessly culling every EIC carrier is a bad thing: it purposelessly tightens your gene pool for possible short term gain, and pretty predictable trouble down the road.


Comment on EIC---Good to see some people truly understand how a sound breeding program with long term goals should be viewed.


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

Well folks. I took Kodi who is a Boomer son. ACL can be a thing of the past if you get a good diet and regular chiropractic an needles in the dogs back. in.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.
> 
> In fact, this is a _terrible, dire_ thing.
> 
> Breed splits are bad for the same reason ruthlessly culling every EIC carrier is a bad thing: it purposelessly tightens your gene pool for possible short term gain, and pretty predictable trouble down the road.


In goldens??? Are you kidding me?? Those that cull for one characteristic like carrier status will do little to to affect the breed one way or the other...

Bad analogy....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> Angie, you have a point. My point of view is a result of my prejudices and experiences. I got my first golden in the 70's, I remember when GR News was a newsletter that was black and white and stapled, and I remember some of those dual champions. I have an antiquated idea that a good looking golden and a Field Trial Champion could be the same dog.
> 
> PS I also believe form should follow function.


I was in goldens in the 70's and 80's too...;-)

Would you be so kind as to post up the breed standard. I think it would make for a really good discussion.

Angie


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

Take my rants from this forum.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Angie B said:


> In goldens??? Are you kidding me?? Those that cull for one characteristic like carrier status will do little to to affect the breed one way or the other...
> 
> Bad analogy....
> 
> Angie


I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. EIC was an example that has been discussed on this forum, including why carriers can have a place in a breeding program, so I thought it would be something people were familiar with.

The point I'm making is in any closed breeding population, you can _only lose genetic diversity._ This is not breed warfare, this is _math_. Overall low genetic diversity, high percentage of homozygous genes and low percentage of heterozygous genes is pretty well accepted to lead to compromised immune systems and less robust health. Low genetic diversity is not a good thing.

In a closed stud book, you can lose genetic diversity really, really fast, or reasonably slowly. IMO, the fault lies with competitive judging of breed stock. It casts the net too tightly. Instead of breeding "best to best," the rule of thumb should be "don't breed crap."


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Angie B said:


> I was in goldens in the 70's and 80's too...;-)
> 
> Would you be so kind as to post up the breed standard. I think it would make for a really good discussion.
> 
> Angie


Angie, I don't have a bone to pick with you. All I can say is that 1) there are several field goldens that are well within the breed standard 2) conformation people say "Ugh" (Typical comment-What are those dogs, Irish Setters?) 3) beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Just try to hunt one of those fluffies out of a Barnegat Bay Sneakbox or South Bay Duckboat and tell me how you like getting the water out of the boat, off your gun, out of your ammo, off your glasses, etc.


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

Well we know that you don't breed Crap. I never would. Us golden hobby breeder just do that. To enhance the breed. We may go into the show ring soon with a dog that should not be there to make a point with judges. Sorry I used to live in Raleigh. My computer customers worked for the AKC. Standards in all breeds must be maintained. Many people get off kilter and make puppies for money even with best intentions. Pretty is not practical in my book. Working dogs. Best of Breed is working and pretty. To go from the ring to the field with no poof is the best dog. If you can rinse them off by a camper from the salt sea and take them to a show in the afternoon to win is what I call a dog. Or from the salt marsh after a morning of hunting or a nice clear cold lake in Canada to a show. They win..


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

There was a particular very popular golden stud dog (conformation). Many bred to him. Very many bred to him. Then a particular health problem surfaced but was not "ahem" recognized. Several dogs in this line developed seizures. 
I think stuff like this doesn't get bred in performance dogs.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Performance dogs are not exempt from popular sire syndrome.

Winston Cap carried for CEA.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

The article by Judy on Dual Champions is going to be supplied to both the Chessie and LRC newsletters, with Judy's permission and their requests.

You will note she points out in her article that the Dual Champion in both Labs and Goldens in England is encountering the same results.

I hope you all have a chance to read it. It is very well written and a lot of thought has gone into it.

Glenda


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I'm sure the breed standard states something like, " a dog that is a willing, lively and capable companion on a day's hunt",, So how is that relaveant to today's FT?? Field trials aren't even close to resembling a days hunt so throw that one out. Then you have the physical description of how a golden should look to complete it's task as a hunting companion while being structurally sound. So what does that have to do with the breed ring??? Absolutely nothing...

It's a pipe dream long gone.. You can't make the breed standard fit the venues. Maybe 40 years ago but no longer. 

I wouldn't worry about it. The closest you're going to get is a CH/MH. Now that fits the breed standard. Maybe......

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

featherqwest said:


> Sorry Angie,
> 
> I have owned goldens for over 25 years. Field and bench stock as pets. My husband and older daughter had ADHD. My younger daughter has Autism. We are an active family. We scuba, hike, swim, gym, run walk, train dogs. We are green. I have PTSD from being beaten and raped while I was in the Army over 30 years ago. The goldens have been my stress relievers. I didn't know until this year. Nightmares. Being from a family where my dad was deaf and mother was off kilter just a bit. He was a physics professor and my mom a elementary school teacher. I have been deemed "normal". As many tests they run on me they say I am the only women vet who is stable with no record of anything.
> 
> ...


I'm glad your goldens have given you so much. They may not be champions in the breed ring or field but they're champions to you.

Angie


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

featherqwest said:


> ACL is a problem because the people who train the dogs and over extend them. They don't check the pulse or the body temp. Being a certified CNA for people I can do both on dogs and people.


With all due respect, I have a nursing degree and I hardly see how pulse and body temp will prevent this injury. After training dogs for 25 plus years I've come to appreciate that common sense is not that common when it comes to training. As well most injuries can be traced to genetics and or situation. 

And I wasted college on a degree I used for 3 whole years.

Pass me a beer

/ Paul


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

Common sense is the best thing when doing anything. I find that dogs give me something that the human can't. Unconditional love. I may have trained many generals and high ranking government peeps. I don't care what anyone thinks. I comes down to ethics. Breeding is a crap shoot. Yes I did have a dog with EIC. If I apply to my dogs what I do for myself I would still have Kasey. I gave him away to a good cause. No regrets. As a therapy dog he made everyone happy. Now Kodi who I got from the hells of Yellowstone is a hell of dog. He has sweet disposition but is all business in the field. He looks like **** but is handsome in his own way.. Curly coated and dark red field golden. Sorry Sungold wins here. Wyoming. Raised in Western Nebraska.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Angie B said:


> I'm sure the breed standard states something like, " a dog that is a willing, lively and capable companion on a day's hunt",, So how is that relaveant to today's FT?? Field trials aren't even close to resembling a days hunt so throw that one out. Then you have the physical description of how a golden should look to complete it's task as a hunting companion while being structurally sound. So what does that have to do with the breed ring??? Absolutely nothing...
> 
> It's a pipe dream long gone.. You can't make the breed standard fit the venues. Maybe 40 years ago but no longer.
> 
> ...


You read the article!


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Golden Retriever Breed Standard
Sporting Group

General Appearance
A symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. Overall appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts. Faults--Any departure from the described ideal shall be considered faulty to the degree to which it interferes with the breed’s purpose or is contrary to breed character.

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.

Head
Broad in skull, slightly arched laterally and longitudinally without prominence of frontal bones (forehead) or occipital bones. Stop well defined but not abrupt. Foreface deep and wide, nearly as long as skull. Muzzle straight in profile, blending smooth and strongly into skull; when viewed in profile or from above, slightly deeper and wider at stop than at tip. No heaviness in flews. Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred. Eyes friendly and intelligent in expression, medium large with dark, close-fitting rims, set well apart and reasonably deep in sockets. Color preferably dark brown; medium brown acceptable. Slant eyes and narrow, triangular eyes detract from correct expression and are to be faulted. No white or haw visible when looking straight ahead. Dogs showing evidence of functional abnormality of eyelids or eyelashes (such as, but not limited to, trichiasis, entropion, ectropion, or distichiasis) are to be excused from the ring. Ears rather short with front edge attached well behind and just above the eye and falling close to cheek. When pulled forward, tip of ear should just cover the eye. Low, hound-like ear set to be faulted. Nose black or brownish black, though fading to a lighter shade in cold weather not serious. Pink nose or one seriously lacking in pigmentation to be faulted. Teeth scissors bite, in which the outer side of the lower incisors touches the inner side of the upper incisors. Undershot or overshot bite is a disqualification. Misalignment of teeth (irregular placement of incisors) or a level bite (incisors meet each other edge to edge) is undesirable, but not to be confused with undershot or overshot. Full dentition. Obvious gaps are serious faults.

Neck, Topline, Body
Neck medium long, merging gradually into well laid back shoulders, giving sturdy, muscular appearance. No throatiness. Backline strong and level from withers to slightly sloping croup, whether standing or moving. Sloping backline, roach or sway back, flat or steep croup to be faulted. Body well balanced, short coupled, deep through the chest. Chest between forelegs at least as wide as a man’s closed hand including thumb, with well developed forechest. Brisket extends to elbow. Ribs long and well sprung but not barrel shaped, extending well towards hindquarters. Loin short, muscular, wide and deep, with very little tuck-up. Slab-sidedness, narrow chest, lack of depth in brisket, excessive tuck-up to be faulted. Tail well set on, thick and muscular at the base, following the natural line of the croup. Tail bones extend to, but not below, the point of hock. Carried with merry action, level or with some moderate upward curve; never curled over back nor between legs.

Forequarters
Muscular, well coordinated with hindquarters and capable of free movement. Shoulder blades long and well laid back with upper tips fairly close together at withers. Upper arms appear about the same length as the blades, setting the elbows back beneath the upper tip of the blades, close to the ribs without looseness. Legs, viewed from the front, straight with good bone, but not to the point of coarseness. Pasterns short and strong, sloping slightly with no suggestion of weakness. Dewclaws on forelegs may be removed, but are normally left on. Feet medium size, round, compact, and well knuckled, with thick pads. Excess hair may be trimmed to show natural size and contour. Splayed or hare feet to be faulted.

Hindquarters
Broad and strongly muscled. Profile of croup slopes slightly; the pelvic bone slopes at a slightly greater angle (approximately 30 degrees from horizontal). In a natural stance, the femur joins the pelvis at approximately a 90-degree angle; stifles well bent; hocks well let down with short, strong rear pasterns. Feet as in front. Legs straight when viewed from rear. Cow-hocks, spread hocks, and sickle hocks to be faulted.

Coat
Dense and water-repellent with good undercoat. Outer coat firm and resilient, neither coarse nor silky, lying close to body; may be straight or wavy. Untrimmed natural ruff; moderate feathering on back of forelegs and on underbody; heavier feathering on front of neck, back of thighs and underside of tail. Coat on head, paws, and front of legs is short and even. Excessive length, open coats, and limp, soft coats are very undesirable. Feet may be trimmed and stray hairs neatened, but the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping.

Color
Rich, lustrous golden of various shades. Feathering may be lighter than rest of coat. With the exception of graying or whitening of face or body due to age, any white marking, other than a few white hairs on the chest, should be penalized according to its extent. Allowable light shadings are not to be confused with white markings. Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Some latitude should be given to the light puppy whose coloring shows promise of deepening with maturity. Any noticeable area of black or other off-color hair is a serious fault.

Gait
When trotting, gait is free, smooth, powerful and well coordinated, showing good reach. Viewed from any position, legs turn neither in nor out, nor do feet cross or interfere with each other. As speed increases, feet tend to converge toward center line of balance. It is recommended that dogs be shown on a loose lead to reflect true gait.

Temperament
Friendly, reliable, and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility towards other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character. Such actions should be penalized according to their significance.

Disqualifications
Deviation in height of more than one inch from standard either way.
Undershot or overshot bite.

Approved October 13, 1981
Reformatted August 18, 1990


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

I am just a golden owner who believes in living what my grandfather did in Iowa with his hound. He fed his family on pheasant in the fields in Iowa to build the family farm. Homesteaders. Yes my family lived in grass huts in Iowa. What do I think. From a bunch of hardy Scotts Irish German folks who made due with what they had. I am all American from the 1600's. What can I say. The American Way ....


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Steve Peacock

Thanks for the breed standard. Proper coat for a waterdog jumps out at me.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> You read the article!


No I didn't but I was president of the lab club in Dallas for a number of years. ;-)

The breed standard is a gun dog that is a family companion that is structurally correct. Sound of temperament and mind.

I'd stick to that and not worry about the breed ring or field trials... 

Angie


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I haven't read Judy's article yet, but if I were guessing, it would be that an FC is such an incredible accomplishment that the bench CH is kind of an anti-climax after getting the FC 

Quar, Clickety Click, and Ronaker's Novato Cain all got their CHs after they had already finished their FCs. I remember Bow's owner telling me that he found the best top handler & gave him the money & the instructions to "just do it quick".

We might also keep in mind that it was also easier to get a CH those many years ago, (the breed was less popular, so it took less dogs for a major), just as some will say that it was easier to get an FC. 



Having a "split" in the breed is not all bad. Having two parallel gene pools can also mean that if one group runs into a really disastrous genetic issue, they can look to the other gene pool for an outcross, without having to open the stud book to dogs with "dubious" pedigrees. There are breeds, of small total numbers, which have been faced with that solution.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Why are they so rare? Simple.
Watch this video and can you picture any of these winning a field trial? 

http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/breed_judging/sporting/2008_4/retriever-labrador/v217241


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Sorry, I could not watch the video, my stomach was turning.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Losthwy said:


> Why are they so rare? Simple.
> Watch this video and can you picture any of these winning a field trial?
> 
> http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/breed_judging/sporting/2008_4/retriever-labrador/v217241


Holy Smoke! What a bunch of swine!!! OK... fine... they want short, stumpy dogs with short muzzles. But what is with all the blubber??? I would bet those pigs are 30 to 40% overweight and haven't got any muscle under the fat.

I've heard the line that the fat is supposed to give them that "square profile" that makes dogs look "solid" and "powerful". Complete cr*p. It doesn't make them look strong, but it sure does stress their spines, hips and elbows. 

(I have an acquaintance with a CH lab she was trying to get a UD on. He was good at the obedience stuff. But she kept the poundage on the dog so she could show him in some specialties. Consequently, he started injuring his elbows going over the jumps. She kept him fat, dropped the Ob and is still putting him dog shows.) 

If you are dealing with people who think obesity in dogs is beautiful, this dialogue is not going to favor re-uniting the breed.


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

I would love to know what the Vet's working for the feed company's that sponser the show think of the condition of those dogs.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

featherqwest said:


> Well ...... I have been in 5 car accidents in the past 10 years...........


 
this is why I drive in fear on the Mass Pike. 
Three lanes of very crazy people going 80 miles per hour. 
You guys scare me.:shock:

.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

http://video.westminsterkennelclub....ging/sporting/2008_4/retriever-golden/v217183

And these are the Goldens from the same Westminster show.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Labrador Retriever Breed Standard

General 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.

Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort. The typical Labrador possesses style and quality without over refinement, and substance without lumber or cloddiness. The Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog; structure and soundness are of great importance.

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.

The minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age.

Proportion--Short-coupled; length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper. The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long or tall and leggy in outline. Substance--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat.

