# Dual Purpose Breeders



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

Anyone know of any dual purpose lines that are in breeding. I am hoping to get a CH MH with this next dog so looking for alot of CH and MH and FCs etc in the pedigree.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

presuming you are looking for labs?


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

Hah! Yes, I am looking for labs.

EDIT; Thanks in advance


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Look at the Captains Kennels website. not sure of the address but search
Also, Windycanyon on here has a nice litter coming up.- her web is www.windycanyonlabs.com
Kings Ransom labs has had a lot of CH/MHtitled dogs too-
Also, Angie B on here, has been doing some dual line breedings too--- 
Thats a start.


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

For those of you who do breed for this, what do you feel is harder.. the CH or MH?? I've seen a few shows and it seems like the lab ring is STUFFED!


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Sally McCarthy munson has been doing the dual longer than anyone... 


http://www.shamrockacreskennels.com


You will also find her in The Official Book of the Labrador Retriever, as being one of the influential kennels along with her friend, Mary Howley.

Funny that both of these ladies reside in Wisconsin!


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Not sure of his e mail but Chris Wincek of Kerrybrook has been breeding dual purpose labs for some time. He is or was the pres of the LRC.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Not sure of his e mail but Chris Wincek of Kerrybrook has been breeding dual purpose labs for some time. He is or was the pres of the LRC.


http://www.kerrybrook.com/


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

JeffLusk said:


> For those of you who do breed for this, what do you feel is harder.. the CH or MH?? I've seen a few shows and it seems like the lab ring is STUFFED!


Did you mean the labs looked stuffed? That is usually what I think.....


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

CBR KAIE said:


> Did you mean the labs looked stuffed? That is usually what I think.....


haha, yes that too. I mean there are a lot of labs that are in the show ring. Seems like some of the other groups are a lot smaller on entry numbers.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

I think with a well bred dog who comes from good dual lines it would be harder to get the CH.....

Juli


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

JusticeDog said:


> Sally McCarthy munson has been doing the dual longer than anyone...
> 
> 
> http://www.shamrockacreskennels.com
> ...



the dog in front on my avatar was out of shamrock acres - great dog although i was stupid and naive at the time and the guy who actually bred her (NOT shamrock acres) did a slick inbred trick and the dog had a very bad hip - severe displasia - but she still did great and lived to the ripe old age of 16. the inbreed may or may not been the reason but it was suspect to me....

you may take a look at my new boy Brady ;

www.outdoorsphotographyusa.com/Brady/brady.htm

lots of CH and hunt test in his line, including a 3XGRHRCH

he got a lot of attention from some very knowledgeable lab folks at the NRC 2 weeks ago......


out of here:

http://www.bearcreekonthebayou.com/


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

sky_view said:


> I think with a well bred dog who comes from good dual lines it would be harder to get the CH.....
> 
> Juli


In my expierence (which is limited) the majority of dual labs are more heavy on the show lines and the desire is more lacking. The problem I have expierenced is not in getting the CH but the SH.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Why a Lab?

I assume you are attracted by the challenge. Get a Golden!!   

JS


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Randall said:


> In my expierence (which is limited) the majority of dual labs are more heavy on the show lines and the desire is more lacking. The problem I have expierenced is not in getting the CH but the SH.


i can see that being an issue - but it dang sure aint fer me - 

Brady will be running Sr tests immediately at well under 1 yr...
-


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

I have a bitch who has a father as a CH/MH and a grandfather who is a CH/MH.
Will be breeding next heat. Probably summer 2009.

greg


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

sky_view said:


> I think with a well bred dog who comes from good dual lines it would be harder to get the CH.....
> 
> Juli


 
It depends.... What I've seen and heard, the MH is the challenge and takes much longer then obtaining the CH.

At least for labs. 

IMHO

Angie


----------



## David Barrow (Jun 14, 2005)

I picked up a pretty nice one from the Kerrybrook lines out of a MH bitch and a CH/MH sire. Never tried the show, but she went 6 out of 7 for the MH and was picked up in the other for trying to do it her way. She also has some Open and Amateur Points.
Chris is is a good person to talk with. Other considerations her Hips/Elbows were Excellent and she is CNM Clear.

David Barrow


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

I bred my girl to Digs, and the pup I kept is definitely NOT lacking in the drive department! Got the first two legs of his JH at 7 months with practically no training.


















http://armbrooklabradors.com

I like the fact that she's got three CH/MH dogs and is working on a CH/MH bitch. The bitch has already got her MH and is pointed in the ring. 

The main thing about the show bred working dogs that I've noticed is that they take longer to mature mentally.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

I guess after seeing the sheer number of labs entered in the show ring I figured it would be very hard to get the CH....

I think a GOOD (as mentioned) dual purpose breeding would have plenty of field ability to get a MH......

my preference being the dual purpose chessie, I guess I just haven't been around enough dual purpose labs to know what the challenge would be of MH and/or CH titles....

Dave - very cool that your 'show/field' bitch has done well in the field...

Juli


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

> The main thing about the show bred working dogs that I've noticed is that they take longer to mature mentally.


That's what I found with the first show/field cross I did. My pick female is alot more like her CH/MH sire than her dam. She was with the trainer for about 5 months and he was thinking she'd MIGHT manage an HR at best. She always seemed to try hard, but just never seemed to "get it". Then she slowly started to come around. Now, he says she's prolly one of the best he's trained. He says she will do anything you ask her to do... If that is true..."Oh, the places we will go...." I am ready for some fun.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

I second Captain's Kennels and WindyCanyon. Also, check out High Voltage Retrievers.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Angie B said:


> It depends.... What I've seen and heard, the MH is the challenge and takes much longer then obtaining the CH.
> 
> At least for labs.
> 
> ...


The difficulty is the _time,_ and the _timing _it takes in one venue detracting so much from the other. Your window of opportunity for the CH closes at a fairly young age and since it is very difficult to finish in the ring without a professional handler, you are probably sending him off for periods of time that you should have him in the field. And vice versa.

Either venue suffers when you can't devote the required time during the early years. It's a balancing act.

JS


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

JS said:


> The difficulty is the _time,_ and the _timing _it takes in one venue detracting so much from the other. Your window of opportunity for the CH closes at a fairly young age and since it is very difficult to finish in the ring without a professional handler, you are probably sending him off for periods of time that you should have him in the field. And vice versa.
> 
> Either venue suffers when you can't devote the required time during the early years. It's a balancing act.
> 
> JS


Yep, I'm facing this right now with my boy. At 23 months he's got his SH and we hope to be ready for Master in the spring, but since I've never trained a dog before this one, who knows. 

I would prefer to wait until we get the MH to send him with a show handler, but he'll be hitting him prime conformation wise next year. So, regardless of what happens this spring, I'll be sending him out with a show handler to try and take care of the CH. We're getting a late start in the ring because I never had any intentions of showing him until I became obsessed with training and retriever games and found out how few CH MH dogs there have been.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

On this page is a listing of very accomplished dogs: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/multi_titled_dogs.php

IMO, it's going to be even harder ($) to get the CH part as in my region it takes 25 bitches currently to make a 3 pt major in Labs. The judges are looking for much "more" dog in the ring than most of us who enjoy the performance venues have. Even the bitches are looking a bit "doggier". I can't really imagine having much more bone than my youngest, Sonya, has right now if I want to do agility on top of hunt test, etc work. Fortunately for me, the Intl shows (and UKC if they were out west here!) tend to like a more moderate dog. I have one boy who is just about to MACH (agility CH), so feel good about that. I'll ride the storm for now and just continue to try to breed to the standard the way I interpret it. There are a few judges who still appreciate a moderate dog, but really, the trends seem to favor a heavier boned, shorter legged dog w/ much more coat than most of us really desire.

In addition to those listed (thanks for the compliments btw!), Winroc labs (Lee Foote) in Seattle has been doing some great dual purpose breedings too. She's got several MHs and MACHs on her Intl CH titled dogs. Also Fawnhaven, who I've bred into. They have a MH who is only lacking a major, I believe. Nice boy.

You know what they say, "Location, location, location". That helps to get the job done too, esp when it comes to nice training grounds and groups! ;-) Anne (sitting 150 miles from most of the shows, tests, trials etc)


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Here are my two dual breed dogs. My BLF, just turned 2, is a daughter of Ch Loral's Got Our Power Play MH and her dam is Ch Pembroke Blk Mist Poplar Forest MH. My yellow male, now almost 3, is sired by Ch Waterbound Locke On Laddy MH, and his dam is a MH and she is a daughter of Ch Bells Tradition O'Broad Reach MH. I too have found that these dogs are slower maturing. My male was 18 months before he got a clue, now he is a hard charging dog. My female has shown signs of greatness all along, but it seems to come and go. This can be kind of frustrating to me, I have always had hard charging field trial dogs, but I do love my dogs, they are wonderful all around animals.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Here's our half and halfer. No titles yet, but hopefully this spring/summer we get that taken care of.



















By show standards he's quite thin, but I prefer this build.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> The difficulty is the _time,_ and the _timing _it takes in one venue detracting so much from the other. Your window of opportunity for the CH closes at a fairly young age


I don't think so... Most don't mature physically until at least 4. I maybe new at this but many that I've trained look very differently at 4-5 then they did at 12 months.



> and since it is very difficult to finish in the ring without a professional handler, you are probably sending him off for periods of time that you should have him in the field. And vice versa.


This is true,,, So in my experience it's better to get the performance titles first if you can and do the breed ring stuff later. A good dog as far as structure goes will do well no matter how old it is... And yes,,, get a good handler!!



> Either venue suffers when you can't devote the required time during the early years. It's a balancing act.


It depends on the dog and your pocketbook. You can find good pro's/handlers to help you make your goals if you have a good dog and lots of money....

Like everything else.....

Angie


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Are you kidding? Most don't mature physically until at least 4. I maybe new at this but many that I've trained look very differently at 4-5 then they did at 12 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree Angie. Mine aren't really in their prime (looks wise) until they are 4. Heck, my girls don't have a REALLY decent coat until they are 3! But--- some of the big "winning" show dogs are really nice looking at 1 yo... and then tend to be far too much dog and (some) fall apart as they age. I'd much rather have the slow to mature and take advantage of that spunk when younger. Mata already has 7 performance titles (obed, agility, hunt test) at 3 and that was with less effort than I'd like to admit since I also had 3 others I was working concurrently (along w/ running my own business and trying to support myself). So though mine mature physically slower, I have no issues w/ their mental maturity so far. Maybe the answer is "it depends" (on the lines)? Anne


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> I agree Angie. Mine aren't really in their prime (looks wise) until they are 4. Heck, my girls don't have a REALLY decent coat until they are 3! But--- some of the big "winning" show dogs are really nice looking at 1 yo... and then tend to be far too much dog and (some) fall apart as they age.


Amen,,, They look like puppies on steroids at 6 months. They're freakish... Not dogs made for the long haul as far as conformation or performance. They're _flash in the pans_ as far as I'm concerned.


> I'd much rather have the slow to mature and take advantage of that spunk when younger. Mata already has 7 performance titles (obed, agility, hunt test) at 3 and that was with less effort than I'd like to admit since I also had 3 others I was working concurrently (along w/ running my own business and trying to support myself). So though mine mature physically slower, I have no issues w/ their mental maturity so far. Maybe the answer is "it depends" (on the lines)?


I agree,,, but I'm guessing that your dog was doing entry level stakes in those performance venues. To do upper level work consistently with style,,, they will need age. I would have never believed it until I experienced it... I taught Rio everything he needed to know to win a qualifying stake a year ago... Not just finish,,, I mean WIN!!! He was 3 1/2. He could do it if he felt like it or go chase butterflies... He didn't care either way. Now at 4 1/2 he's sober enough about his work that he's all business.... I couldn't have gotten that earlier without sacrificing style.. *And that I won't do!!!!*

It's been fun and very, very interesting,,,,,

Angie


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Angie B said:


> I agree,,, but I'm guessing that your dog was doing entry level stakes in those performance venues. To do upper level work consistently with style,,, they will need age.
> Angie


Guessed wrong.  Mata was Open obed titled at 2.5 (won her class at Natls), and is one Q shy of an Open agility title, also has a decent start on foundation work for SH as well as tracking, but that's all on hold now as she's on maternity leave. I'm ALMOST looking at the litter as a welcome break! (yea right)


----------



## susanb (Aug 15, 2008)

I have a show bred MH bitch that has one major and some singles towards her show CH. If you have a well bred dog with drive it is my opinion that getting a MH title is much easier than getting that show championship. You are in charge of your own destiny at a hunt test. If your dog is well prepared and does the work he/she will qualify. Shows have a large element of politics going on and you never know which way the wind will blow.

I send the suggestion to check out Armbrook labs. Digs is producing some very nice working dogs that are doing very well at the higher levels in hunt tests. I have trained with him for years and I can also tell you that his temperment is second to none.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> Guessed wrong.  Mata was Open obed titled at 2.5 (won her class at Natls), and is one Q shy of an Open agility title, also has a decent start on foundation work for SH as well as tracking, but that's all on hold now as she's on maternity leave. I'm ALMOST looking at the litter as a welcome break! (yea right)


Well there ya go!! 

A litter as a break? Hahahaha... You are sick~~~~

Angie


----------



## turningpointlabs (Jul 18, 2006)

http://www.deeprunretrievers.com/
these people are doing great dual purpose, with Hero and Sam..nice dogs..


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Sam from Deep Run is a brother to my Black female. The girl in my avatar.