Head
Skull--The skull should be wide; well developed but without exaggeration. The skull and foreface should be on parallel planes and of approximately equal length. There should be a moderate stop--the brow slightly pronounced so that the skull is not absolutely in a straight line with the nose. The brow ridges aid in defining the stop. The head should be clean-cut and free from fleshy cheeks; the bony structure of the skull chiseled beneath the eye with no prominence in the cheek. The skull may show some median line; the occipital bone is not conspicuous in mature dogs. Lips should not be squared off or pendulous, but fall away in a curve toward the throat. A wedge-shape head, or a head long and narrow in muzzle and back skull is incorrect as are massive, cheeky heads. The jaws are powerful and free from snippiness-- the muzzle neither long and narrow nor short and stubby. Nose-- The nose should be wide and the nostrils well-developed. The nose should be black on black or yellow dogs, and brown on chocolates. Nose color fading to a lighter shade is not a fault. A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment is a disqualification. Teeth--The teeth should be strong and regular with a scissors bite; the lower teeth just behind, but touching the inner side of the upper incisors. A level bite is acceptable, but not desirable. Undershot, overshot, or misaligned teeth are serious faults. Full dentition is preferred. Missing molars or pre-molars are serious faults. Ears--The ears should hang moderately close to the head, set rather far back, and somewhat low on the skull; slightly above eye level. Ears should not be large and heavy, but in proportion with the skull and reach to the inside of the eye when pulled forward. Eyes--Kind, friendly eyes imparting good temperament, intelligence and alertness are a hallmark of the breed. They should be of medium size, set well apart, and neither protruding nor deep set. Eye color should be brown in black and yellow Labradors, and brown or hazel in chocolates. Black, or yellow eyes give a harsh expression and are undesirable. Small eyes, set close together or round prominent eyes are not typical of the breed. Eye rims are black in black and yellow Labradors; and brown in chocolates. Eye rims without pigmentation is a disqualification.

Neck, Topline and Body
Neck--The neck should be of proper length to allow the dog to retrieve game easily. It should be muscular and free from throatiness. The neck should rise strongly from the shoulders with a moderate arch. A short, thick neck or a "ewe" neck is incorrect. Topline--The back is strong and the topline is level from the withers to the croup when standing or moving. However, the loin should show evidence of flexibility for athletic endeavor. Body--The Labrador should be short-coupled, with good spring of ribs tapering to a moderately wide chest. The Labrador should not be narrow chested; giving the appearance of hollowness between the front legs, nor should it have a wide spreading, bulldog-like front. Correct chest conformation will result in tapering between the front legs that allows unrestricted forelimb movement. Chest breadth that is either too wide or too narrow for efficient movement and stamina is incorrect. Slab-sided individuals are not typical of the breed; equally objectionable are rotund or barrel chested specimens. The underline is almost straight, with little or no tuck-up in mature animals. Loins should be short, wide and strong; extending to well developed, powerful hindquarters. When viewed from the side, the Labrador Retriever shows a well-developed, but not exaggerated forechest. Tail--The tail is a distinguishing feature of the breed. It should be very thick at the base, gradually tapering toward the tip, of medium length, and extending no longer than to the hock. The tail should be free from feathering and clothed thickly all around with the Labrador’s short, dense coat, thus having that peculiar rounded appearance that has been described as the "otter" tail. The tail should follow the topline in repose or when in motion. It may be carried gaily, but should not curl over the back. Extremely short tails or long thin tails are serious faults. The tail completes the balance of the Labrador by giving it a flowing line from the top of the head to the tip of the tail. Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail is a disqualification.

Forequarters
Forequarters should be muscular, well coordinated and balanced with the hindquarters. Shoulders--The shoulders are well laid-back, long and sloping, forming an angle with the upper arm of approximately 90 degrees that permits the dog to move his forelegs in an easy manner with strong forward reach. Ideally, the length of the shoulder blade should equal the length of the upper arm. Straight shoulder blades, short upper arms or heavily muscled or loaded shoulders, all restricting free movement, are incorrect. Front Legs--When viewed from the front, the legs should be straight with good strong bone. Too much bone is as undesirable as too little bone, and short legged, heavy boned individuals are not typical of the breed. Viewed from the side, the elbows should be directly under the withers, and the front legs should be perpendicular to the ground and well under the body. The elbows should be close to the ribs without looseness. Tied-in elbows or being "out at the elbows" interfere with free movement and are serious faults. Pasterns should be strong and short and should slope slightly from the perpendicular line of the leg. Feet are strong and compact, with well-arched toes and well-developed pads. Dew claws may be removed. Splayed feet, hare feet, knuckling over, or feet turning in or out are serious faults.

Hindquarters
The Labrador’s hindquarters are broad, muscular and well-developed from the hip to the hock with well-turned stifles and strong short hocks. Viewed from the rear, the hind legs are straight and parallel. Viewed from the side, the angulation of the rear legs is in balance with the front. The hind legs are strongly boned, muscled with moderate angulation at the stifle, and powerful, clearly defined thighs. The stifle is strong and there is no slippage of the patellae while in motion or when standing. The hock joints are strong, well let down and do not slip or hyper-extend while in motion or when standing. Angulation of both stifle and hock joint is such as to achieve the optimal balance of drive and traction. When standing the rear toes are only slightly behind the point of the rump. Over angulation produces a sloping topline not typical of the breed. Feet are strong and compact, with well-arched toes and well-developed pads. Cow-hocks, spread hocks, sickle hocks and over-angulation are serious structural defects and are to be faulted.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Coat
The coat is a distinctive feature of the Labrador Retriever. It should be short, straight and very dense, giving a fairly hard feeling to the hand. The Labrador should have a soft, weather-resistant undercoat that provides protection from water, cold and all types of ground cover. A slight wave down the back is permissible. Woolly coats, soft silky coats, and sparse slick coats are not typical of the breed, and should be severely penalized.

Color
The Labrador Retriever coat colors are black, yellow and chocolate. Any other color or a combination of colors is a disqualification. A small white spot on the chest is permissible, but not desirable. White hairs from aging or scarring are not to be misinterpreted as brindling. Black--Blacks are all black. A black with brindle markings or a black with tan markings is a disqualification. Yellow--Yellows may range in color from fox-red to light cream, with variations in shading on the ears, back, and underparts of the dog. Chocolate--Chocolates can vary in shade from light to dark chocolate. Chocolate with brindle or tan markings is a disqualification.

Movement
Movement of the Labrador Retriever should be free and effortless. When watching a dog move toward oneself, there should be no sign of elbows out. Rather, the elbows should be held neatly to the body with the legs not too close together. Moving straight forward without pacing or weaving, the legs should form straight lines, with all parts moving in the same plane. Upon viewing the dog from the rear, one should have the impression that the hind legs move as nearly as possible in a parallel line with the front legs. The hocks should do their full share of the work, flexing well, giving the appearance of power and strength. When viewed from the side, the shoulders should move freely and effortlessly, and the foreleg should reach forward close to the ground with extension. A short, choppy movement or high knee action indicates a straight shoulder; paddling indicates long, weak pasterns; and a short, stilted rear gait indicates a straight rear assembly; all are serious faults. Movement faults interfering with performance including weaving; side-winding; crossing over; high knee action; paddling; and short, choppy movement, should be severely penalized.

Temperament
True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the breed as the "otter" tail. The ideal disposition is one of a kindly, outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards man or animal. The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog. Aggressiveness towards humans or other animals, or any evidence of shyness in an adult should be severely penalized.

Disqualifications

Any deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
Eye rims without pigment.
Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail.
Any other color or a combination of colors other than black, yellow or chocolate as described in the Standard.

Approved February 12, 1994
Effective March 31, 1994


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

Losthwy said:


> Why are they so rare? Simple.
> Watch this video and can you picture any of these winning a field trial?
> 
> http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/breed_judging/sporting/2008_4/retriever-labrador/v217241



oh my....Look at this video http://video.westminsterkennelclub....ing/2008_4/pointer-german-shorthaired/v217353


Our GSP won 1st place in Field trial one weekend and Winners Bitch at GSP Regional Specialty the next. She has 7 pts towards her DC and 4 towards AFC. I love talking to her breeder about structure and proper movement. Her DC "Brit" had 49 best in shows and 140+ Group Ones in the show ring. I admire her for continuing to strive for DC purpose dogs. 

My husband showed his FT GSP at specialty show (field trial class) The judge made several comments about marks and scars on ear flaps and head (he had just shown in field weekend prior). He commented, "Ma'am this is a REAL bird dog currently competing in the field." She shook her head and walked on down the line...He was already a breed champion by then (had won Best Puppy in Show as a youngster) but was a working dog with scars to prove it and incredibly fit. Maybe we should work on judge's perception of what a working dog in the show ring show be??


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I think GSPs are one of the breeds that have, indeed, kept a good representation of working dogs in their breed. Have often thought that one might want to look toward judges whose background is in GSPs if they contemplate showing their working retrievers.


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

My husband and I have done judge's hospitality at our local kennel club several years. A couple of the judges were former lab owners/breeders/handlers. The comments that they made were interesting. I do know that GSPCA has a judge's education seminar at nationals every year with a huge turnout. They pick many dogs from the exhibitors as examples especially if there are hunt test or field trial dogs in working condition present.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> Why are they so rare? Simple.
> Watch this video and can you picture any of these winning a field trial?
> 
> http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/breed_judging/sporting/2008_4/retriever-labrador/v217241


CH Blackwater Friar Tuck SH O/H Joyce Shaw

Chesapeake Best of Breed at Westminster, Qualified All-Age and recent sire

Tim


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I just read Judy's article. It is so right-on.

There was just a discoussion on the other thread of "Top Field Goldens" about how Goldens are so heavily outnumbered by Labs in field trials ... in both overall numbers entered and #s of FCs and/or AFCs.

However, Judy notes that in spite of the overwhelming numerical superiority of Labs, there have only been 37 Dual Labs; and 9 Dual Goldens. The last Dual Lab in 1984. The last Dual Golden in 1979. It's been a long dry spell for both breeds!

BUT, when it comes to Chessies ... far less in numbers, they have had *18* Duals, the last in 2006! The reason, she presents, is that the owners/breeders of Chessies have kept the working dog and conformation dog much closer to being the same, without the "split" of the Goldens and Labs.

I was there the day that Bruce Mitchell's Deck got his FC ... and, to my eye, he was truly a handsome representative of a Chessie. In speaking to Bruce, I learned that he had finished his CH so quickly that some of the show people were glad they wouldn't be having to compete with him anymore 

Another interesting stat from Judy's article is that there have been 28 CH/MHs in Goldens; 51 CH/MHs in Labs. You'd almost expect a bigger gap there since the Labs outnumber Goldens at the Master level in AKC hunt test entries almost as much as they outnumber Goldens in field trial entries. 

Judy's conclusion is that the split occurred in Labs and Goldens because they experienced such a high popularity surge among the general pet public. Chessies never had to go through that kind of dramatic surge. That enabled the Chessies to stay truer to their original "design".

Her other conclusion is that the split in the Labs and Goldens created such extremes, that the epitome of each different group can no longer expect to "fit" in the other group's higher ranks. I would agree.

The only thing I might disagree with is that we should just forget about seeing another Dual in these breeds. My own opinion might be that there will always be people who will have a dream ... and maybe one day the stars will align with the right dog and the right person. I think Push could have been the Golden to do it (as he did do in Canada) ... but life interfered. As long as there are dogs like him who come along, albeit rarely, it will give people a reason to dream. (so my signature explains)


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

If there are people who would like to read Judy's article, I could try scanning it to send to you privately as a pdf attachment.

If interested, please contact me directly at the email address in my signature. PM too cumbersome for sending an attachment ... since I wouldn't know how to do it 

Do remember that it would be copyrighted, so you can't publish it anywhere without getting Judy's and GRCA's permission.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I don't think the breed standard was written with playing dog games (field trials, hunt tests) in mind. When it says, "primarily a hunting dog" it does not say, "primarily a hunt test dog". 
For those of you who are dissing the heavier coats, think hunting, not playing dog games. The reason these dogs have heavier "pants" and thick tails is to act as insulation on cold ground over long periods of time. Necessary for a 10 minute dog game? Nope. For a day's hunt, yes, I'd want my dog to have a bit of fur and a nice thick undercoat.
Same with the belly furnishings. It's a drip rim. Watch a correctly coated golden when wet, the water wicks away from their entire body (the coat should fit the dog "like a jacket" if it's correct) and drips off the belly furnishings. The dog is dry in no time.
The ruff on the neck protects the dog from sticks and brambles. Sturdy bones and a slight (SLIGHT!) fat coating help the dog stay warm, too. 
While I will be the first to admit there are a lot of overdone (especially coat) goldens in the breed ring, there are also moderate, correct dogs winning. The best judges in my experience have been the breeder judges. They will put up a correct dog and ignore "flashy". They are familiar with the breed standard and the purpose of the dog.
But it seems some of the show people often adopt a "more is better" attitude, if a big coat is winning, then a bigger coat should be winning more. Again, straying from the purpose of the breed standard, "primarily a hunting dog". The judges reward the "flashy" dogs, so some breeders breed for more and more flash without the underlying perfection of the structure.
So we may never see another DC golden. Why would it matter, since the standard has nothing to do with field trials, and field trials have very little to do with hunting.
Now if there are goldens bred to the actual breed standard who can get out and hunt all day, now THAT's a dual champion dog.
JMHAOWO.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> For those of you who are dissing the heavier coats, think hunting, not playing dog games. The reason these dogs have heavier "pants" and thick tails is to act as insulation on cold ground over long periods of time. Necessary for a 10 minute dog game? Nope. For a day's hunt, yes, I'd want my dog to have a bit of fur and a nice thick undercoat.
> Same with the belly furnishings. It's a drip rim. Watch a correctly coated golden when wet, the water wicks away from their entire body (the coat should fit the dog "like a jacket" if it's correct) and drips off the belly furnishings. The dog is dry in no time.
> The ruff on the neck protects the dog from sticks and brambles. Sturdy bones and a slight (SLIGHT!) fat coating help the dog stay warm, too.
> While I will be the first to admit there are a lot of overdone (especially coat) goldens in the breed ring, there are also moderate, correct dogs winning. The best judges in my experience have been the breeder judges. They will put up a correct dog and ignore "flashy". They are familiar with the breed standard and the purpose of the dog.


So very true. QUANTITY of coat is not nearly so important as QUALITY. 




> But it seems some of the show people often adopt a "more is better" attitude, if a big coat is winning, then a bigger coat should be winning more. Again, straying from the purpose of the breed standard, "primarily a hunting dog". The judges reward the "flashy" dogs, so some breeders breed for more and more flash without the underlying perfection of the structure.
> So we may never see another DC golden. Why would it matter, since the standard has nothing to do with field trials, and field trials have very little to do with hunting.
> *Now if there are goldens bred to the actual breed standard who can get out and hunt all day, now THAT's a dual champion dog.
> JMHAOWO.*


I am in agreement with the bold.

However, I think it's important to keep in mind that field trials reward extremes just as much as conformation shows. In a field of very good dogs, which one goes home with the win?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't think the breed standard was written with playing dog games (field trials, hunt tests) in mind. When it says, "primarily a hunting dog" it does not say, "primarily a hunt test dog".
> For those of you who are dissing the heavier coats, think hunting, not playing dog games. The reason these dogs have heavier "pants" and thick tails is to act as insulation on cold ground over long periods of time. Necessary for a 10 minute dog game? Nope. For a day's hunt, yes, I'd want my dog to have a bit of fur and a nice thick undercoat.
> Same with the belly furnishings. It's a drip rim. Watch a correctly coated golden when wet, the water wicks away from their entire body (the coat should fit the dog "like a jacket" if it's correct) and drips off the belly furnishings. The dog is dry in no time.
> 
> ...


We all whine a lot (myself included) about how the field trials and hunt tests have become more difficult & ever more "stylized" to suit our human whims ... yet they also also continue to amaze me how they continue to raise the bar in how much they can learn and accomplish.


----------



## Jared77 (Oct 7, 2009)

One should talk to the Vizsla people too if you want a true dual purpose breed. They've worked hard to make sure the CH dogs can work in the field as well.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Cowboy Magic Mane and Tail detangler is about the best thing since sliced bread  

"....Even Goldens with the less abundant coats can be a brutal challenge when their chest hair becomes literally chain mail armor plate with burrs! Ditto for belly and tail. The only part that is no problem is the body "jacket"...."


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

Just wondering: did they have the kind of burrs in the local in Scotland where goldens originated? Briars, yes, but they usually come off in a stringy manner and don't quite so wound up into a tight mass like cockleburrs.

Debbie


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Cowboy Magic Mane and Tail detangler is about the best thing since sliced bread
> 
> "....Even Goldens with the less abundant coats can be a brutal challenge when their chest hair becomes literally chain mail armor plate with burrs! Ditto for belly and tail. The only part that is no problem is the body "jacket"...."


 
vaseline works 10X faster and easier


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I just use my penknife to slit those burrs which then just fall apart. With some of the other seeds, to quote my friend Viejito, "I don't do anything with those seeds. They fall off on their own."


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

but Cowboy Magic doesn't leave the coat oily, doesn't need to be washed out, and smells wonderful 



Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> vaseline works 10X faster and easier


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Would love to see every Lab weighed before going into a show ring. Not going to happen but would be very interesting...lol


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't think the breed standard was written with playing dog games (field trials, hunt tests) in mind. When it says, "primarily a hunting dog" it does not say, "primarily a hunt test dog".
> For those of you who are dissing the heavier coats, think hunting, not playing dog games. The reason these dogs have heavier "pants" and thick tails is to act as insulation on cold ground over long periods of time. Necessary for a 10 minute dog game? Nope. For a day's hunt, yes, I'd want my dog to have a bit of fur and a nice thick undercoat.
> Same with the belly furnishings. It's a drip rim. Watch a correctly coated golden when wet, the water wicks away from their entire body (the coat should fit the dog "like a jacket" if it's correct) and drips off the belly furnishings. The dog is dry in no time.
> The ruff on the neck protects the dog from sticks and brambles. Sturdy bones and a slight (SLIGHT!) fat coating help the dog stay warm, too.
> ...


I may regret jumping into this and, sadly, I need to renew my GRCA membership, so haven't seen the field issue. That said, when you look back at the Dual CHs of yesteryear do you not see a HUGE difference between how the breed has evolved??? The reason that Chessies and Flatcoats still can claim (Flatcoats are not seen as much in FTs, but have maintained their original standard-there is no field vs show) Dual CHs is that they haven't deviated from the original standard. Any Golden person who feels otherwise isn't willing to look back at Dual Champions or has their head buried in the sand.

M


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Thank You Miriam.
Well said.
Please do look at the CH of yesteryear.
Sue


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> vaseline works 10X faster and easier


I'm not going to touch that one.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Please give hotel4dogs her props. She has her head on right. She is trying very hard to bring the conformation and field together. She doesn't want to perpetuate the split that we have. I am familiar with some of her breedings and feel comfortable saying this.

I love my dog, love what I have, spent today pheasant hunting with her. I have to admit, she doesn't look like former Dual Champions either.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

If you are referring to my post as "head in the sand" (since you quoted it, I assume you are) I want to point out this part of it again.

"...But it seems some of the show people often adopt a "more is better" attitude, if a big coat is winning, then a bigger coat should be winning more. Again, straying from the purpose of the breed standard, "primarily a hunting dog". The judges reward the "flashy" dogs, so some breeders breed for more and more flash without the underlying perfection of the structure...."




Miriam Wade said:


> I may regret jumping into this and, sadly, I need to renew my GRCA membership, so haven't seen the field issue. That said, when you look back at the Dual CHs of yesteryear do you not see a HUGE difference between how the breed has evolved??? The reason that Chessies and Flatcoats still can claim (Flatcoats are not seen as much in FTs, but have maintained their original standard-there is no field vs show) Dual CHs is that they haven't deviated from the original standard. Any Golden person who feels otherwise isn't willing to look back at Dual Champions or has their head buried in the sand.
> 
> M


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Thanks GDGNYC. 
I do want to clarify, though, that I am not a breeder. He refers to the litters for which my boy has been used at stud. 




gdgnyc said:


> Please give hotel4dogs her props. She has her head on right. She is trying very hard to bring the conformation and field together. She doesn't want to perpetuate the split that we have. I am familiar with some of her breedings and feel comfortable saying this.
> 
> I love my dog, love what I have, spent today pheasant hunting with her. I have to admit, she doesn't look like former Dual Champions either.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Miriam Wade said:


> I may regret jumping into this and, sadly, I need to renew my GRCA membership, so haven't seen the field issue. That said, when you look back at the Dual CHs of yesteryear do you not see a HUGE difference between how the breed has evolved??? The reason that Chessies and Flatcoats still can claim (Flatcoats are not seen as much in FTs, but have maintained their original standard-there is no field vs show) Dual CHs is that they haven't deviated from the original standard. Any Golden person who feels otherwise isn't willing to look back at Dual Champions or has their head buried in the sand.
> 
> M


Are the FTs of the 50s, 60s and 70s the same as today's trials? Both sports (show & FT) have evolved, the winners are now more specialized in both. 
Yeah the DC goldens of yore don't look exactly like what you see today but you can say that about EVERY BREED. It's an old and fruitless argument that serves no one. 
I personally believe we are capable of seeing another DC golden in the future. I think it's possible. It will take the right breeder, the right owner, and the right dog. Maybe the issue is, not enough people aim for that goal? Who out there in recent years has given it a shot? Terry Thornton & Sabre certainly, but who else? 
Even if it doesn't happen, I don't think in the long run it affects our breed as a whole. 
Join GRCA and get the GRNews.


----------



## Rudd (Jan 9, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> I'm not going to touch that one.


I'm sure that's how Paul intended it, he's the only one touching it.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Rudd said:


> I'm sure that's how Paul intended it, he's the only one touching it.


works great of cockleburs...just graber a handful and work it in and towel it off...


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> The reason that Chessies and Flatcoats still can claim (Flatcoats are not seen as much in FTs, but have maintained their original standard-there is no field vs show) Dual CHs is that they haven't deviated from the original standard.


And Judy's article attributes this to the fact that those two breeds didn't experience the huge surge in registrations & popularity for pet owners that Labs and Goldens did. That seems a reasonable explanation.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

hotel4dogs said:


> If you are referring to my post as "head in the sand" (since you quoted it, I assume you are) I want to point out this part of it again.
> 
> "...But it seems some of the show people often adopt a "more is better" attitude, if a big coat is winning, then a bigger coat should be winning more. Again, straying from the purpose of the breed standard, "primarily a hunting dog". The judges reward the "flashy" dogs, so some breeders breed for more and more flash without the underlying perfection of the structure...."


One thing I hate about the Internet is that tone doesn't come through and things get misconstrued. I wasn't attacking anyone or saying that you in particular have your head in the sand. Sorry if it was construed that way.

I just do find it amazing that few are able to look back at the breed and admit that there is now a split because of breedings that, in order to produce the heavy boned, heavy coated, over domed, etc., etc dogs-many who have no inherent birdiness and are nowhere near being "primarily a hunting dog"-have in fact deviated greatly from the original conformation and overall makeup. Then they turn around and say that "field Goldens" are incorrect in conformation.

It is an age old argument now and it makes more sense to take one's forehead and repeatedly bang it against any hard object than to try and "win" anyone over who has already made up their mind and doesn't want to look back at the original intent and conformation.

However, one last thing. The comment was made that ALL breeds have seen this deviation and it's simply not true. Gerry Clinchy's point about breed popularity and a supply and demand for pet homes almost always leads to some (not all!) breeders no longer caring about fostering a breed's original intent. Birdiness is not a requirement of someone who has no intention of ever hunting the dog. Again, the Chessies and Flatcoats and many other sporting breeds have dogs in the comformation ring today that look like they did years ago.

The Border Collie-those who work their dogs and appreciate their intelligence and drive-railed when the breed was going to become an AKC accepted breed. They knew that it could signal the demise of the breed as they know it if folks who loved the aesthetics of the breed no longer bred for the inherent qualities. A Border Collie makes a poor choice for someone who isn't going to give it the mental and physical stimulation it needs, but someone only breeding for certain markings and to supply pet homes may not care about fostering the working aspect of a breed.

Ok-off my soapbox and done with the thread. I didn't mean to offend anyone. I do hope (& I obviously want to read it) that anyone who read Judy Rasmussen's article did so wih an open mind and the ability to step back and look back to Dual Champions and ask themselves why the breed has deviated so far from the original standard that the dogs today look nothing like the dogs who could hunt all day, run a field trial and wash and wear a win (i.e no need for excessive trimming and grooming!) in the conformation ring.

M


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

"...no need for excessive trimming and grooming.."

Excessive trimming and grooming to make a dog look more correct (prettier or more sound?) is just not my cup of tea. Comment at my obedience class..."What's with Buffy's whiskers? Next class I'm bringing my scissors."

I had read many years ago (30?) that trimmed whiskers somehow interfered with proper development of the sensory neurons. Why must they be cut?

And now let's see what happens to Boykins. I expect to see this nice gundog now get ruined. Every one of us in my training group really like the two Boykins that train with us.


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

I know what stud you are talking about. Two of my goldens from this stud who was bred too much did have EIC and seizures. Lilly has them now at 12. They were bench lines for the most part. From top breeders yes.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

I did want to add just one more thing to quantify what I wrote.

I had a Newfoundland years ago. I had no show or training experience, but bought her from a very good breeder from across the country from where I lived. I asked for a show quality pup and got one. At six months of age, on a trip back to VT, the breeder asked to buy her back. I couldn't do it, but promised to show her. In the process, I joined the Newfoundland Club of America and started reading about water and draft titles and was intrigued. One of the things that stood out about "Newf Tide", the club publication, was the fact that, from the movers and shakers in the Newfy breed to the one or two dog owner-almost all participated in conformationAND water and draft. It was very common to have a fun (conformation) match one day and a draft or water test the following day and they were all the same dogs and handlers. The working aspect of the breed wasn't an afterthought, but an integral part of it. In retrospect and as it relates to the Golden -it really stands out how active the Newfy club was in providing education and networks to foster the inherent traits of the breed.

Long story short: Annie got her CH almost undefeated. Having no clubs where I lived, I trained for draft and water alone. Ha! I used to put her on a sit stay and swim out and pretend to be drowning and I used water filled milk jugs for her to tow because I didn't have a light boat!  She did go on to get her water and draft titles-passing on the first tries. She also produced CHs (including a group winning bitch), UDs, draft and water titled dogs. Had I not tragically lost the pup I kept from her last litter, I would still be showing and working with Newfs.

My point is that there are breeds that haven't deviated from their original conformation and whose breed clubs cherish their working ability. Glenda Brown is certainly doing her part to see that field folks are supported and that the GRNews celebrates their success. Regardless of why you have a Golden, not being able to look back honestly and see there has been a deviation is a bit of a shame.

M


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Miriam, nice post.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I've had 3 people ask me for scans of the article. I may not be able to do the scan until later today, so please be patient  It may have to come in 3 pdfs, one for each page of the article. So, you'd be getting 3 attachments, not just one.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Miriam Wade said:


> I did want to add just one more thing to quantify what I wrote.
> 
> I had a Newfoundland years ago. I had no show or training experience, but bought her from a very good breeder from across the country from where I lived. I asked for a show quality pup and got one. At six months of age, on a trip back to VT, the breeder asked to buy her back. I couldn't do it, but promised to show her. In the process, I joined the Newfoundland Club of America and started reading about water and draft titles and was intrigued. One of the things that stood out about "Newf Tide", the club publication, was the fact that, from the movers and shakers in the Newfy breed to the one or two dog owner-almost all participated in conformationAND water and draft. It was very common to have a fun (conformation) match one day and a draft or water test the following day and they were all the same dogs and handlers. The working aspect of the breed wasn't an afterthought, but an integral part of it. In retrospect and as it relates to the Golden -it really stands out how active the Newfy club was in providing education and networks to foster the inherent traits of the breed.
> 
> ...


I thought Newfoundlands were about the size of a Chessie not long ago and had much shorter hair?


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Miriam Wade said:


> I just do find it amazing that few are able to look back at the breed and admit that there is now a split because of breedings that, in order to produce the heavy boned, heavy coated, over domed, etc., etc dogs-many who have no inherent birdiness and are nowhere near being "primarily a hunting dog"-have in fact deviated greatly from the original conformation and overall makeup. Then they turn around and say that "field Goldens" are incorrect in conformation.
> 
> It is an age old argument now and it makes more sense to take one's forehead and repeatedly bang it against any hard object than to try and "win" anyone over who has already made up their mind and doesn't want to look back at the original intent and conformation.
> 
> ...


Well put...People bred dogs to get a different look. Then 20 generations later they say my dog doesn't look right.

There is a split, I agree with you as to how it got there. Now to get a dual ch you have to take a dog that looks right and make it an FC.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

WRT Miriam's post, just to be clear the popularity surge explanation is from Judy's article. I may have had the same thought (though Judy's clarity is superior!).

Let us not forget that "show breeders" existed even before the popularity surge of the breed, so I would not place my blame on those who loved the breed long before it became popular. Many of those breeders continue to produce the show dogs that are more moderate, and appreciate the sporting dog heritage of the breed.

A larger problem would be those who entered the breed as part of the surge, with an idea of "pretty" that was not coupled with knowledge of the breed's working history & were immediately drawn into breeding. Then, of course, the puppy-mill-type breeders who found they could put their kids through college on puppy profits; and the puppy farms and pet shops that capitalized on the popularity to encourage mass breeding to supply the "consumer", but were not providing education for their puppy buyers.

We should give some credit to the people who have started their history with Goldens in the conformation venue & opened their minds to the working heritage of the breed. Sometimes, maybe often, they had to seek this information out through their own effort, without the mentorship that might have taken place when the breed was not so popular as a "teddy bear". 

They may never reach the field-trial-competitive levels, but they will help keep the heritage of a sporting dog alive for the general "consumer", while others might have let it totally fade into a memory in the mind of the "petowner" who is the largest market for both show AND field puppies who are not going into the very serious working homes. Many of us started out as purely petowners. I know I did.

The good news might be that the popularity of Goldens is back down to where it was 20 years ago; almost half of the #s are registered with AKC today as was the case before the surge was skyrocketing ... around 30,000 registrations a year; about 1/2 of its peak. I sure hope it isn't just because the irresponsibly-bred dogs are being registered with other registries that have sprung up.


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

gdgnyc said:


> I just use my penknife to slit those burrs which then just fall apart. With some of the other seeds, to quote my friend Viejito, "I don't do anything with those seeds. They fall off on their own."


Viejito should remove those seeds... Retrievers can get in a lot of trouble pulling them out. 

Judy


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Let us not forget that "show breeders" existed even before the popularity surge of the breed, so I would not place my blame on those who loved the breed long before it became popular. Many of those breeders continue to produce the show dogs that are more moderate, and appreciate the sporting dog heritage of the breed.
> A larger problem would be those who entered the breed as part of the surge, with an idea of "pretty" that was not coupled with knowledge of the breed's working history & were immediately drawn into breeding.
> We should give some credit to the people who have started their history with Goldens in the conformation venue & opened their minds to the working heritage of the breed. Sometimes, maybe often, they had to seek this information out through their own effort, without the mentorship that might have taken place when the breed was not so popular as a "teddy bear".