----------



## Locke (Jan 4, 2004)

Angie B said:


> I don't think so... Most don't mature physically until at least 4. I maybe new at this but many that I've trained look very differently at 4-5 then they did at 12 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. Having put a CH/MH on a lab, I am a big proponent of getting the performance/field titles first. I would rather have a dog mature and put his bone on much later in life rather than having an over done pup that finishes at one year old and have them mature into something that is less than desireable. 

I believe it is very important to start them out early and focus on retriever training during their formative age. This helps set standards and instills a good work ethic while they are young. If you wait and focus on the CH first, you may have a very piggy and lazy dog if they have never had to work. JMO

It is very tough to show and participate in MH tests at the same time because of the physical demands of training and competition. Laddy showed in specialties immediately after finishing his Master and again at the age of 7, long after his CH/MH. He won his class at 7 years old. Many people could not believe he was the same dog, because he had matured and finally put on all of his bone which occured at ~5 years old.

Rusty Howard finished Laddy and one of his sons who is a few passes away from finishing his master.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> I believe it is very important to start them out early and focus on retriever training during their formative age. This helps set standards and instills a good work ethic while they are young. If you wait and focus on the CH first, you may have a very piggy and lazy dog if they have never had to work. JMO


I totally agree, plus it's soo much harder to get them to use their brain. Their gray matter is just another muscle and if it isn't used, that too will be sorely lacking. 

Rio was trained from the field from the get-go. He loves it, loves it,,,, but there's not a dog alive that was more immature. I called him "Peter-Pan". It took forever, I mean forever for him to be serious about his work. So while he learned quickly and finished in the show ring quickly, he was the class clown until recently. It never comes together at one time does it? :razz:



> It is very tough to show and participate in MH tests at the same time because of the physical demands of training and competition. Laddy showed in specialties immediately after finishing his Master and again at the age of 7, long after his CH/MH. He won his class at 7 years old. Many people could not believe he was the same dog, because he had matured and finally put on all of his bone which occured at ~5 years old.


A very nice dog that I put a SH on 2 1/2 years ago was a little, squat, very average looking dog. Though her pedigree was stacked she was very plain. I saw her up close this summer for the first time in 9 months. At 4 she's drop dead gorgeous. She needs to get into the ring. She's a knock out. I was shocked. She has height and bone and is very proportionate.



> Rusty Howard finished Laddy and one of his sons who is a few passes away from finishing his master.


I think I saw him in September at a show in Dallas. Is he yellow?

Angie


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Well there ya go!!
> 
> A litter as a break? Hahahaha... You are sick~~~~
> 
> Angie



Yep, I think I am!!!!!!!!!!!  I was up working until after 11pm that night, trying to get all of my regularly scheduled, early Dec work done prior to the whelp. 

I thank GOD I have really understanding, dog loving, clients. They know from past experience I don't like to leave home if at all possible for 10 days to 2 wks after a litter is born so I try to get ahead of schedule. Being self employed does have some perks, but only if you've got nice clients like they are!  Back to work for me... just came in w/ 50+ more samples to run. Anne


----------



## Locke (Jan 4, 2004)

Angie B said:


> I think I saw him in September at a show in Dallas. Is he yellow?
> 
> Angie


That was him. He finished in Texas.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Having had predominantly show bred dogs, a CH/MH and another with 
MH passes, I beleive that these dogs did mature at a later date. As far as when I felt they could be sent to a trainer and be successful and withstand
the pressure. As far as pressure later in their training, no difference.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I am familiar with Denise Babcock's Captain's Kennels in Minnesota. (captainskennels. com). She has a breadth of dogs in her kennel that spans the range from CH labs to the "tweeners" to the outright lanky field and hunt test dogs. 

I got my BLM Titan from Ravenwood Retrievers (ravenwoodretrievers.com) in Cave Junction, Oregon. Suzie Hill sent me a pup that turned out to be a square headed, burly, well muscled pup from mainly field lines, but with some show and obed. lines as well. Her lines tend to be more like the classic Lab that looks good and can perform well in the field. Titan has a MH and he went to the Master Nationals this year. Although Denise has urged me to put him in the show ring, I haven't done the CH series with him as the field training already eats severely into my time and treasure. Field performance is more important to me.

I am enclosing a a link to pix of Titan from the Master National. Suzie also has pix of Titan on her website.

http://www.mcs-photography.com/photocart/index.php?do=photocart&viewImage=11123


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

zeus3925 said:


> I am familiar with Denise Babcock's Captain's Kennels in Minnesota. (captainskennels. com). She has a breadth of dogs in her kennel that spans the range from CH labs to the "tweeners" to the outright lanky field and hunt test dogs.
> 
> I got my BLM Titan from Ravenwood Retrievers (ravenwoodretrievers.com) in Cave Junction, Oregon.


Small world. I have some Ravenwood behind my old coot (great granny dog here), and am likely taking one of my girls to one of Denise's boys in the spring....


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I had a great Lab before Titan, Zeus. He was good looking, athletic, smart and assertive. He was a one dog entertainment company. 

When he got old I went on the web looking for a replacement and Ravenwood had 3/4 of the pedigree. I asked Suzie how she was able to get such a pedigree as I had purchased Zeus in Minnesota. 

She said she purchased her stock from Tom Warnke's kennel when it went out of business. Warnke was known in Minnesota for producing classic looking labs that still could perform well in the field. Zeus's sire was bred by Warnke.

I ordered a pup from Suzie when I had to put down Zeus. While Titan isn't the wild critter Zeus was, he is easier to train. Titan is one big soft teddy bear and a very fine gun dog.

Denise and I belong to the Central Minnesota Retriever Club. We were comparing Titan's and Captain's pedigrees. They are double cousins--FC AFC Aces High III on the field side and Int. CH Puh's Superman on the bench side.

I wish Suzie could title more of her stock. Her dogs and their descendants seem to do well in the hunt test circuit.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

What are some prominent studs known for producing dual purpose, i.e. cross of show and field lines, or CH MH type lines? I'm really burning up the computer to find these lesser known kennels and studs. I will never be a FT or HT fanatic. I want a dog that can work and make me proud in the field (birdiness and instictiveness), and make people say wow when they see them as well. It kills me how the FT labs look have been completed watered down-- IMHO. I'm looking to do a breeding for size, looks, conformation, with retained working ability. Wish more people would do the same!