Some very good points here can also be attributed to Labradors also. The breed conformation people that existed before the surge are still moderate. I know a Golden breeder before she started breeding. I caught a glimpse of her in that video at the 2008 Westminster and went to her website, and now she is into big big coat, whereas before they looked like the more traditional show Goldens. They are looking like the fluffy cream English Golden look. She had no interest in the field and has no field titles. If she did try it, she didn't stay with it. She once asked me for some feathers.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

what a great post, thank you!



Gerry Clinchy said:


> WRT Miriam's post, just to be clear the popularity surge explanation is from Judy's article. I may have had the same thought (though Judy's clarity is superior!).
> 
> Let us not forget that "show breeders" existed even before the popularity surge of the breed, so I would not place my blame on those who loved the breed long before it became popular. Many of those breeders continue to produce the show dogs that are more moderate, and appreciate the sporting dog heritage of the breed.
> 
> ...


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Judy Chute said:


> Viejito should remove those seeds... Retrievers can get in a lot of trouble pulling them out.
> 
> Judy


Of course you're right. I should have mentioned that it is unsafe not to remove them. Viejito's approach is funny but not safe.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Ralph Boalt, of Stilrovin fame (S/O '11 issue of GRNews) was a true believer in tri-purpose retrievers. This is a quote of his taken from the M/A '68 issue of the GRNews:

"As mentioned I had the privilege to know and to see the early Great Goldens in this Country in the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Chicago, and St. Louis areas where the foundation breeding stock for many later day great Goldens was developed. There was never any discussion of dual purpose Goldens, because -- and probably because we did not know any better -- all were tri-purpose retrievers, as we ran in all trials, showed them on the bench and hunted all hard."

Ralph bred the first Dual Champion Golden in the U.S., Dual Champion Stilrovin Rip's Pride which was owned by the Kingswere Kennels. Rip's Pride is in an article in the Mar/Apr'12 issue of the GRNS---where you will probably see the above quote once again!

I have been asking Judy for many years for an article and was delighted when she did the one featured in the Field Theme Issue. I bumped another article which I had planned to have because I thought Judy's was so valuable, for many reasons, and for starting some discussions such as have been going on here.

Glenda


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

I thought it was a pretty good article. I have mixed feelings about it...but I have been told by a conformation breeder I really admire and respect that she does not like the direction she is seeing goldens in the ring go. She does a variety of performance and companion sports with her dogs and that is where her heart is.

I am torn right now if I were to get another golden where it would come from. I still love the idea of conformation and believe structure to be very important to a working dog as well as breed type. There are certainly breeders in the middle ground--those that have field dogs that pay attention to structure, and those that enjoy conformation but do hunt tests. One of those two is probably the direction I would go.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> I still love the idea of conformation and believe structure to be very important to a working dog as well as breed type.


When you look closely, I think that the field dogs actually do, generally, have quite good structure. Surely there are some that are less good, but the structural integrity is a necessity for the demands of serious field training.

The thing that many people might notice first is head or size. From a practical standpoint, much as I love a noble head, the working requirements of the head are quite minimal. You probably don't need a 75# dog. A strong, well-conditioned 65# dogs should do just as well. But it is easy for any of us to let "type" interfere with evaluating the structure objectively.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> When you look closely, I think that the field dogs actually do, generally, have quite good structure. Surely there are some that are less good, but the structural integrity is a necessity for the demands of serious field training.
> 
> The thing that many people might notice first is head or size. From a practical standpoint, much as I love a noble head, the working requirements of the head are quite minimal. You probably don't need a 75# dog. A strong, well-conditioned 65# dogs should do just as well. But it is easy for any of us to let "type" interfere with evaluating the structure objectively.


In the process of boxing up a lifetime of "stuff" and came across a card received from the GRCA when Kate passed her WC or WCX (It's a generic congratulatory card, so doesn't specify). The beautiful sketch illustrates a Golden from a side view and holding a pheasant. It was done by (I can't make out the initial of the first name) __ Schlehr in 1988. Not so long ago. The dog is probably a bit heavier bodied from the first DCs and the head a bit heavier, but with what I consider to be proper backskull-not overdomed. Proper eye set (& expression!) and a coat that would serve a dog well hunting-i.e. not over furnished. In fact, there is almost no feathering at all. Angulation is good and you can see it because it's not obstructed by coat.

This is what the GRCA considered to be a "correct" Golden, so it's interesting that there has been such a deviation.

M


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> When you look closely, I think that the field dogs actually do, generally, have quite good structure. Surely there are some that are less good, but the structural integrity is a necessity for the demands of serious field training.
> 
> The thing that many people might notice first is head or size. From a practical standpoint, much as I love a noble head, the working requirements of the head are quite minimal. You probably don't need a 75# dog. A strong, well-conditioned 65# dogs should do just as well. But it is easy for any of us to let "type" interfere with evaluating the structure objectively.


Back when I was looking for my third Golden (I had just lost my first), I had my friend Charlotte Jannsen (a Chessie person) help me. She asked me what I was looking for. I had been hunting upland. The one thing I knew was that I didn't want a big dog and fluffy dog. I didn't know at the time that there was a split. I said that I would like a dog that was within the breed standard, I preferred smaller rather than larger, not too fluffy-please, and I wasn't particular about the color. My requirements were based upon the grouse hunting I was doing. Charlotte went to Georgia, located a litter, I talked to someone who had seen the litter and gave it a stamp of approval. She even said at the time that she would like to take the pup herself and it probably could be shown (of course, not by me). I ended up with a beautiful, healthy 68# dog, fleet of foot, reddish color and wavy hair. This dog was hunted very hard by me for about 11 years and lived to 14 years of age. This was Twin Branch Bayside Dasher bred by Clarissa King.

My point: I gave my requirements for what I wanted not even knowing about the split, my requirements based upon my experience with hunting and I ended up with quite a dog. And he resembled those older Dual Champions. No, I didn't need one of those bigger dogs AND his coat was correct.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2011)

Miriam Wade said:


> In the process of boxing up a lifetime of "stuff" and came across a card received from the GRCA when Kate passed her WC or WCX (It's a generic congratulatory card, so doesn't specify). The beautiful sketch illustrates a Golden from a side view and holding a pheasant. It was done by (I can't make out the initial of the first name) __ Schlehr in 1988. Not so long ago. The dog is probably a bit heavier bodied from the first DCs and the head a bit heavier, but with what I consider to be proper backskull-not overdomed. Proper eye set (& expression!) and a coat that would serve a dog well hunting-i.e. not over furnished. In fact, there is almost no feathering at all. Angulation is good and you can see it because it's not obstructed by coat.
> 
> This is what the GRCA considered to be a "correct" Golden, so it's interesting that there has been such a deviation.
> 
> M


That is Marcia Schlehr. She is the artist of the Golden in the GRCA logo. She has always been a strong proponent of moderate dogs in the show ring able to perform. 

We feel fortunate she has been such a kind supporter of us back to when she first had her hands on Pony and one of her sons (Kirk) at the first CCA at the National Specialty in CA. It was an honor to hear that she appreciated our dogs' conformation and her evaluations reflected that.

Melanie


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> That is Marcia Schlehr. She is the artist of the Golden in the GRCA logo. She has always been a strong proponent of moderate dogs in the show ring able to perform.
> 
> We feel fortunate she has been such a kind supporter of us back to when she first had her hands on Pony and one of her sons (Kirk) at the first CCA at the National Specialty in CA. It was an honor to hear that she appreciated our dogs' conformation and her evaluations reflected that.
> 
> Melanie


I bet she didn't use Mane and Tail


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

gdgnyc said:


> An excellent read in the current Field Issue of the Golden Retriever News. Although it is an excellent article, one that I enjoyed reading, I am disturbed at the thought that there will be a permanent split in the breed. This article by Judy Rasmuson includes statistics for Labs, Goldens, and Chessies. BTW, it looks like the Chessies *don't have this problem* while Labs and Goldens do.
> 
> No more Dual Champion Goldens?:sad:
> 
> Read it if you can.


I don't consider it a problem and have zero interest in a dual champion. The conversation of dual champions start with Labs, being there are so many more of them, and many times the number of FC/AFC of all other retriever breeds combine. Speaking only for those I know and have train with I can NEVER recall any conversation about dual champions. The great majority of those who train and participate in field trials talk about training, dogs, and performance (bad judging another favorite topic). Other than the occasional jokes, no mention of show dogs. They are concern with how their dogs perform, with the goal of placements and titles. The show ring is not part of the conversation. No it's not a problem, other than those show labs being at an unhealthy weight. Those that raise draft horses don't lament about not running the Kentucky Derby.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Probably not, and she told me to stop using Isle of Dogs "Royal Jelly" shampoo because it makes their coats too soft.




Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I bet she didn't use Mane and Tail


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

The "blue book", written by Marcia Schlehr and available thru GRCA is a wonderful illustrated guide to "correct" goldens. Excellent reading.



Melanie Foster said:


> That is Marcia Schlehr. She is the artist of the Golden in the GRCA logo. She has always been a strong proponent of moderate dogs in the show ring able to perform.
> 
> We feel fortunate she has been such a kind supporter of us back to when she first had her hands on Pony and one of her sons (Kirk) at the first CCA at the National Specialty in CA. It was an honor to hear that she appreciated our dogs' conformation and her evaluations reflected that.
> 
> Melanie


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Losthwy said:


> I don't consider it a problem and have zero interest in a dual champion. The conversation of dual champions start with Labs, being there are so many more of them, and many times the number of FC/AFC of all other retriever breeds combine. Speaking only for those I know and have train with I can NEVER recall any conversation about dual champions. The great majority of those who train and participate in field trials talk about training, dogs, and performance (bad judging another favorite topic). Other than the occasional jokes, no mention of show dogs. They are concern with how their dogs perform, with the goal of placements and titles. The show ring is not part of the conversation. No it's not a problem, other than those show labs being at an unhealthy weight. Those that raise draft horses don't lament about not running the Kentucky Derby.


Never seen a Budweiser horse with a Cowboy pedigree


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I bet she didn't use Mane and Tail


She or we? ;-) Nah, Pony beat an all breed Best in Show bitch in the Hunt Test bitch class. We don't need that stuff. 

The deeper we get into field lines the more separation we, personally, happen to see. Is that a concern of mine? Not at all. We are in it to produce performance dogs that hold up under long term working conditions. Whoever claims structure, per "breed ring" standards, holds up better in the field is full of garbage.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Whoever claims structure, per "breed ring" standards, holds up better in the field is full of garbage.


I'm not entirely sure that the "breed ring" gives as much emphasis to "structure" v. "type" as should be done. Hence, the breed ring keeps "trending" with flaws of too straight shoulders or too short legs or (fill in the blank) .... the structure of performing dogs, I think, tends to be more consistent because the work still requires the same things of their bodies ... so function tends to dictate the form. The limited functional parameters of the show ring allow more deviation in the form.


----------



## featherqwest (Dec 15, 2007)

When was the last time there was a dual golden with both CH and FC. I think it has been since the 1970's. I was reading through my old golden books from the 1980's. The breed has changed so much starting in the 1990's. I really think it has gotten a bit out of control. Being a owner of "pet" goldens for so many years I have had better luck with goldens who have had at least one grandsire with a "field" title in the lines. Even just a WC. I have had quite a few goldens. All lines. I mean all lines. My first pure field dog is the first one to be quite curly coated but lines are clean from major health issues.

http://k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=620

Am. Dual CH.-AFC Ronakers Novato Cain CD OS FDHF


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Quar----Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS FDHF was the last Golden Dual Champion in 1979. He was in the Tigathoe Four article in the GRN Field Theme Issue and also was in the Mar/Apr '11 issue of the GRN under The Dual Purpose Dog.

Glenda


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

GoldenSail said:


> I thought it was a pretty good article. I have mixed feelings about it...but I have been told by a conformation breeder I really admire and respect that she does not like the direction she is seeing goldens in the ring go. She does a variety of performance and companion sports with her dogs and that is where her heart is.
> 
> I am torn right now if I were to get another golden where it would come from. I still love the idea of conformation and believe structure to be very important to a working dog as well as breed type. There are certainly breeders in the middle ground--those that have field dogs that pay attention to structure, and those that enjoy conformation but do hunt tests. One of those two is probably the direction I would go.


Of the dogs I have personally seen (a small handful), seen multiple pictures of (more, but not many), and a single picture of (many, but one picture doesn't tell a lot) I would say the average field line Golden has better structure than the average field trial line Labrador. Part of this, I suspect, is the strength of performance line Goldens - obedience and agility, where functional, moderate structure is very much a factor in the ability of a dog to have a long and illustrious career.

The GRCA also has a noncompetitive conformation program (akin to noncompetitive hunt tests in relation to competitive field trials). This is really, really good stuff and IMO every breed that has a significant division - or threat of division - between show and sport dogs should have a similar program.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Labs also have a "Conformation Certificate" and GSDs. I have seen the Lab evaluation form, but it is not as detailed as the one for Goldens.

The CCA is a great way for the evaluators (more often than not more of a conformation persuasion) to get their hands on the field dogs who are in "hard, working condition". Since the evaluator has more time with each individual dog (and there are 3 evaluators for each dog), it's a good experience for performance people to learn more about the Standard than they could ever get from an ordinary outing in the show ring. No foofing and poofing required either 

Another distinctive part of the evaluation is a "mingling" of dogs (on lead) to reveal any indication of dog/dog aggressiveness.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2012)

RaeganW said:


> Of the dogs I have personally seen (a small handful), seen multiple pictures of (more, but not many), and a single picture of (many, but one picture doesn't tell a lot) I would say the average field line Golden has better structure than the average field trial line Labrador. Part of this, I suspect, is the strength of performance line Goldens - obedience and agility, where functional, moderate structure is very much a factor in the ability of a dog to have a long and illustrious career.


Glad to hear you have such a strong of an opinion based on your broad knowledge. Now what can you tell us about what the structure you figure the "obedience" and "agility" bred Goldens these days can be defined as? Or any retriever for that matter? 

Sorry, chiming in late on this thread but you have accomplished what?


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Melanie Foster said:


> Glad to hear you have such a strong of an opinion based on your broad knowledge. Now what can you tell us about what the structure you figure the "obedience" and "agility" bred Goldens these days can be defined as? Or any retriever for that matter?


Mel, I was wondering about the broad knowledge, too. 

Still scratching my head over the statement "I would say the average field line Golden has better structure than the average field trial line Labrador."

Huh? 

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

featherqwest said:


> Being a owner of "pet" goldens for so many years I have had better luck with goldens who have had at least one grandsire with a "field" title in the lines. Even just a WC. I have had quite a few goldens. All lines. I mean all lines. My first pure field dog is the first one to be quite curly coated but lines are clean from major health issues.


I am curious... explain what you mean by having "better luck" with Goldens who have at least one grandsire with a field title in the lines. What do you mean "better luck"? Better health, better temperament, better aptitude for retrieving? Better what?

And ... what's the breeding of your "first pure field dog" ? The one with the curly coat. Just curious again, as I am wondering what you consider a pure field dog is. 

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> http://video.westminsterkennelclub....ging/sporting/2008_4/retriever-golden/v217183
> 
> And these are the Goldens from the same Westminster show.


Thanks for providing the link. Beautiful dogs, some very nice movers. Was not fond of a few heads, but all in all I enjoyed seeing them stacked and moved. 