Appreciate any info from those who share this endeavor!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Here an image of dogs to remember when the term "chassic Labrador Retriever" is discussed:


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

whelchel said:


> What are some prominent studs known for producing dual purpose, i.e. cross of show and field lines, or CH MH type lines? I'm really burning up the computer to find these lesser known kennels and studs.
> 
> In some ways it is harder to find good dual purpose stock. A lot of "bench" kennels will advertise as creating dual purpose dogs but too often they are lackluster in the field. There are good looking dogs that are great field dogs like Barracuda Blue and his son Cuda's Blue Ryder out of Silver Creek Kennels. while they may have great looks , the bench game has gone for shortlegged overweight so it is getting to be difficult for a dog to compete in both arenas. The Merganser Kennels out on the west coast seem to put out some good looking field dogs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> Finding the right balance is tricky. Trainer Rick Stawski is fond of saying that some people think a good looking kid with brains would come from crossing an Einstein with Marilyn Monroe. I could backfire and you could get a kid that looks like Einstein and have the brains of Marilyn Monroe.


Ahhh yes,,,, but Einsteins and Marilyns grandkids could be incredible... Many a times it takes a few generations to see the benefits....



> Another idea that may help, check out some with some of the field trainers in your area. They tend to see all sorts of retrievers and probably could stear you on to something that is close to what you are looking for.


Field trainers??? Field trial trainers won't give a show/field cross the time of day... And very few "field trainers" know what their looking at when it comes to a field/show cross...

IMHO

Angie


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Here an image of dogs to remember when the term "chassic Labrador Retriever" is discussed:


Thanks for that picture. If that picture were widely shown, it might change the way people look at labs. Look at all those lean, athletic dogs. Even the dual champion dog is pretty lean compared to todays show dogs.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

zeus3925 said:


> whelchel said:
> 
> 
> > The Merganser Kennels out on the west coast seem to put out some good looking field dogs.
> ...


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I don't know if I would discount field trainers. I have met some that are quite knowledgeable about both bench and field. I also know some that are clueless. 
The same can be said about the bench side as well. 

I work as an assistant to a pro field trainer. We get dogs in that are "dual purpose dogs" all the time. We see owners who want bench dogs to be able to perform in the field. So, we see all types. 

If you are around dogs long enough, you can develop a good eye for both beauty and performance, enough to give a person a direction to head for.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

whelchel said:


> What are some prominent studs known for producing dual purpose, i.e. cross of show and field lines, or CH MH type lines? I'm really burning up the computer to find these lesser known kennels and studs. I will never be a FT or HT fanatic. I want a dog that can work and make me proud in the field (birdiness and instictiveness), and make people say wow when they see them as well. It kills me how the FT labs look have been completed watered down-- IMHO. I'm looking to do a breeding for size, looks, conformation, with retained working ability. Wish more people would do the same!
> 
> Appreciate any info from those who share this endeavor!


Candlewood, Shamrock Acres (some dual CH breedings were done between dogs from both), and Hiwood all appeared in my old pedigrees here, to name a few.


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

If i was a betting man, I would say you have some Dickendall somewhere in that line too. Although, I have never heard of them reaching all the way on the west coast. However, almost every Dual pedigree I see these days has one of them in there lines.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Randall said:


> If i was a betting man, I would say you have some Dickendall somewhere in that line too. Although, I have never heard of them reaching all the way on the west coast. However, almost every Dual pedigree I see these days has one of them in there lines.



He's only ~3 generations behind the sire of the ones in my avatar. Arnold's sire (Dickendall Ruffy) had a SH. Arnold was used all over the place and is in a ton of show pedigrees out here! I'd hate to even guess what percentage... but it's high!


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> He's only ~3 generations behind the sire of the ones in my avatar. Arnold's sire (Dickendall Ruffy) had a SH. Arnold was used all over the place and is in a ton of show pedigrees out here! I'd hate to even guess what percentage... but it's high!


Arnold is in both of my dogs. Stryke (clm) is my half and half from the west coast, Gunner is field bred, and his mom is from a kennel in N. Carolina. Arnold is about 3 generations back in both of them.


----------



## caglatz (Aug 21, 2006)

Try www.deeprunretrievers.com -- they've addedon a bunch of CH MH dogs to their lineup over the past several years.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

caglatz said:


> Try www.deeprunretrievers.com -- they've addedon a bunch of CH MH dogs to their lineup over the past several years.


I've looked at a few of those and know of others too. I have to wait on breeders to do EIC testing first, however, since I have carrier status to work around in the ones mentioned above w/ Arnold behind them... 
;-)


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

Anyone know anything about Broad Reach. I am assuming its a kennel and there have been several Ch Mh's out of there. However, I can not find any information on them.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Randall said:


> Anyone know anything about Broad Reach. I am assuming its a kennel and there have been several Ch Mh's out of there. However, I can not find any information on them.


I don't think they are breeding conformation lines anymore. Mrs. Voshell died and Mr. Voshell now has a trial bred dog he is running.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

So far I've found Deep Run, Captain's Kennels, and Merganser Kennels to be seemingly producing these type of dogs. It's hard to know which dogs are truly talented, and which have benefited from extensive professional training. But I guess the same can be said for the FT and HT pedigree champions as well.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> I don't think they are breeding conformation lines anymore. Mrs. Voshell died and Mr. Voshell now has a trial bred dog he is running.


Buddy is indeed still breeding show dogs. If you want to contact him PM me and I'll give you his info. Also, if you look at most CH/MH pedigrees you'll find Marshland Blitz back there. He didn't do much himself, but he produced it. 

As Susan said earlier, take a look at Digs CH Ransoms Armbrook Indigo Hue MH: www.armbrooklabradors.com as he is producing really well. My trainer has a daughter of his that is working at master level and she's doing really nice. After this they're hoping to get her in the show ring. Tad (Belle's Tradition O'Broad Reach) has produced well too. You can also look at Blades, AM CAN CH Lor-Als Got Our Powerplay MH, at www.lor-allabs.com. There are some yellows producing well also.

I agree with everyone else though, they mature slower, the mother of my black male didn't finish her championship until she was almost five. Heck, all of the bitch line doesn't look good until 4. Nothing wrong with working ability though!

I have a yellow girl now out of SR CH Hyspire Slim Shady JH that is a firecracker. Slim is going to be working on his SH. www.drycreeklabradors.com

Hope that helps.

Sue


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I find this all very interesting!!

Good Stuff!

Angie


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Randall said:


> Anyone know anything about Broad Reach. I am assuming its a kennel and there have been several Ch Mh's out of there. However, I can not find any information on them.


CH Broad Reach Trace of Grace MH "Gin" was owned by Susanna Joy of Topform Labradors. Gin was her foundation bitch and she qualified at the Master National. 

Gin was bred to CH Dickendall Ruffy SH and whelped CH Topform Edward MH QAA.

Susanna doesn't do many breedings these days, but I would definitely recommend checking her out. Her lines don't have hunting titles in the last few generations (she didn't have time to pursue the hunting titles), but she definitely knows what she's doing.