Our dog roots are in the show ring. Brings back memories. In the late 1960s and into the 1970s we had German Shorthaired Pointers in the show ring. Two males were show Ch's and breed specialty winners. For awhile after we were married Don was a licensed professional AKC handler (sporting breeds, hounds.) He started out as a young boy in the 1950s as a junior handler showing mostly St. Bernards. His parents had a large St. Bernard kennel (1940s-1970s)and were quite successful in the breed. My mother in law has quite a collection of sterling silver bowls, plates, and enormous challenge trophies which they had won 3 times so had to keep them. For years Don's dad was an all-breeds AKC professional handler; when he grew too old to move the sporting breeds and it became hard to stack and move the big Saints, he stopped showing dogs and became an all-breeds AKC judge. 

Seeing the Labradors in the show ring was disturbing to me. So ponderous, so overweight, so short of leg, and some with clunky heads. So sad to see a lot of them with horrible movement -- crabbing, rolling fat rolls, and out at the elbows. Did not see that in the Goldens. Did see some heavy bone GRs (heavier than my preference), but none seemed overweight and ponderous. 

My2-cents,
Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

canebrake said:


> oh my....Look at this video http://video.westminsterkennelclub....ing/2008_4/pointer-german-shorthaired/v217353
> /QUOTE]
> 
> What a joy to see the Shorthairs move and free stack. Got my heart a pumping. Great representatives of the sporting group.
> ...


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

Helen
It was a pleasure reading your post about your GSPs. We have two GSPs currently that were from breeders in CA. I am sure you know them as they have been in the breed many years. 

Several years ago at the GSP Nationals, my husband purchased several yearbooks. I was looking through the 1969 yearbook and found this ad. 



Dino's Aztee Annie sure reminds me of my old guy "Jack" - nice short back and well balanced. I finished him under breeder/owner/judge Jim Burns at regional specialty show (BOW 4 pt major). I love the dogs out of Kaposia lines too. My favorite is the really dark liver and ticked color. Would love to see the photo of your veteran dog that won with the 15 year old handler. I like to hear stories like that. 

I assisted on putting together a slide show for GSP rescue a couple of years ago. I thought you may enjoy watching it. Many of the dogs no longer with us. Several DCs, one was therapy dog who was 1 day from being put down in a shelter "Lucky Dog" who had over 600 visits

http://vimeo.com/10758982

Happy New Year! 

-Martha GSP crew Jack Sugar Sophia and Belle


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

That is a great post, Martha! Don and Helen go on and on..with great depth..and great success in the dog world..and the human side of their family as well, actually!...

Wonderful copy of "Hunter Born Kennels"!..thanks for sharing! So interesting..

Judy


----------



## PridezionLabs (Mar 8, 2009)

They're not all fat.....

Almost a year ago, I walked into the AKC ring for the first time with a 14 month old puppy. He didn't quite look like the rest of the Labs in the ring and my very good friend and show buddy had honestly told me that the weekend would probably just be good experience for me and Clark. Clark's breeding was for me a very long study about proper structure for correct movement (correct movement = structural health...period). I have always been fierce about the drive a Lab should have, and set out on a mission to PROVE that you could leash "lightning" and walk in the ring. I knew he was special when he was born, that boy was a mess and a problem solver. He used to use his littermates as a pyramid and climb over them, come waltzing into the room where I was, his lil tail just waggin a thousand times a minute. In early training his IMMENSE drive would overrun his obedience (he would forget all about what he was supposed to do, in order to get that bird). To say the least, he made me work and taught me alot about handling a dog.
At his first show, he went Winners Dog and Best of Opposite over specials (a special is a "finished" or Champion dog) with 3 Best In Show handlers in the ring  I remember being at the end of the line, and watching the judge. When he pointed to me, I was in shock, I looked up the line ( I was in back because I was a puppy) and ALL of those ahead of me leaned forward to look back at me and everyone of them had that "WTH just happened?" look on their faces, nobody expected me to win, but win we did. I continued to show Clark the rest of the year and he consistently won his class and took Winners Dog. I will admit we were almost minored out in points and I knew that getting those majors would take some doing, unfortunetly we will never know. 
*Clark had the drive of a field dog on crack,* and surprised more than one on several occasions. When Clark started blowing coat at his last show in Redmond,Oregon I brought him home and decided to kick his field training into high gear. You have never seen a happier dog, we called him the black streak..... lol His heart was hunting.
We worked long and hard getting ready for this years competition show/field and had our sites on some pretty big goals. I will never get to live out those dreams with him, on November 22,2011 I lost him in a fire that destroyed my barn and took the lives of several of my other "kids". 
When I see comments like , why won't their be another dual champion, or it's sad their is such a split in the breed, or all show dogs are fat.. lol... I have to respectfully say that I disagree. It's not the dogs that don't live up to their potential....it's people.... It can be done
http://www.pridezionlabradors.com/Clark.html (See ya later, Carkeys


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

I enjoyed reading this thread. Granted, the subject is nothing new, but it's still one that I can relate to. One thing I think we Lab and Golden lovers can agree upon; there is a well defined division between the show and field strains in these breeds. This division has been created by selection pressures from each highly competitive venue. It has become more about the challenge of winning than about the breed's integrity.

From my perspective the issue isn't about DCH's. The issue for breed purists should be preserving the breed as it was originally intended in form, function, and temperament. I don't see the show folks returning to "the old days" as they would consider that losing the "progress" they have made. Conversely, I don't see field trialers compromising on the elite athletes they have developed so their dogs more closely conform to the standard. Let the folks who compete in those specialized pursuits continue happily on their way. They're having fun doing their thing.

I believe it is the job of independent breeders to preserve the traits that made these breeds so popular. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of breeders who breed for their own purposes, unfettered by the demands of either venue, who are free to produce dogs in their own image of the proper retriever.

As a breeder with such a goal I find my biggest problem is finding dogs who meet my own requirements. It's easy to find stud dogs that are proven in either show or FT venues, but few fit my image of the original Lab in form or temperament. I'm sure there are many great dogs living in obscurity who exemplify my ideal, but how does a breeder find them? I think it would be great to form an association of like-minded breeders who could work together to preserve the historical foundations of these great breeds!

Any thoughts?

Swack


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Swack said:


> I enjoyed reading this thread. Granted, the subject is nothing new, but it's still one that I can relate to. One thing I think we Lab and Golden lovers can agree upon; there is a well defined division between the show and field strains in these breeds. This division has been created by selection pressures from each highly competitive venue. It has become more about the challenge of winning than about the breed's integrity.
> 
> From my perspective the issue isn't about DCH's. The issue for breed purists should be preserving the breed as it was originally intended in form, function, and temperament. I don't see the show folks returning to "the old days" as they would consider that losing the "progress" they have made. Conversely, I don't see field trialers compromising on the elite athletes they have developed so their dogs more closely conform to the standard. Let the folks who compete in those specialized pursuits continue happily on their way. They're having fun doing their thing.
> 
> ...


Swack,,,, you've got to go to field trials, hunt tests and dog shows. Ask lots of questions. That's how I learned what I did. Working the National Open for years helped me acquire a plethora of information. Also working and participating in dog shows helped a ton. I don't know my show pedigree's like I do my field pedigree's but I did learn a tremendous amount. All of it helps me to make educated breeding decisions for my program. You're gonna have to do your do diligence. There's no short cut to this one. There's no warehouse for this information since it's so subjective and it's a fancy. What I like, what someone else likes and what you like can mean different things.

Keep plugging away....

Angie


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Keep plugging away....Angie


Or go bang your head against the wall until you tire of it...an old (30 odd years) and dead subject, prance around nicely dressed with a fancy little lead or get dirty and do with the dogs what they were born to do...	:shock:


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

EdA said:


> Or go bang your head against the wall until you tire of it...an old (30 odd years) and dead subject, prance around nicely dressed with a fancy little lead or get dirty and do with the dogs what they were born to do... :shock:


A totally dead subject I agree and I could personally care less... But you can have a good looking dog that can get the job done. Again that's subjective. Which is why this subject keeps coming up!!! It's a fancy!! Animals bred to fit our desire. That's very skewed. But who cares??? I'm happy, your happy... 

Happy New Year Ed!!!!

Angie


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

EdA said:


> Or go bang your head against the wall until you tire of it...an old (30 odd years) and dead subject, prance around nicely dressed with a fancy little lead or get dirty and do with the dogs what they were born to do...	:shock:


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Angie B said:


> Swack,,,, you've got to go to field trials, hunt tests and dog shows. Ask lots of questions. That's how I learned what I did. Working the National Open for years helped me acquire a plethora of information. Also working and participating in dog shows helped a ton. I don't know my show pedigree's like I do my field pedigree's but I did learn a tremendous amount. All of it helps me to make educated breeding decisions for my program. You're gonna have to do your do diligence. There's no short cut to this one. There's no warehouse for this information since it's so subjective and it's a fancy. What I like, what someone else likes and what you like can mean different things.
> 
> Keep plugging away....
> 
> Angie


 
Angie,

I won't argue with you. There's no substitute for first hand knowledge. I have been to a few dog shows and a few field trials and to many hunt tests. I do know what I like and what I don't. Yes, it _is_ a personal thing. 

I find it interesting that the choices you list are dog shows, or field trials and hunt tests (which likely contain a majority of dogs from FT bloodlines). That illustrates the point I was trying to make. Are those the only choices? There have to be other sources that may retain the traits of the "original" Lab (or Golden). I can't help but think that somewhere out there are some breeders who produce very good dogs that are riding around in their owner's pick-up trucks whose ancestors haven't been subjected to the rigors of the selection process of dog shows or field trials. Those dogs may retain the essence of the old-time Lab before the "split". Those breeders are producing hunting and companion dogs and don't give a rat's rear-end about shows, tests, or trials. The dog's owner just wants a good hunting dog and a good buddy. I think those meat dogs are the backbone of the breed, but they get no ink, no titles, and no respect. How do you locate those breeders and their dogs?

I have to wonder, are performance dogs (field or show) the answer or the problem when it comes to preserving the Lab and Golden as he was intended to be?

Don't worry, I'm still plugging away!

Swack


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

Swack said:


> How do you locate those breeders and their dogs?


Pick up your local newspaper... those are called back yard breeders


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I don't think there is a "missing link." Look at some old pictures. 

I used to think the "show dogs" were the english lab that everyone was referring to. Then I find out that the field labs in England look just like the field labs here.

I know there's a split, to my tastes the field labs look and perform just fine.

I guess "to each his own" is probably where the split came from in the first place.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

While I will agree that Chessies have probably remained more to standard of all the retriever breeds. I would argue their continuing high numbers of DC is because they hold their own specialty FT events, chessies competing against chessies, and those are a really big deal in the breed. As such most conformation still Chessies participate in field events. With the domination of the Lab in the FT world this is probably a very good idea, it enables them to continue to breed the best preforming and conformation chessies together, and maintain a good mixture of genes and a good standard. The breed is not limited by having to preform solely against FT Labs.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Each of the Retriever Breeds have their own Specialties, but in order to get either an FC or AFC title, a Lab, Chessie, or Golden must have a win from an All Breed Trial. The most points they can get from the Specialty is five to go against the points needed for a title.

An example is one Golden had four (am not sure of exact number but more than two!) Open wins at a Golden National Specialty. This dog never got an AKC title as it never had an All Breed win.

Glenda Brown


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Swack said:


> Angie,
> 
> I won't argue with you. There's no substitute for first hand knowledge. I have been to a few dog shows and a few field trials and to many hunt tests. I do know what I like and what I don't. Yes, it _is_ a personal thing.
> 
> ...


Those venues are just a start. Or try going to the hall of fame, find dogs of yesteryear that you like and work forward? There are the AKC stud books to that give you statistics which helps.

I use dogs with out titles because I like their pedigrees not because they just have the accolades.

Finding a "Fido" that's got what you want somewhere in obscurity sounds like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even if you did find him you don't know what he's going to do for you or your breeding program because he has no statistics? Especially on a bitch like yours who hasn't had a litter yet and has such a loose pedigree? 

Angie


----------



## Susie Royer (Feb 4, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I would argue their continuing high numbers of DC is because they hold their own specialty FT events, chessies competing against chessies, and those are a really big deal in the breed.


If I'm not mistaken the American Chesapeake Club holds only one FT specialty a year. The club hosts other FT events however, they are "all breed" because we simply don't have the numbers to put on a breed event.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> While I will agree that Chessies have probably remained more to standard of all the retriever breeds. I would argue their continuing high numbers of DC is because they hold their own specialty FT events, chessies competing against chessies, and those are a really big deal in the breed. As such most conformation still Chessies participate in field events. With the domination of the Lab in the FT world this is probably a very good idea, it enables them to continue to breed the best preforming and conformation chessies together, and maintain a good mixture of genes and a good standard. The breed is not limited by having to preform solely against FT Labs.


Goldens also have a National Specialty licensed field trial. It is generally well-attended by the most competitive field Goldens in the country. Many travel long distances to attend the Golden Natl Specialty. But that obviously is not enough to avoid a large split in the breed.



> That illustrates the point I was trying to make. Are those the only choices? There have to be other sources that may retain the traits of the "original" Lab (or Golden). I can't help but think that somewhere out there are some breeders who produce very good dogs that are riding around in their owner's pick-up trucks whose ancestors haven't been subjected to the rigors of the selection process of dog shows or field trials.
> 
> Unfortunately, even without the selection processes of shows and field events, heritable diseases will occur. I'd say that a lot of people who are breeding these "unknown" dogs may have also produced their fair share of unhealthy dogs ... but you won't be able to research on any of that, for the most part.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think it was NAHRA that started the first hunt tests for a similar reason. They believed that field trials had become too far removed from actual hunting situations. However, the breeders you mention, Swack, who breed those hunting dogs for "everyman", mostly aren't interested in coming to those events either. They maybe don't have the foresight to see that any good they may accomplish may not outlive them.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

John Lash said:


> I don't think there is a "missing link." Look at some old pictures.
> quote]
> 
> A wise friend planted this thought in my mind: If the field retrievers of today resemble more closely the original breed [which they DO], and if people believe that field trials today are "too extreme", how come today's dogs do today's tests just fine & still look like the original breed? (from the historical photos we see)
> ...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> John Lash said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there is a "missing link." Look at some old pictures.
> ...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> John Lash said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there is a "missing link." Look at some old pictures.
> ...


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> Gerry Clinchy said:
> 
> 
> > Bingo!
> ...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Finding a "Fido" that's got what you want somewhere in obscurity sounds like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even if you did find him you don't know what he's going to do for you or your breeding program because he has no statistics? Especially on a bitch like yours who hasn't had a litter yet and has such a loose pedigree?
> 
> Angie


Bingo! Once in awhile a dog rises from obscurity resulting from untested dogs and dogs that were not bred much. The one I remember (and don't ask me the name) was bred a ton, and as breeders compared notes, many of us termed him a sewer of genetic defects. That is the chance you take. I like to know a little bit about the lines before I use them now.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Bait said:


> John Robinson said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, John, Really liked your article in this months GRNews. Good one!
> ...


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

John Lash & Others,

You may be right when you say "there is no missing link". There's been a lot of water under the bridge since Lord Malmesbury bought his first St. John's Water Dog. However, some dogs retain more type and character of the breed as he was originally. Finding those dogs to include in a breeding program is the goal. In my case many of the current show dog traits as seen in today’s show ring don’t fit my image; nor do most FT bred Labs. Keep in mind that I’m not just talking about physical traits, but also behavioral traits.

If you think the British bred field Labs look just like the field Labs here, you might want to look at the dog in person. On average he is much smaller than our AKC FT Labs. You’re right that the DCH’s of yesteryear do more closely resemble todays field-bred Labs than they do most show-bred Labs. That’s why I have been trying to find the best looking field-bred Labs to breed. 