I was lucky enough to get a very talented pup from Susanna that I have no doubt will get his MH, barring injury of course. He's managed to get his SH going 5 for 6 by 22 months old with me as his trainer. I've never trained a dog before and was using Waterdog to train him until he was 14 months old. He's got a great chance at the CH as well as a very good all breed handler has agreed to show him for me. His pedigree is CH Topform Scuzi x BOSS CH Gateway's Paint the Town. Sire is half brother to CH MACH "Kobe" MH.

www.topformlabradors.com


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Re: Sean's post just above; Gateway's Paint the town is by Ghostone's Louis Downtown (Lewis)...He is doubled on Marshland Blitz (see my previous post). Lewis has produced some nice hunting dogs. One of our listers, Patti, has a Lewis daughter working towards master. She may already have her senior hunter.

Oh yeah, Anne, you got some REALLY nice stuff out of Ch Cooks Midnight Bandit MH, those three in your avatar are by him aren't they? He's still going strong, he's here on the East coast, though he may be 15 or 16 now. Website at: http://www.janrod.com/bandit.htm

Again, Denise at Captains has some of the Alvagarden stuff that Bandit goes back to and his sire side is an OLD pedigree...

Sue Puff


----------



## justamere (Feb 19, 2008)

whelchel said:


> What are some prominent studs known for producing dual purpose, i.e. cross of show and field lines, or CH MH type lines? I'm really burning up the computer to find these lesser known kennels and studs.



Loved reading all these interesting posts - I've been out of town so rather tardy at responding to this thread. 

You may want to look at some kennels that are not as well known for the dual purpose Lab too. Dickendall is well known and respected in show circles, but have also produced several MHs. Arnold was the sire of 3 CH/MH - Broadreach Gripper, Belle Tradition O'Broad Reach, Lor-al's Got Our Powerplay. I have an 8 month old Arnold great granddaughter who is doing extremely well in the field. She's a 'tweener and will have more substance than many field Labs, but she's also got brains and birdiness and plenty of leg under her.

Simerdown is another show kennel that has maintained drive in their dogs. Their chocolate, Doc, is the #1 chocolate Lab and is the son of a CH/MH and a hunting dog. I train with another dog bred by Simerdown who is running at the master level - lots of drive and good looking too.

There are also many people who have utilized the few CH/MH for their proven dual abilities. The photo I've attached is of a male I bred sired by Cook's Midnight Bandit. He picked up 60 birds on opening day this year. I plan to breed his sister soon and the pedigree will combine three CH/MH with a little Lean Mac. I'm hoping to keep the birdiness and desire along with the moderate looks (what show people often call old fashioned type).

Good luck in your search! I think you'll find there are more and more of us who like a moderate dog rather than the extremes from either side of the fence.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

How many of all dual purpose labs reach the pinnacle of showing ie Westminster and in AKC field trials. 

Just as behaviour and talent is shaped, so is physical appearance???


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

justamere said:


> You may want to look at some kennels that are not as well known for the dual purpose Lab too. Dickendall is well known and respected in show circles, but have also produced several MHs. Arnold was the sire of 3 CH/MH - Broadreach Gripper, Belle Tradition O'Broad Reach, Lor-al's Got Our Powerplay. I have an 8 month old Arnold great granddaughter who is doing extremely well in the field. She's a 'tweener and will have more substance than many field Labs, but she's also got brains and birdiness and plenty of leg under her.


Yep, my boy is doubled on Arnold. Arnold's sire was Dickendall Ruffy SH mentioned in my previous post.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

suepuff said:


> .
> 
> Oh yeah, Anne, you got some REALLY nice stuff out of Ch Cooks Midnight Bandit MH, those three in your avatar are by him aren't they? He's still going strong, he's here on the East coast, though he may be 15 or 16 now. Website at: http://www.janrod.com/bandit.htm
> 
> ...


I'm looking hard at one of Denise's black boys to put w/ the 2 girls (first 2) in my avatar. Those are from Rosa (who I lost this summer to the poisoning :-x) and Alibi (Arnold g-grandson). Sure wish I could find a nice EIC clear male of the chocolate persuasion to put them with, but it's proving TOUGH!

Rosa was bred to Bandit for her 2nd litter-- Mata, my current mom is a product of that and this particular litter on the ground is a linebreeding on Bandit w/ a Merganser MH. I also took the choc (Fuji) in the avatar to Bandit... LOVE LOVE LOVE what he produced for me too, and know that Justamere (Where the heck have you been hiding?!!! ) feels the same! 

My biggest problem now seems to be to work around EIC. My 2 girls in the avatar were carriers by the research test-- likely from Arnold, and it's really been tough to find tested clear males (that suit me) currently. Rosa, their mom, was Clear. Unfortunately the show arena is not embracing the test as quickly as I'd hoped.  Anne


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Aussie said:


> How many of all dual purpose labs reach the pinnacle of showing ie Westminster and in AKC field trials.
> 
> Just as behaviour and talent is shaped, so is physical appearance???


I doubt if any "dual purpose" labs are going to make it both games. It could well be that we have seen the last of the dual champion labs. The body types are too divergent. 

Attempts reportedly have been made that would close the gap, but both sides have their are rather entrenched in what they wish to see in the breed. Both sides are changing the breed, but not in the same direction and not necessarily for the good. 

I would just like to have a dog that hunts well and looks good at the same time. After all hunting season lasts only a few weeks. I don't want to waste my time feeding an ugly dog.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

So let's breed them for talent, and the moderate looks that "should" be considered in the show ring. If FT'ers don't like them because they're too pretty, or show folks don't like that they're athletic, then their loss!  Bet it would come around with time if there were more folks breeding for both.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

zeus3925 said:


> I doubt if any "dual purpose" labs are going to make it both games. It could well be that we have seen the last of the dual champion labs. The body types are too divergent.
> 
> Attempts reportedly have been made that would close the gap, but both sides have their are rather entrenched in what they wish to see in the breed. Both sides are changing the breed, but not in the same direction and not necessarily for the good.
> 
> I would just like to have a dog that hunts well and looks good at the same time. After all hunting season lasts only a few weeks. I don't want to waste my time feeding an ugly dog.


I agree (esp on that last part!). :razz: 
I do know of someone who had a CH/MH "playing" at QAA not long ago-- not sure he was ever bred. And since there are only 44 or so CH/MH's to date (and maybe only 30 that are alive still), that's saying something about how hard it is to find the right combination of genes, let alone homes.... having the time and $$$$ to play the game at such a level.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

whelchel said:


> So let's breed them for talent, and the moderate looks that "should" be considered in the show ring. If FT'ers don't like them because they're too pretty, or show folks don't like that they're athletic, then their loss!  Bet it would come around with time if there were more folks breeding for both.



Amen to that. I've heard several say it's never successful to breed "tweeners", and that people aren't interested. They couldn't be more wrong from my viewpoint. My 1 wk old litter is long spoken for and a good number will be going to competition homes if we find the structure is suitable at 7 - 8 wks when evals are done. If not, I have pet/hunting homes that will be thrilled.