If I knew how to scan a photo and post it I would show you a picture of Buccleugh Avon. Those of you with Helen Warwick’s book The New Complete Labrador Retriever can see him on page 40. He is also in other Lab books, but I like the image of him as a gray muzzled dog lying down the best. The thickness of his otter tail reflecting the quality of his coat, the compactness of his build, and the thickness of his forelegs reflect the traits of the St. Johns Water Dog. Deciding what the “original” Lab looked like depends on how far back you look!

Winning an NFC or BOB is not my goal. Breeding a Lab that suits me is all that counts. I may be what Nicole considers a “Backyard Breeder”. Another RTF’er referred to them as “Hobby Breeders” in a recent PM. Well, my kennel _is_ in the backyard, but I consider my dogs more than a hobby. Just because a breeder isn’t nationally known or doesn’t produce a dozen litters a year doesn’t mean he may not produce healthy intelligent sensible dogs.

Perhaps as Robert Frost suggested I’m traveling the road not taken!

Swack


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Swack said:


> John Lash & Others,
> 
> You may be right when you say "there is no missing link". There's been a lot of water under the bridge since Lord Malmesbury bought his first St. John's Water Dog. However, some dogs retain more type and character of the breed as he was originally. Finding those dogs to include in a breeding program is the goal. In my case many of the current show dog traits as seen in today’s show ring don’t fit my image; nor do most FT bred Labs. Keep in mind that I’m not just talking about physical traits, but also behavioral traits.
> 
> ...


Hi Jeff,

I was only relating to the Golden's, I hadn't noticed the Lab tangent. It sounds like you guys are having the same issue as us. That said, I believe the average guy who hunts is more likely to get an, at least serviceable retriever out of the typical back-yard Lab breeding you find in the paper or by word-of-mouth, than with the Golden breed. My belief is partly based on my old hunt test days, where I would see embarrassingly bad Golden's that were terrible, slow going, water avoiding, uninterested in retrieving pretenders. On the other hand I have had many local hunter guys show up with a black Lab out of some obscure back yard breeding that were able to train and at least do hunt-test quality work.

Fortunately for us Golden lovers, there are enough field bred Golden's available, that there is no excuse to run a Golden that isn't a high powered, good marking water dog. And these dogs really do resemble the early dogs you see in historical photographs. 

John


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> Gerry Clinchy said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. No matter how many examples we have put up of older dual retrievers that look like today's dogs, all we hear is they would not stand a chance in the ring today. To me, that is admitting the judging has changed and not the breed and purpose.
> ...


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I've always wondered how a dog in the show ring has the proper structure to be an excellent retreiver, but never has to prove it.

While an FC that proves time and again that he is an excellent retriever, doesn't have the proper structure to be one.

How can this be possible? 

I'll give the show people credit that they spend a lot of money and energy to produce what is a better dog in their eyes. But they move further away from the kind of dog that is a proven performer every weekend at field trials.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

gdgnyc said:


> I think that was very well said. I guess field dogs just haven't progressed. Our field types are the Neanderthals of the dog world.


Geez! wish I had said it  Somebody just got the quote brackets in the wrong place somewhere along the way.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

John Lash said:


> I've always wondered how a dog in the show ring has the proper structure to be an excellent retreiver, but never has to prove it.
> 
> While an FC that proves time and again that he is an excellent retriever, doesn't have the proper structure to be one.
> 
> ...


I am reminded of the phrase "form follows function."

There is an old post I need to try and dredge up.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

John Lash said:


> I've always wondered how a dog in the show ring has the proper structure to be an excellent retreiver, but never has to prove it.
> 
> While an FC that proves time and again that he is an excellent retriever, doesn't have the proper structure to be one.
> 
> ...


It worked out okay back in "the day" ... when the same dogs were often competing in the same venues.

You can almost imagine those old English (and Scottish) Lords deciding to get together at a summer picnic to decide "my dog's handsomer than yours" ... but that was just incidental to their dogs' lives. They were "meat dogs" to provide food for the Lord's table primarily. In this case, the function dictated the form. 

Once the function became less a necessity, then the form took whatever shape the humans' whimsy dictated.

There is a website somewhere that discusses how the original Newfoundland dog developed two branches in its family tree ... one branch went in the direction of the smaller retriever breeds; the other branch went into the larger, bulkier "mountain dogs", like today's Newfoundland ... as the desired functions were required of each group.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Geez! wish I had said it  Somebody just got the quote brackets in the wrong place somewhere along the way.


Don't know how I did it and I don't know how to fix it.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

John Lash said:


> I've always wondered how a dog in the show ring has the proper structure to be an excellent retreiver, but never has to prove it.


Breed clubs have established "Working Dog" programs to help identify retrieving show dogs but to my knowledge the reverse(certifying working dogs with proper conformation) has never occurred.

IMHO this may help unite a breed by adding "Conformation Certified" retrieving dogs to the show gene pool strengthening a single breed standard.

Just a thought.

Tim


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

John Lash said:


> I've always wondered how a dog in the show ring has the proper structure to be an excellent retreiver, but never has to prove it.
> 
> While an FC that proves time and again that he is an excellent retriever, doesn't have the proper structure to be one.
> 
> ...


Fisher is entered in a specialty next week, am I allowed to put a sticker that says "MH" on his forehead? I WISH!
Agree with your post 100%


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Furball said:


> Fisher is entered in a specialty next week, am I allowed to put a sticker that says "MH" on his forehead? I WISH!
> Agree with your post 100%


If you have a MH, I'd be curious as to how many other field dogs are entered there and how you do.

Best of luck.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

John Lash said:


> If you have a MH, I'd be curious as to how many other field dogs are entered there and how you do.
> 
> Best of luck.


You know I put Fisher in the hunting retriever class but that is open to a dog with any HT title (JH, SH, MH). Don't know yet how many are in that class but I can guarantee you he will be the only MH there.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Tim Carrion said:


> Breed clubs have established "Working Dog" programs to help identify retrieving show dogs but to my knowledge the reverse(certifying working dogs with proper conformation) has never occurred.
> 
> IMHO this may help unite a breed by adding "Conformation Certified" retrieving dogs to the show gene pool strengthening a single breed standard.
> 
> ...


And a good thought at that. Haven't Labs had a "Conformation Certificate" for awhile. Last I heard many of the field folks didn't like what the show judges had to say about their dogs and the judges didn't care much for hanging around with a bunch of field dog trainers. 

That may be an overstatement, but what happened to the CC program? Anybody know?

Swack


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> You can almost imagine those old English (and Scottish) Lords deciding to get together at a summer picnic to decide "my dog's handsomer than yours" ... but that was just incidental to their dogs' lives. They were "meat dogs" to provide food for the Lord's table primarily. In this case, the function dictated the form.
> 
> Once the function became less a necessity, then the form took whatever shape the humans' whimsy dictated.


I dredged this up from a past post that I made in 2007. It sheds some light on the beginnings of the breed standards and provides food for thought to breeders...



> Originally Posted by Buzz
> I found some interesting thoughts in a book I'm reading - "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by Steven R. Lindsay. The section is called, "Origins of Selective Breeding."
> 
> He mentions that the Greeks understood the importance of selective breeding, but they also recognized the danger of breeding that displaces function for the sake of appearances.
> ...


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

More people should read this, then read it again.

Conformation Requirements
Working vs. Show Dogs by Dr. B.W. Ziessow

I am frequently asked the question - - "Are the conformation requirements the same for a working dog and a show dog?"

Many years ago someone asked my long respected all-breed judge, the late Louis Muir the same question. He responded that both the field dog and show dog should have exactly the same conformation and condition.

If one were to examine the history of the Labrador Retriever, he would find the dog was bred with one purpose in mind - to be a working retriever. This was true in Newfoundland where the fishermen carried a Labrador Retriever in the dory to retrieve fish that came off the trawl. Their hunting and retrieving ability was the reason the breed was imported to England by sportsmen in the early nineteenth century. It is also the reason why gentlemen and lady sportsmen brought the dog into this country.

By definition, conformation in any breed is the symmetrical formation and arrangement of (body) parts; conforming to a model or a plan (i.e., the breed standard). The first question that must come to mind in judging any breed or evaluating an individual specimen is "Can the dog do the job he was originally intended to do?" It is axiomatic that proper conformation is basic to the survival of any breed and is equally important to both the show dog and the hunter. It is ludicrous therefore, to think of type as something extra to breed conformation and/or soundness (which is tantamount to proper movement). Without them you can't have true breed type. Accordingly, there is one (and only one) correct type of Labrador Retriever.

The ideal Labrador, and I say ideal because the perfect specimen hasn't been born, should, in my opinion, possess the conformation of a retrieving gun dog able to excel in field work, the quality to win in the show ring, the substance and soundness to hunt upland game and water fowl for long hours under difficult conditions, and the disposition to be a faithful companion and family friend. In all, the physical features and mental characteristics should denote the work the dog was bred to perform.

It is important to remember conformation is not a quality which is either entirely present or entirely absent. There are many degrees of conformation. The problem that faces the Labrador Retriever (and many other breeds) today is to define what degree of variation from the standard of perfection is acceptable for ourselves and, therefore, for the breed. It is most unfortunate, but true, there are many people in the dog fancy today that have the mistaken idea that the ideal specimen of the breed is what is winning at Dog Shows or successfully competing in Field Trials, as opposed to the characteristics that were essential in the development of the breed. This false notion has led to the demise of many sporting breeds as working dogs - - while capable of winning ribbons at dog shows, they are unable physically to do the job the breed was originally intended to perform, they are lacking in those features which formed the basis for the breed conformation and standard. Equally disturbing are the number of dogs being run in field trials (and used for breeding) that do not come up to the breed standards of conformation and soundness.

Dr. B.W. Ziessow 9-1-90


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

The Origin and Purpose of the Labrador Retriever
by Dr. B.W. Ziessow

The recent proliferation of books written about the Labrador Retriever is consistent with the breeds growth in popularity. All seem to have at least one thing in common; if not the first, one early chapter pertains to the origins and/or history of the Labrador Retriever.

Where did he come from? To understand the origin of the Labrador Retriever, almost requires a study of the history of Newfoundland. The island from whence he came. According to Dick Wolters, probably the best modern dog chronicler of the breed, the first people to settle Newfoundland were the Dorset Eskimos. However, they didn't have any dogs. Nor is there any evidence any dogs inhabited the island when they arrived.

The so called "new world" was known by whalers and fisherman as early as the fifteenth century. Bristol (England) traders "discovered" Newfoundland in 1494 and the Bristol Company attempted to establish its first settlement in 1504; however, it was not until over 100 years later Newfoundland was finally settled; almost entirely by fisherman that jumped ship. It is said that for almost two centuries afterward, the island had no law - courts, police, schools and churches were non-existent.

Not withstanding it's harsh life, Newfoundland's fishing industry grew and prospered. Each year fleets of fishing boats from England and other European nations were sent to fish it's waters. The dried salted fish was shipped to European countries, principally the Catholic country of the south.

I provided the short insight into life in Newfoundland to give some idea of the environment in which the Labrador Retriever originated and was developed. Where the dog originally came from is open to question. There are many theories pertaining to the origin of the Labrador. One states it was a descendant of the Newfoundland dog - hence the name lesser Newfoundland was used to describe the smaller dog. However, as stated previously there is no evidence that any dogs existed in Newfoundland before the fisherman arrived and it is generally agreed that the ancestors of the Newfoundland dog was also brought to the island by fisherman from the European countries.

Since same was abundant in the island and a good hunting dog could provide food to supplement their fish diet it is believed the early settlers brought or imported dogs hunting stock from home. Accordingly, both the larger and smaller Newfoundland dogs had to be introduced.

In 1662, W.E. Cormack, a native of St. John's made a journey on foot across Newfoundland. In his account of his journey he saw small water dogs which he describes as "admirably trained as retrievers in fowling and are otherwise useful - - the smooth or shorthaired dog 15 preferred because in frosty weather, the long haired kind become incumbered with ice on coming out off the water."

Since utility was an important factor, the dogs also had to be good strong swimmers and be small enough for the fisherman to take in his dory. A good friend and business associate (w. Wallace anderson), who was born and raised in Newfoundland reports that as late as the 1920’s, Newfoundland fishermen carried a Labrador Retriever in the dory to retrieve fish that came off the trawl. He also stated that, while the larger and smaller dogs (Newfoundlands and Labradors) slept together under the house they did not interbreed.

The Labrador's hunting and swimming ability, as well as his good disposition did not go unnoticed by the English sportsmen. When organized shooting of pheasant, grouse and partridges became popular among the landed gentry in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries it became the custom to replace pointers and setters with retrievers. In the early days, a retriever was simply known as a "retriever" and the owners freely interbreed short coated, long coated and curly coated retrievers. Many dogs were imported from Newfoundland and their owners considered them vastly superior as retrievers to any other breed.

Colonel Hawker, in l830, referred to the St. John's breed of water dogs as, "by far the best for any kind of shooting he is generally black and no bigger than a pointer, very fine in legs with short smooth hair and does not carry his tail so much curled; is extremely quick retrieving, swimming and fighting."

The 2nd Earl of Malmsbury is credited to have imported some of the first St. John's or Labrador dogs about or before 1830 his son, the third Earl (1807-1889) imported many and bred them. Among others who imported dogs from Newfoundland about 1835 were the 5th Duke of Buccleuch, his brother Lord John Scott and the 10th Earl of Home.

The 3rd Earl of Malmsbury in a letter written to the 6th Duke of Buccleuch said, "We always call mine Labrador dogs and I have kept the breed as pure as I could from the first I had -- the real breed may be known by their having a close coat which turns water off like oil, and, about all, a tail like an otter." However, all breeders did not always "keep the breed pure". Many breeders, realizing the excellent qualities, crossed Labradors with other retrievers. Still, if a Labrador is crossed with some other strain, the Labrador type nearly always predominated and their descendants were most always called Labradors.

"Stonehenge", writing in 1873 included the following in his description and scale of points of the Labrador Retriever.

"Symmetry and temperament - the symmetry and elegance of this dog are considerable and should be valued highly. The evidences of a good temper must be regarded with great care since his utility depends on his disposition."

The Labrador Retriever was first recognized as a special breed by the Kennel Club (England) on 7th July, 1903, at which time it was decided to give classes at the Kennel Club Show for Labradors as a separate breed. On 3rd november, 1903, Labradors were definitely recognized as a separate breed and on 3rd january, 1905, they were separately classified as a sub-variety of retrievers.

In 1923 the Hon. A Holland Hibbert (later Lord Knutsfored) wrote an article in which various points of the breed conformation are described:

Having been asked to write something of description and characteristics of the Labrador Retriever for those who taking an interest in the breed let me first give recognized description:

Shoulder height 21 to 23 inches Bitches 2 or 3 inches less

Average weight About 60 lbs

Coat Straight, neither wave nor curl, the thicker and closer the better. Dogs have a harder and coarser coat than bitches.

Head Skull broad and well domed leaving plenty of "brain pan". Ears rather far back and set fairly high (but not cocked up like a collie's) and rather small. Avoid mastiff-like head with its heavy hang and shape of ears. The 'stop' is not very pronounced. Muzzle on the square side as opposed to the snippy shape, which is much to be avoided.

Colour of eye Brown - the colour of burnt sugar a generous affectionate aspect is characteristic of the breed and this rules out any tendency to snub nose.

Shoulders and body Rather laid back, chest on the broad side - ribs really well sprung - body compact - back straight and good loins.

Feet and legs Forelegs straight and the more cat-like the feet the better. Splay feet are much to be avoided.

Tail The nearer the level carriage and the closer resemblance to an otter tail the better, i.e. short and thick at stump with the hair underneath divided almost as if parted

General appearance The general appearance should be that of a strong built, short coupled very active dog - wider in the head than a flat coat and wider through the chest - ribs well spring-coat close and dense, coat free from curl and wave - skull wide giving plenty of brain room - tail short and straight - eyes colour of burnt sugar - feet small and upright."

It was not until 1917 that the first Labrador was registered by the American Kennel Club. In 1927, there were only twenty three retrievers of all kinds (Labradors, goldens, flat coat, curly coat and Chesapeake) registered with the AKC. During the twenties, American sportsmen, attempting to emulate the Scottish sport of pass shooting, brought in young Scottish gamekeepers, bought guns from the finest London gunsmiths and imported dogs from British kennels. Some wealthy families virtually turned their estates into shooting preserves. It wasn't long before the "shoots" developed into field trials. The first trial licensed by the AKC was held December 21,1931. According to James Cowie.

The early licensed Labrador Retriever trials were the result of the work of Franklin B. Lord, the moving force behind the small group of sportsmen that organized the Labrador Retriever Club.

The Labrador Retriever Club, was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York on October 7, 1931. The particular objects of the Club were stated as follows:

(a) To maintain, foster and encourage a spirit of cooperation in the breeding owning and exhibiting of pure bred Labrador Retriever dogs by individuals, organizations, kennel clubs, show clubs and specialty clubs

(b) To formulate, define, ascertain and publish the the standard type of Labrador Retriever dogs and to procure standard type of Labrador Retriever dogs and to induce the adoption of said standard type by breeders, judges, dog owners, dog show committees and others, and to endeavor to have standard type recognized by all, so that the Labrador Retriever breed shall be judged by said standard.

(c) To encourage foster help, aid and assist to protect advance and increase the interest of people in the Labrador dog breed.

(d) To offer prizes, create publicity and give and support shows where Labrador Retriever dogs are exhibited.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

(e) To do all such acts and things as are incident or conducive to the premises and generally to do all acts and things and to exercise all the powers now or hereafter authorized by law necessary to carry on the said Corporation or to promote any of the objects of said Corporation, all of which shall be conducted without pecuniary profits.

The Clubs first annual specialty show was held on May 18,1933 in New York City. The judge was Mrs. Marshal Field, Best in Show was awarded to Mr. F. B. Lord's Boli of Blake who was the first Labrador to earn his American championship. (Nov.1, 1933)

The first Best in Show Labrador in this country, Ch. Earlsmoor Moor of Arden, ran and placed in field trials. When Labradors were a relatively rare breed, his show record would, even today, be considered remarkable -- times shown 42, best of breed 40, placed in sporting group 27 times, won sporting group 12 times, awarded best in show 5 times, and won the national specialty 5 times. Based on the number of the Labradors shown today, perhaps this proves prolification. Sometimes works in reverse.

It is important for any Labrador fancier or judge to recognize and appreciate that the Labrador Retriever was imported into England and introduced into this country by gentlemen and lady sportsmen for one, and only one, purpose -to retrieve upland game and water fowl.

The American sportsmen adopted the breed from England and subsequently developed and trained the dog to fulfill the hunting needs of this country. Today, as in the past, the Labrador will eagerly enter in ice cold water in Minnesota to retrieve a shot bird; he'll work all day hunting doves in the heat of the Southwest -- his only reward is a pat for a job well done.

As a judge of the breed for over thirty years and a breeder since 1951, my personal description of the breed is that of a strongly built, medium size, short coupled, active dog possessing an 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.

Above all the Labrador Retriever must be well balanced - the components of his anatomy in proper correlation, enabling him to move in the show ring or run in the field with little or no effort. The true Labrador possesses elegance without over refinement and substance with out lumber or cloddiness.

The Officers and Directors of the Labrador Retriever Club, as well as the majority of the sportsmen involved in the breed are disturbed with a recent trend towards two so called "types" of Labrador Retrievers -- field dogs and show dogs. We are concerned if the trend persists, the breed may be divided into two separate and distinct kinds of dogs, as have so many breeds in the sporting group.

It is our opinion that the show dog and field dog should have exactly the same conformation and condition. Additionally, we believe the first question that should come to mine in judging the Labrador Retriever is "Can the dog do the job he was originally intended to do?"

Dr. B.W. Ziessow


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

LABRADOR RETRIEVER BREED STANDARD
(effective March 31, 1994)


General 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.

Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort. The typical Labrador possesses style and quality without over refinement, and substance without lumber or cloddiness. The Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog; structure and soundness are of great importance.

Size, Proportion and Substance

Size - The height at the withers for a dog is 22-1/2 to 24-1/2 inches; for a bitch is 21-1/2 to 23-1/2 inches. Any variance greater than 1/2 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 minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age.
Proportion - Short-coupled; length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper. The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long or tall and leggy in outline.
Substance - Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light,"weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition, well-muscled and without excess fat.



Head

Skull - The skull should be wide; well developed but without exaggeration. The skull and foreface should be on parallel planes and of approximately equal length. There should be a moderate stop-the brow slightly pronounced so that the skull is not absolutely in a straight line with the nose. The brow ridges aid in defining the stop. The head should be clean-cut and free from fleshy cheeks; the bony structure of the skull chiseled beneath the eye with no prominence in the cheek. The skull may show some median line; the occipital bone is not conspicuous in mature dogs. Lips should not be squared off or pendulous, but fall away in a curve toward the throat. A wedge-shape head, or a head long and narrow in muzzle and back skull is incorrect as are massive, cheeky heads. The jaws are powerful and free from snippiness
Nose - The nose should be wide and the nostrils well-developed. The nose should be black on black or yellow dogs, and brown on chocolates. Nose color fading to a lighter shade is not a fault. A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment is a disqualification. Teeth - The teeth should be strong and regular with a scissors bite; the lower teeth just behind, but touching the inner side of the upper incisors. A level bite is acceptable, but not desirable. Undershot, overshot, or misaligned teeth are serious faults. Full dentition is preferred. Missing molars or pre-molars are serious faults.
Ears - The ears should hang moderately close to the head, set rather far back, and somewhat low on the skull; slightly above eye level. Ears should not be large and heavy, but in proportion with the skull and reach to the inside of the eye when pulled forward. Eyes - Kind, friendly eyes imparting good temperament, intelligence and alertness are a hallmark of the breed. They should be of medium size, set well apart, and neither protruding nor deep set. Eye color should be brown in black and yellow Labradors, and brown or hazel in chocolates. Black, or yellow eyes give a harsh expression and are undesirable. Small eyes, set close together or round prominent eyes are not typical of the breed. Eye rims are black in black and yellow Labradors; and brown in chocolates. Eye rims without pigmentation is a disqualification.

Neck, Topline and Body
Neck - The neck should be of proper length to allow the dog to retrieve game easily. It should be muscular and free from throatiness. The neck should rise strongly from the shoulders with a moderate arch. A short, thick neck or a "ewe" neck is incorrect. Topline - The back is strong and the topline is level from the withers to the croup when standing or moving. However, the loin should show evidence of flexibility for athletic endeavor. Body - The Labrador should be short-coupled, with good spring of ribs tapering to a moderately wide chest. The Labrador should not be narrow chested; giving the appearance of hollowness between the front legs, nor should it have a wide spreading, bulldog-like front. Correct chest conformation will result in tapering between the front legs that allows unrestricted forelimb movement. Chest breadth that is either too wide or too narrow for efficient movement and stamina is incorrect. Slab-sided individuals are not typical of the breed; equally objectionable are rotund or barrel chested specimens. The underline is almost straight, with little or no tuck-up in mature animals. Loins should be short, wide and strong; extending to well developed, powerful hindquarters. When viewed from the side, the Labrador Retriever shows a well-developed, but not exaggerated forechest. Tail -The tail is a distinguishing feature of the breed. It should be very thick at the base, gradually tapering toward the tip, of medium length, and extending no longer than to the hock. The tail should be free from feathering and clothed thickly all around with the Labrador's short, dense coat, thus having that peculiar rounded appearance that has been described as the "otter" tail. The tail should follow the topline in repose or when in motion. It may be carried gaily, but should not curl over the back. Extremely short tails or long thin tails are serious faults. The tail completes the balance of the Labrador by giving it a flowing line from the top of the head to the tip of the tail. Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail is a disqualification.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Forequarters
Forequarters should be muscular, well coordinated and balanced with the hindquarters. Shoulders - The shoulders are well laid-back, long and sloping, forming an angle with the upper arm of approximately 90 degrees that permits the dog to move his forelegs in an easy manner with strong forward reach. Ideally, the length of the shoulder blade should equal the length of the upper arm. Straight shoulder blades, short upper arms or heavily muscled or loaded shoulders, all restricting free movement, are incorrect. Front Legs - When viewed from the front, the legs should be straight with good strong bone. Too much bone is as undesirable as too little bone, and short legged, heavy boned individuals are not typical of the breed. Viewed from the side, the elbows should be directly under the withers, and the front legs should be perpendicular to the ground and well under the body. The elbows should be close to the ribs without looseness. Tied-in elbows or being "out at the elbows" interfere with free movement and are serious faults. Pasterns should be strong and short and should slope slightly from the perpendicular line of the leg. Feet are strong and compact, with well-arched toes and well-developed pads. Dew claws may be removed. Splayed feet, hare feet, knuckling over, or feet turning in or out are serious faults.

Hindquarters
The Labrador's hindquarters are broad, muscular and well-developed from the hip to the hock with well-turned stifles and strong short hocks. Viewed from the rear, the hind legs are straight and parallel. Viewed from the side, the angulation of the rear legs is in balance with the front. The hind legs are strongly boned, muscled with moderate angulation at the stifle, and powerful, clearly defined thighs. The stifle is strong and there is no slippage of the patellae while in motion or when standing. The hock joints are strong, well let down and do not slip or hyper-extend while in motion or when standing. Angulation of both stifle and hock joint is such as to achieve the optimal balance of drive and traction. When standing the rear toes are only slightly behind the point of the rump. Over angulation produces a sloping topline not typical of the breed. Feet are strong and compact, with well-arched toes and well-developed pads. Cow-hocks, spread hocks, sickle hocks and over-angulation are serious structural defects and are to be faulted.

Coat
The coat is a distinctive feature of the Labrador Retriever. It should be short, straight and very dense, giving a fairly hard feeling to the hand. The Labrador should have a soft, weather-resistant undercoat that provides protection from water, cold and all types of ground cover A slight wave down the back is permissible. Woolly coats, soft silky coats, and sparse slick coats are not typical of the breed, and should be severely penalized.

Color
The Labrador Retriever coat colors are black, yellow and chocolate. Any other color or a combination of colors is a disqualification. A small white spot on the chest is permissible, but not desirable. White hairs from aging or scarring are not to be misinterpreted as brindling. Black - Blacks are all black. A black with brindle markings or a black with tan markings is a disqualification. Yellow - Yellows may range in color from fox-red to light cream, with variations in shading on the ears, back, and underparts of the dog. Chocolate - Chocolates can vary in shade from light to dark chocolate. Chocolate with brindle or tan markings is a disqualification.

Movement
Movement of the Labrador Retriever should be free and effortless. When watching a dog move toward oneself, there should be no sign of elbows out. Rather, the elbows should be held neatly to the body with the legs not too close together. Moving straight forward without pacing or weaving, the legs should form straight lines, with all parts moving in the same plane. Upon viewing the dog from the rear, one should have the impression that the hind legs move as nearly as possible in a parallel line with the front legs. The hocks should do their full share of the work, flexing well, giving the appearance of power and strength. When viewed from the side, the shoulders should move freely and effortlessly, and the foreleg should reach forward close to the ground with extension. A short, choppy movement or high knee action indicates a straight shoulder; paddling indicates long, weak pasterns; and a short, stilted rear gait indicates a straight rear assembly; all are serious faults. Movement faults interfering with performance including weaving; side-winding; crossing over; high knee action; paddling; and short, choppy movement, should be severely penalized.

Temperament
True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the breed as the "otter" tail. The ideal disposition is one of a kindly, outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards man or animal. The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog. Aggressiveness towards humans or other animals, or any evidence of shyness in an adult should be severely penalized.

Disqualifications

Any deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
Eye rims without pigment.
Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail.
Any other color or a combination of colors other than black, yellow or chocolate as described in the Standard.

Approved February 12, 1994
Effective March 31, 1994


Copies of the LRC's The Labrador Retriever Illustrated Standard may be downloaded from this site.

See PUBLICATIONS, under the drop down menu item About LRC.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

This pretty much covers it. Some dogs are a good example of the standard and some are not.
My personal favorites that in my opinion were very close were FC AFC Ironwood Tarnation and 
CH Shamrock Acres Sonic Boom. If you all have never seen a picture of these 2 boys you really are short changing yourselves. They were both magnificent in every regard.

AMERICAN vs. ENGLISH

There is only one breed of dog known as the Labrador Retriever, described by the Standard of the Breed (see www.thelabradorclub.com/standard/officialstandard.html). Within Labrador Retriever breed type there are variations in body style which have evolved to suit the use of the dog, as well as the preferences of individual breeders and owners. In the United States the general public has begun to label these variations mistakenly as "English or "American" style. Perhaps a better description for variations in style is "show/conformation" or "working/field" styles.

The working/field or "American" style of dog is the label often attached to a Labrador possessing lighter bone structure and exhibiting more length of leg, a less dense coat, and a narrower head with more length of muzzle.

The conformation/show or "English" style Labrador is generally thought of as a stockier dog, heavier of bone and shorter on leg and with a denser coat, and having a head often described as "square or blocky." However, working/field variations occur in England as well, so this description is not necessarily suitable.

These general images portray the extremes of both styles and do not help to identify the temperament, trainability or health of the dog. In fact, the vast majority of Labrador retrievers, whether of conformation/show breeding or working/field breeding, possess moderate body styles much closer to the written Standard of the breed. It is possible that within a single litter, whether that litter has been bred for show/conformation or working/field, individual pups can mature to be representatives of the range, though rarely producing the extremes, of the two styles. We recommend that you discuss the issue of size and style, as well as temperament, trainability and health, with any breeder you contact. However, please remember that there is only one Labrador Retriever breed, one that meets the requirements as set forth in the Official Standard.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I've often wondered if the primarily working-type breeders gave just a little ground to some of the points of the Standard that are the distinguishing traits of the breed, and brought those dogs into the show ring in sufficient numbers, could the conformation judges have a "lightbulb moment"?

Problem is that they have no time for dog shows since they are out training or hunting ... or running a field trial or hunt test that same weekend 

The Golden Natl Specialty has a "Field Trial Class" (dogs & bitches who have JAMd or placed in a licensed field trial). If they get 4 dogs in each class that is a LOT. Problem is that the Natl Spec field trial is held mid-week, so it does not interfere with regularly scheduled trials in the area (the Natl Spec rotates around the country: east, central, west ... so the Natl Spec field trial does not have its own weekend). When the Specialty field trial is over, the field dogs are then off to the next field trial in that same general area ... while the conformation showing is going on. It makes perfect sense that if you've travelled a long distance to the Natl Spec, you'll hang around a couple of more days to run another trial that's nearby in that area.

There's really no way around this. Every Golden Natl Spec is REQUIRED to hold a licensed field trial. Probably the only way to solve the problem is if the AKC would give an "exception" to holding two field trials at the same time within the geographical limitations (since Goldens constitute a very small # of the entries at almost all field trials). They could predicate the "exception" based on a certain # of Goldens attending the affected (all-breed) trial's Golden attendance in the previous year. Then, they could also require that GRCA reimburse that # of entry fees to the all-breed club that would be affected by the "exception". This could work with all minority retriever breeds, but would be cost-prohibitive for a Labrador National. With the rigidity of AKC, I'd expect that might happen when h$ll freezes over 

When a local club holds a specialty for conformation, and if they conflict with a local all-breed show, they must get the all-breed club to agree to give up its Golden entry. Sometimes this works out; sometimes not  Since Goldens are usually a pretty large entry for all-breed shows, the all-breed clubs are reluctant to give up their Golden entry ($); and it would be cost-prohibitive for GRCA to reimburse the clubs.