----------



## justamere (Feb 19, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> Amen to that. I've heard several say it's never successful to breed "tweeners", and that people aren't interested. They couldn't be more wrong from my viewpoint. My 1 wk old litter is long spoken for and a good number will be going to competition homes if we find the structure is suitable at 7 - 8 wks when evals are done. If not, I have pet/hunting homes that will be thrilled.


Yep, there seems to be a lot more interest in the 'tweeners now than in years past. But that's not to say that people deeply entrenched on one side of the fence or the other will ever change their minds. I've had field people sneer at my (slightly) broader headed and heavier built dogs and had show people comment that "it's so nice that I'm _upgrading_ my dogs by breeding into show lines." I just smile and breed for a nice moderate dog that loves to work and yet is easy to live with. As zeus3925 said "I don't want to waste my time feeding an ugly dog."




windycanyon said:


> LOVE LOVE LOVE what he produced for me too, and know that Justamere (Where the heck have you been hiding?!!! ) feels the same!


Hey Anne! I agree - I love what I got from Bandit! Haven't been hiding, just don't have time to get on the forum very often. I'm still here plugging away. Getting close to finishing an HRCH/MH with another about ready to run with the big boys. And have litters planned with two of my Bandit daughters. Will probably follow your lead and linebreed one to a Bandit grandson. Maybe get some of those elusive chocolates... How is your new litter doing?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

justamere said:


> Will probably follow your lead and linebreed one to a Bandit grandson. Maybe get some of those elusive chocolates... How is your new litter doing?



8 days old, fat and Sassy! They've pretty much all doubled their already high birth weights now, and the "Big Green Machine" is 2.5# already.  Very consistent other than the big boy's size. Nice heads, coats, tails and nice compact bodies so far.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> I doubt if any "dual purpose" labs are going to make it both games. It could well be that we have seen the last of the dual champion labs.


In the US, perhaps. 
There have been very recent Dual Champions internationally. Multi-Dual Ch. Carromer's Charlie Chalk most recently in France. Said to be the "greatest Labrador ever seen in continental Europe". I think he just died in 2004.


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

Dad is CH Dickendall (conformation line) and mom is from field lines.

I believe he has the potential, but a lot of it will depend on my schedule and ability to get a pro handler for conformation in a few years. I think he's pretty good looking and he has a ton of drive and desire to please. He was jumping in the water after bumpers at 8 wks old.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

The black in the pic is the son of a CH/MH. He has been very slow to mature both mentally and physically. The pic is old. At 3 1/2 he's finally about ready to go back in the show ring.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I have been to France and I've seen the labs they have there. Most of them resemble what we call "British style" dogs here. I don't know anything about their performance characteristics. 

Field trials in Europe are different than those in the US. There is a bit of apple and oranges in comparing the two.

I think the Europeans have the right idea though when it comes to preserving the best of the field and bench characteristics of the breed--in order to be a bench champion, the dog has to be a field champion as well. Only trouble with that is you are talking BIG money, something I for one don't have.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

For those that wish to compare European rules vs AKC rules for field trials, try these links:

http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/In... for field trials for Retriever breeds_EN.doc.

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/RFTRET.pdf

http://seaside.se/~nilsson/trials.html


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Need a read from knowledgeable conformation folks, but request any input be PM'd rather than posted. Ultimate goal is to add good head conformation in my future breeding. 

My female has a nice head, but could be a tad larger/more square, and is just slightly long in the nose. Good looking female, but has field conformation I would say. (Avatar Pic)

The prospective sire is beautiful in my opinion, but I'm not sure that I know what a "good" nose looks like, i.e short and small, long and square... short and square I would guess. 

http://www.planelabradorkennels.com/Gallery.php

Thanks!


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

If we've seen the last of the Dual CH in the US, but they still happen occasionally internationally, what does that say about the state of the Lab and the games we play with them in the US.....over-specialization?

I commend Dual purpose breeders and look forward to the day we see another AKC Dual CH.....just hope it is in my lifetime!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

whelchel said:


> The prospective sire is beautiful in my opinion, but I'm not sure that I know what a "good" nose looks like, i.e short and small, long and square... short and square I would guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Here's the official standard:
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.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

The Illustrated Standard is great. It shows drawings of a lot of things (both good and bad!). Many show muzzles are getting way too short!


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Ironman said:


> If we've seen the last of the Dual CH in the US, but they still happen occasionally internationally, what does that say about the state of the Lab and the games we play with them in the US.....over-specialization?
> 
> I commend Dual purpose breeders and look forward to the day we see another AKC Dual CH.....just hope it is in my lifetime!


I'm with you there, Ironman!


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. Call me crazy, I'll probably spend my last dollar in this life trying to get a Dual CH. It caught my attention and now I can't let it go lol. Damn pipe dreams!  I better get a damn good job....or husband...hehe. 

Anne, where can one get the illustrated standard?

Kourtney


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

RemsBPJasper said:


> I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. Call me crazy, I'll probably spend my last dollar in this life trying to get a Dual CH. It caught my attention and now I can't let it go lol. Damn pipe dreams!  I better get a damn good job....or husband...hehe.
> 
> Anne, where can one get the illustrated standard?
> 
> Kourtney


Ordering information for the standard is at http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/publications_illustrated.php


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Awesome, thanks Jeff!


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

So.. which studs out there, prominent or otherwise, meet these standards?Surely it's not that easy, otherwise we would be closer to dual champions. However; There have to be studs out there recognized as having the attributes looks and performance-wise that close the gap. No it probably wont happen with one magical breeding, granted. But I find that there are prominent dogs, i.e Snake Eyes, throughout the pedigree of dual purpose labs. What is a short list for current day studs that fit the bill?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

windycanyon said:


> The Illustrated Standard is great. It shows drawings of a lot of things (both good and bad!). Many show muzzles are getting way too short!


Yup, personally I can't stand a lot of what wins in the show ring around here. They have the heads of Rotties. Nothing against Rotties, but a Rottie head belongs on a Rottie.

I love this guys head. Pic is taken at the age of around 8 1/2 and after he recovered from a horrible accident, so just imagine before the scars.

Nice proper planes.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> Ordering information for the standard is at http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/publications_illustrated.php



Or do as I have.... and enter your dogs at the LRC conformation certificate programs held at Nationals or select hunt tests (occasionally field trials too)! They give each entrant a copy for showing up.  

Sorry, I've given all 4 of my extra copies away to puppy owners! I think it's time for me to volunteer to chair another though as Sonya and her brother Sam need evaluations.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Yup, personally I can't stand a lot of what wins in the show ring around here. They have the heads of Rotties. Nothing against Rotties, but a Rottie head belongs on a Rottie.
> 
> I love this guys head. Pic is taken at the age of around 8 1/2 and after he recovered from a horrible accident, so just imagine before the scars.
> 
> Nice proper planes.


Who is that? I agree-- very nice head.
Nothing worse than the overdone, short/wedgy little muzzles you see on some...


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

RemsBPJasper said:


> I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. Call me crazy, I'll probably spend my last dollar in this life trying to get a Dual CH. It caught my attention and now I can't let it go lol. Damn pipe dreams!  I better get a damn good job....or husband...hehe.
> 
> Anne, where can one get the illustrated standard?
> 
> Kourtney


LOL, we'd better watch it. I caught myself wishing for a Sugar Daddy the other day so I could afford to do more w/ my dogs.... snicker snicker.... 

Dreams are nice, but that damned letter that came (WAY early, I might add) from AARP the other day has started to flip me out.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Yup, personally I can't stand a lot of what wins in the show ring around here. They have the heads of Rotties. Nothing against Rotties, but a Rottie head belongs on a Rottie.
> 
> I love this guys head. Pic is taken at the age of around 8 1/2 and after he recovered from a horrible accident, so just imagine before the scars.
> 
> Nice proper planes.


That's Blades isn't it? What's the pedigree on your black male in your avatar BTW?

With heads, people forget or don't know that the length of muzzle (nose to stop) should be about what the length from stop to backskull and have level planes like the dog in the picture. By making those stops so prominent, length of muzzle is being lost. How can they pick up a bird if their muzzle isn't long enough? For that matter, it seems interesting to me at the number of missing teeth in the show lines. That's got to be related to decreasing muzzle length.

As to having another true Dual champion, I'm skeptical. I think that we have developed two different types of dog. I see the Hunt test as a way to bridge that gap for the show lines, but I don't know how you would get the field trial lines to add more type....I don't think that our show lines can do the work required to get a FC. JMHO. I have show lines that work BTW. And am looking for a male from show lines that can work as I have a bitch to breed next year...so this has been formost in my mind the last couple of months.

Sue Puff


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

As someone on here said before (sorry I don't recall who), the judges have to judge what is in front of them in the show ring. The more people who enter with proper dogs....just maybe. I know it goes both ways with a lot of FT people not wanting to show their dog or lose that training time and a lot of show people have no interest in field work, or do but don't know where to start. It seems, just based on a lot of this thread, that there's quite a few people who want to bridge the gap. Idk...like I said, I'll probably die trying but as soon as it works out for me to start a program with my own dogs I will. I think there's a lot of good looking field dogs out there and obviously a lot of show dogs that can do the work. How far is the jump from MH to FT? Oh, and the other thing...the money of trying two venues. 

I need to start advertising for that Sugar Daddy!!


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

whelchel said:


> So.. which studs out there, prominent or otherwise, meet these standards?Surely it's not that easy, otherwise we would be closer to dual champions. However; There have to be studs out there recognized as having the attributes looks and performance-wise that close the gap.What is a short list for current day studs that fit the bill?


I don't know if there is a "short list" out there. One stud you might look at is Jazz's Buffalo Bill Cody, MH. I own a pup that is his grandson and son of my dog, Titan. I was hoping to get a blocky lab like Titan and Cody. Of the 17 dogs in two litters I ended up with a one of two pups that clearly are field machines. While he isn't too ugly to feed, he is a blow the doors off field dog.
As a pup he really looked like a dual purpose dog. He may still end up looking like one but he is clearly one lanky fellow at 16 months. But Cody has turned out some really nice looking field trial dogs. See him at: mnceramics.com/dogs/ and at : browndogmafia.com

Barracuda Blue and Cuda's Blue Ryder are also good looking studs but I don't think they ever were shown on the bench.

Only other thing I can suggest is surf the net and do the research. It is not easy to find a true dual purpose dog as the bench and field types have developed in divergent ways. The judges are now looking for divergent things in Labs. The cost of developing a single dog for both games is exorbitant and few owners have the means to do both. In short, circumstances mitigate against those dogs from ever gaining fame in both bench and field. Thus I suspect the list is very short to non- existent.

Perhaps, the best way is to start with a group that have good field credentials and have good looks, or they may have good bench conformation that are MH's. Run searches on dogs in their pedigree to see which kennels are producing the dog that comes close. Then narrow your search to a couple of lines. ( I focused on Ironwood Tarnation and Puh's Superman when looking for Titan).


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

There is someone who has a choco female from Cuda's Blue Ryder lines that is showing her.....saw the website once doubt I can come up with it again. Had some kind of placement in puppy class or something...


----------



## torg (Feb 21, 2005)

I am not sure if anyone mentioned "Kobe" but he has excelled in the show ring , agility, Hunt tests, field trials, Obedience and Rally. CH MACH PROSPECT’S SLAM DUNK MH, UD, RE, PAX, MXP8, MJP6 http://www.citrushillcaninecenter.com/Citrus_Hill_Canine_Center/Kobe.html

Here is a pic of my girl at 10 months old. Hailey will be bred to CH/MH after health clearances and breeding age. She showed retrieving desire since a baby.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

http://www.rattlingridgelabs.com/Girls.html

I think Mercy and especially Hattie are gorgeous.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

RemsBPJasper said:


> http://www.rattlingridgelabs.com/Girls.html
> 
> I think Mercy and especially Hattie are gorgeous.


They are very nice... but not near the bone the show ring (even Intl) demands. Willie is very nice (Mercy son out of Howdy), too btw.

Joan is a very good friend, does nice breedings and (don't tell anyone-- shhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!) but we actually do STRUCTURAL evals on her puppies.  Oh damn, now Doug is going to see this and tell her I squealed on her. :lol::shock: I may have to have this message self destruct in a few minutes................:twisted:


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

lol. well dang it then we just need to change the show ring! grrr! i'm on a mission now....someone help me win the lottery hehe


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

RemsBPJasper said:


> There is someone who has a choco female from Cuda's Blue Ryder lines that is showing her.....saw the website once doubt I can come up with it again. Had some kind of placement in puppy class or something...


I'm not sure, but I think you may be talking about my "Blue" here. She has been shown with fairly decent results. I plan to take her to one of the Babcock (Captain's Kennels) dogs this next year.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> Dreams are nice, but that damned letter that came (WAY early, I might add) from AARP the other day has started to flip me out.


Anne, I turned 32 in November, and I got one in the mail last week. I know that teaching 9th grade ages you quickly, but I didn't think it worked THAT quickly!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

windycanyon said:


> Who is that? I agree-- very nice head.
> Nothing worse than the overdone, short/wedgy little muzzles you see on some...



Blades! Am/Can Ch. Lor-Al's Got Our Power Play CD MH

He is the sire of the black in my aviator!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

suepuff said:


> That's Blades isn't it? What's the pedigree on your black male in your avatar BTW?
> 
> Sue Puff


Yes it it Blades. The black, Magic, is a Blades son!