The good news is that if you are a conformation person & want to watch a field trial, you can do so at the Natl Spec (or at least one or two days of the trial). The bad news is that you'd have to be there on Mon. & Tues. So, like Bait, you'd be planning a good part of your vacation time around when the Natl Spec is scheduled.

Interestingly, I've been told (open to correction), that the Labrador Natl Spec is not as prestigious a conformation win as the Potomac Independent Specialty. Not sure how this evolved. For Goldens, the Natl Spec win is the one that carries the most impact. 

Does the LRCA always have a field trial at its National? If so, is that a highly-valued win? I'm guessing no different from a win at any other trial?

A large number of the best field Goldens travel long distances to the GRCA Natl Spec field trial. Even though a win at a Natl Spec doesn't carry the value of the 1st place needed for FC or AFC (but 5 pts for the win is still a nice bundle toward the titles), it is a very visible "showcase" for the individual dogs to other Golden people.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

*Buzz,*

The quote you posted from the book "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by Steven R. Lindsay was interesting. However, if the following quote is true, why don’t field performance breeders just look for the “Ugliest” dog they can find? It would be a sure winner!

*“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.”*

Conversely, if the quote below is true, why don’t the show breeders look for the dumbest dog they can find? He would be a guaranteed winner in the show ring!

*With an eye set rigidly on the arbitrary appeal of appearances and beautiful form, the qualities of intelligence and function inevitably degrade over time.*

I think the obvious flaw in Lindsay’s reasoning is that when field breeders are selecting breeding stock, they are doing so primarily based on field performance mostly ignoring conformation while conformation breeders are focusing primarily on aesthetic concerns with little regard to performance traits. I think it is incorrect to conclude that brains (ability) and beauty are mutually exclusive and are unlikely to coexist in one dog. It’s only a matter of selecting for *ALL *those traits when breeding.

Swack


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> It’s *only *a matter of selecting for *ALL *those traits when breeding.


 OMG, this is genius. Why didn't anyone else think of that, and better yet, maybe you can do it in one generation, all at once! BTW, have you ever bred a litter?


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Drakehaven,

You said a mouthful! I read it all, but I wonder how many others will have the patience or the interest to do so. I hope you will allow me the privilege to highlight a few comments that I think are worth emphasizing. The first two quotes are from Bernard Ziessow.

*The problem that faces the Labrador Retriever (and many other breeds) today is to define what degree of variation from the standard of perfection is acceptable for ourselves and, therefore, for the breed.*

*It is our opinion that the show dog and field dog should have exactly the same conformation and condition. Additionally, we believe the first question that should come to mind in judging the Labrador Retriever is "Can the dog do the job he was originally intended to do?"*

The following is from the standard.

*Light,"weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. **Labrador** Retrievers shall be shown in working condition, well-muscled and without excess fat.*


The following is from the *“American vs. English”* portion of your final post.

*Within Labrador Retriever breed type there are variations in body style which have evolved to suit the use of the dog, as well as the preferences of individual breeders and owners. In the **United States** the general public has begun to label these variations mistakenly as "English or "American" style. Perhaps a better description for variations in style is "show/conformation" or "working/field" styles.*

At the risk of muddying the waters I’d like to suggest that it is an oversimplification to divide the Labs into just Field or Show categories. There are distinct differences between American field Labs and British field Labs as well as differences between English _style _show Labs and American _style_ show Labs. I think it is reasonable to distinguish between them.

Swack


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

ErinsEdge said:


> OMG, this is genius. Why didn't anyone else think of that, and better yet, maybe you can do it in one generation, all at once! BTW, have you ever bred a litter?


Nancy,

Thanks for the compliment!  Yes, I have bred several litters over the past couple of decades. I'm not suggesting it is easy or that field breeders don't consider conformation. But honestly, if given a choice between a Lab with proper conformation who is a good solid field dog, but not "stylish" enough to turn heads at a FT or a long, lean, lanky one who can cover ground like a thoroughbred while nailing Quads and 400 yrd blinds, which one is likely to be selected by a FT breeder?

Swack


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Swack said:


> *Buzz,*
> 
> why don’t field performance breeders just look for the “Ugliest” dog they can find?
> 
> ...


I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially the last statement that I bolded and increased font size on.

Did he say that brains(ability) and beauty are mutually exclusive? Do you think that it is *LIKELY* that *ALL* these traits coexist in one dog? I guess dog breeding should be EASY then!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Swack said:


> Nancy,
> 
> But honestly, if given a choice between a Lab with proper conformation who is a good solid field dog, but not "stylish" enough to turn heads at a FT or a long, lean, lanky one who can cover ground like a thoroughbred while nailing Quads and 400 yrd blinds, *which one is likely to be selected by a FT breeder?*
> 
> Swack


Are you talking about the male of female?

I'd be willing to be that there are more females who are good solid field dogs but not "stylish enough to turn heads at a FT will be bred than males. A lot more... That's just a guess though. The last three pups I got were more from females I was interested in than from studs I just HAD to have a pup by.


----------



## Socks (Nov 13, 2008)

Swack said:


> Drakehaven,
> 
> You said a mouthful! I read it all, but I wonder how many others will have the patience or the interest to do so. I hope you will allow me the privilege to highlight a few comments that I think are worth emphasizing. The first two quotes are from Bernard Ziessow.
> 
> ...


Man this stuff gets hashed and rehashed. Not that my dog is a FC (although he is in my head!  ), but he is a HRCH so he can do the work of retrieving and hunting. I've got friends that have show labs and one of their dogs littermates even won a best in breed at a show one time. Good luck having them do the stuff my dog does.

If you put my dog next to thier dogs they look totally different even though they're about the same height and same weight. Oh yeah my dog looks more like the old dual ch's from yesteryear. 

Maybe someday we'll all come together and sing cum ba ya, but that won't happen as long as the pure show dog people only breed for looks. I also disagree with your implication that field lab breeds don't look at the structure of the dogs they're breeding.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Quote:But honestly, if given a choice between a Lab with proper conformation who is a good solid field dog, but not *"stylish"* enough to turn heads at a FT or a long, lean, lanky one *who can cover ground like a* *thoroughbred* while nailing Quads and 400 yrd blinds, which one is likely to be selected by a FT breeder?Quote.
Speed doesn't win Field trials. Neither does running all over the place or style.It is marking which is of the most importance.
Attending FT.HT,Obed. trials,conformation shows may /will give you an example of dogs that are at the top of their game. 
Sue


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Let's get back to the Golden's which is what this topic was started about. As an Outsider, The show golden do not look as far off-base conformationally as compared to the field goldens. Sure they got long flowing curls, and are bigger, but the legs,weight, build and overall structure looks like they could physically still do the job in the field. As an outsider the major difference I have seen between the two has everything to do with intelligence, instinct & drive or lack of in the show set. I do not see the complete physical divide of the lab (yet), so perhaps it would be easier to counter if the HT-FT set decided to take up conformation, or run dual events. Still the outlying question would be is it still possible to run dual events and be successful in both, they are both very competitive events, they have more and more people focusing entirely on one. There is an extreme divide in the culture and people on either side, which can affect things. It would be extremely hard to split venues, even if you had a dog capable of both, perhaps impossible,. FTs are sort of a life-style, show might frown on the broken nails, scrapes, and coat associated w work. So many obstacles to counter in events that are hard to preform well in at all.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

The Lab Specialty does not have to have a FT and often doesn't.

This year's Golden Specialty will have an AKC hunting test on sunday and monday, followed by the field trial on tuesday-thursday. The Plan is for the Qual. and Am to start on tuesday due to larger entries. 

We would like to also host an all-breed FT the following weekend on the same Busch grounds. Any interest?

What about a dock diving event?

Dual Champions won't occur in breeds where those showing/judging forget the form following function aspect.

Sabre and Push are a couple of examples of really nice dogs. Sabre really moved nicely and had great style! To me, Push was hampered more by how current judges "interpret" the conformation standard.

Not sure how close either ever came to being American DCs? I am fortunate to have seen them both perform in the field. I would have gladly owned, trained, handled or hunted with either of them.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Swack said:


> And a good thought at that. Haven't Labs had a "Conformation Certificate" for awhile. Last I heard many of the field folks didn't like what the show judges had to say about their dogs and the judges didn't care much for hanging around with a bunch of field dog trainers.
> 
> That may be an overstatement, but what happened to the CC program? Anybody know?
> 
> Swack


Goldens also have a CCA (Certificate of Conformation Assessment). Many of the field-oriented dogs have fared pretty well in getting passing marks. Most of the judges are very polite to the field people. Many of the people who enter this event have mentioned they learned about the Standard and about how to evaluate conformational points on their dogs.

When it was created, it was hoped that it would be educational for BOTH the evaluators and the owners. Various points of the Standard are evaluated & given ratings from 1 to 10. While owners can share their score results, the scores are not published. If a dog scores poorly, it is not the intention of the CCA to in any way embarrass a dog for a low score NOR to make the event competitive. All dogs are judged against the Standard. 

The Golden CCA is more detailed than the Lab version (at least the one I saw, so it could have been changed). Three jevaluators each separately evaluate the same dog; they are not allowed to confer with each other, so they are, indeed, three different opinions. You can find information about this at www.GRCA.org


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

The GRCA CCA is extremely detailed, and very interesting. Excellent program.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

While it is disappointing to see breeders not considering working ability or breeders not considering structure...there are those in-between that do. Seek them out. 

The article did mention quite a few CH MH in both labs and goldens. I think it is a fair interpretation for someone to say that a MH dog is a good hunting companion and follows the standard....just like I think it is a fair interpretation to say that field trials have evolved to become more competitive and field breeders are getting better performance dogs. So take your pick. Maybe someday a nicely bred show dog or a nicely bred field dog will again grab that DC? If not I don't think there is anything wrong with either ideology--field or show as long as both sides are striving for what they overall believe to be correct.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DC's are pretty common in Brittany's...

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> DC's are pretty common in Brittany's...
> 
> /Paul


Yes, but a Brittany FC is probably the easiest of all FC's to achieve. Retriever or pointer...


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

> I've always wondered how a dog in the show ring has the proper structure to be an excellent retreiver, but never has to prove it.
> 
> While an FC that proves time and again that he is an excellent retriever, doesn't have the proper structure to be one.
> 
> ...


The purpose of the dog show is to identify those dogs that best conform to their breed standard. Proper structure for a breed is described in the breed standard. Assessment of structure is done when the judge goes over the dog, physically assessing, coat, shoulder, hock, descended testicles, etc. The dogs are also "moved" so structure is assessed in motion. So if show judges are doing what they are supposed to do (and know what they are doing), proper structure is "proven" every time.

Just because a dog wins a field trial does not mean it has proper structure. It is assumed that because a dog can do the work they must have proper structure. A dogs structure is never assessed by FT judges. There are dogs that have the desire and drive to overcome their improper structure/physical limitations.

Dog shows should not be about finding the best looking dog. And, just because a dog is an FC or NFC does not mean it is the best breeding candidate.

Tom


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Just because a dog wins a field trial does not mean it has proper structure. It is assumed that because a dog can do the work they must have proper structure. A dogs structure is never assessed by FT judges. There are dogs that have the desire and drive to overcome their improper structure/physical limitations.


In Goldens, there are old portraits of the very early Goldens that look more like the field Goldens of today. Photos of the early bench CHs and Dual CHs also more resemble the field Goldens of today than they do the conformation dogs today.

The area of Scotland where Goldens originated was pretty rugged, and hunting was serious business for the landed gentry. They had no "seasons" or bag limits, but undoubtedly were careful to avoid breeding seasons so the game could naturally replenish itself. The game was a "cash crop", so to speak. The dogs that could not keep up with the work, were likely to be culled from their breeding stock. Like the herding dogs, they had to earn their keep.

So, pragmatically, the structure of the early dogs in the breed was likely to have been structurally sound to perform their work.

So while there are some conformational points that I prefer to some of the old portraits (a "prettier" head, a little more bend of stifle), they were working dogs first & foremost. As a breeder, I need to be careful about the changes I may try to make based on some personal "whimsy".

So, if today the show dog and the field worker do not resemble each other, the working dog may be more structurally correct. I have admired the fronts and necks of some good field Labs. 

I believe, generally, working Goldens also fare better in those structural features. I've often heard Golden conformation people lament the lack of good fronts in the conformation dogs. In speaking to friends of a conformation persuasion, it appears that breeders had focused on the rear, and forgot about the front. Some readjustment has been taking place to correct that oversight.

Along the way, in Goldens, someone decided that shorter rear pasterns were more desirable; that the dogs should not look "leggy". But you don't shorten one part of the leg without other structural changes occurring. The leg became shorter overall, and the bodies longer. It took a while for people to notice what was happening. Now, it seems, that readjustment is taking place to "restore" the proportions of length to height that the Standard cites. 

Throughout the ebb and flow of "trends" in conformation, the shape of the working dogs have remained more stable. Not perfectly so. Some variations in size, smaller or larger; some curviness in the tails; some curliness in coats; some light eyes; some white here and there; but more maintenance of structural integrity and balance.

While drive can keep a poorly structured dog going today, the body can still break down with injury if the structure gets extremely faulty. The function then acts to compel the breeders to trend back to the structure that holds up while working. Conformation competition exclusively does not provide that compulsion for the breeder since the function is not as rigorous.

Some random thoughts in trying to figure out why the two venues have drifted apart in the appearance of the dogs ... and if the working qualities have been un-selected-for within conformation competitors, is the difference between the two groups more than what we can readily see? Did the different selection of genes also result in selection of mental and temperament qualities?


----------



## sterregold (May 27, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> So while there are some conformational points that I prefer to some of the old portraits (a "prettier" head, a little more bend of stifle), they were working dogs first & foremost. As a breeder, I need to be careful about the changes I may try to make based on some personal "whimsy"....
> 
> I believe, generally, working Goldens also fare better in those structural features. I've often heard Golden conformation people lament the lack of good fronts in the conformation dogs. In speaking to friends of a conformation persuasion, it appears that breeders had focused on the rear, and forgot about the front. Some readjustment has been taking place to correct that oversight.
> 
> ...


Some very good insights, here, Gerry. Popular dogs also had a significant contribution to the poor fronts many show breeders in Goldens are still dealing with. There were some significant major winners who were lacking in that respect, who were heavily bred from despite that failing. Unfortunately those dogs are also behind some of the more versatile lines which have also produced some nice MH dogs--I just cannot see risking the physical breakdown that comes with the short upper arm for the chance to get a showable dog. English and European show lines have managed to hold onto those fronts much better, but of course there we have to deal with other conformational extremes that interfere with function as well--shortleggedness, extremely pale coats, and overly heavy bone among them. 

As to your final surmise, it is only logical that the selection for that softer look, and not selecting for working traits has eroded those abilities. The Russian fox study could certainly be informative in respect to the effect of single-trait selection. My Trey kids are certainly more intense about retrieving and were so from a younger age than my other puppies, and my older dogs from lines selected more for their appearance and companionability are comparatively lacking in courage, some problematically so. If you do not make the choice to select for it, it is going to have a harder time showing up. You may have outlier individuals who show a spark but it will not be consistent enough.


----------