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Lablady, yes!!! I couldn't for the life of me remember where I'd seen the website or why lol. Should have known it was through here somehow. Very nice looking dog in my opinion and kudos to you. 

Anne and Joni...I just turned 24 before Thanksgiving and I'd gotten an AARP offer like sometime last year...so I have ya both beat! lol.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

RemsBPJasper said:


> Lablady, yes!!! I couldn't for the life of me remember where I'd seen the website or why lol. Should have known it was through here somehow. Very nice looking dog in my opinion and kudos to you.
> 
> Anne and Joni...I just turned 24 before Thanksgiving and I'd gotten an AARP offer like sometime last year...so I have ya both beat! lol.



Yer still wet behind the ears, girl!!!!!!!!!!!! Joni too!


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Anyone willing to fess up to how much training a dog has cost us? I 'll go first. I have over $12,000 sunk into field training for my oldest dog plus an equal amount of time in a time for training barter. In addition, I probably have another $5000 in entrance fees. If you predicted 7 years ago that I was going to spend that kind of cash on a dog, I would have given you a business card of a good therapist that I carry around in my wallet.

My guess that campaigning a bench dog can cost a pile of rocks or two. Anyone ready to ante up?

Quote from Don Dzurick:"The reason we are all here is because we are not all there".


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> Anyone willing to fess up to how much training a dog has cost us? I 'll go first. I have over $12,000 sunk into field training for my oldest dog plus an equal amount of time in a time for training barter. In addition, I probably have another $5000 in entrance fees. If you predicted 7 years ago that I was going to spend that kind of cash on a dog, I would have given you a business card of a good therapist that I carry around in my wallet.
> 
> My guess that campaigning a bench dog can cost a pile of rocks or two. Anyone ready to ante up?
> 
> Quote from Don Dzurick:"The reason we are all here is because we are not all there".


I thought I had a lot into it, but way less than you. I'll not even post because my investment is chump change.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

I've only spent a few hundred on seminars/material. Another couple hundred on bumpers etc. I'm up $630 on EE. And $1500 for the dog of course. About to spend some more on health clearances.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Last I knew, it took at least $5000 to finish a very nice Lab in the AKC ring in the NW (takes alot of dogs to make a major out here) and that was ~5 yrs ago. Handler fees, gas and motels have all gone up since then, of course........ 

I'd venture to guess 2-3x that for a MH if there is a pro involved. My versatility training ran me ~$4000 with Rosa (CDX SH OA OAJ titles by 4 yo), which was well below what NW pros were stating as a range for SH alone (at the time $4500-7000), so it can be done w/ some patience and time for less, but since then, many of the good water training spots around have become unavailable.

I figure ~$750 a dog for the current range of health clearances at bare minimum (more if you count CERFs annually thru 10 yrs old as I've done and more if you did color doppler heart vs ascultation..). $1000 would be safer.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

zeus3925 said:


> My guess that campaigning a bench dog can cost a pile of rocks or two. Anyone ready to ante up?


For the conformation stuff or for the field stuff, or both? 

I'm just getting into the field side (and LOVING it!), so don't have a lot of information to go on as to the costs of this side of stuff. With books and equipment (and the 10 beginning hunt test training classes I took this summer), I have probably only spent a few thousand dollars so far. Shhh....don't tell my husband!  

I'm sure that, as I get more and more into it, it will be significantly more than that. Thankfully, it is still much cheaper than when I used to be involved with horse competitions. LOL My "next" goal is to have a CH/MH lab to add to the list...we're halfway there (CH). We'll see how far I can work toward that MH myself since I really love doing things myself rather than handing my dog over to a trainer or handler.

I know a bit more about the conformation side, though I still consider myself more of a newbie there as well since this dog (in my avatar) is the first dog I've ever shown.

"Campaigning" in the bench venue refers to continuing to show after a dog finishes its conformation championship. What I've heard in the past (a few years ago) is that it costs an average of at least $1000 per point (again, 15 points required to earn a CH, including two majors of 3-5 points under different judges) to _finish_ a conformation champion. That doesn't include campaigning, which usually costs about $20-25K/yr for those whose dogs remain in the AKC's "Top 5." That figure was given to me by someone who uses the handler who has campaigned the top winning labrador in the history of the breed a couple of years.

If the people then want to campaign, usually a professional handler is required and that person basically keeps the dog and tours around the countryside with it, showing it at various shows. A pro typically costs about $100/show just to take the dog into the ring...with added charges for taking in to the group or Best In Show ring (more if they win). That doesn't include boarding/housing/grooming/travel expenses (such as gas/hotel usually being split between all whose dogs are being shown). I've heard that a pro typically charges $1000 or more to show a dog (ringside pick-up...no grooming, etc. involved) at a larger, more well-known show like Westminster or Eukanuba, where the dog has to be a champion even to show up.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> Anyone willing to fess up to how much training a dog has cost us?


It isn't a matter of confessing - it is a matter of killing that brain cell that holds that info - I do not want to know what I have spent on my dogs.....I could probably have a pretty fancy house, nicer truck, and a ton of other "toys" not to mention a vacation that does not invovle throwing dead birds for dogs!

FOM


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

FOM said:


> .....not to mention a vacation that does not invovle throwing dead birds for dogs!


Ah, but what fun would that be?!?  LOL

You know, the way I see it, it is a hobby for me, and while it costs a chunk of change, it is definitely not one of the most expensive hobbies I could have chosen. For instance, I *LOVE* old cars and I really miss my horse competitions. 
Now, if my husband would just see that logic!  He's all about taking vacations "without the dogs." LOL


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I have been looking for a really good looking FC/AFC stud to breed my girl to. I need to post a new pic, she has really filled out and looks wonderful, an older pic of her is in my avatar right now. Her dam and sire are both AM/CAN CH/MH's, and I am looking really hard at FC/AFC Wood Rivers Franchise, aka Shaq. He has a true dual coat, 74lbs, nice head, and appears to have pretty nice overall conformation. There are only 2 dogs in her 3 generation pedigree that are not Ch's, and they are Dickendalls A-Ha( Arnolds dam), and Dickendall Davaron No Exit. So she really is put together very nicely. She is also full of go, I would just like to add a bit more tenacity to the next generation, you know working on that Dual Champion thing. What do you all think? I have also looked at Money Talks II, aka Copper. I think he is a really nice dog too, but I think I am leaning toward Shaq. At least for the first breeding. I guess if I can find a high drive conformation stud, I would look hard at that, but I think a proven FC/AFC dog is where I am looking for now.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

GoodDog said:


> I have been looking for a really good looking FC/AFC stud to breed my girl to. I need to post a new pic, she has really filled out and looks wonderful, an older pic of her is in my avatar right now. Her dam and sire are both AM/CAN CH/MH's, and I am looking really hard at FC/AFC Wood Rivers Franchise, aka Shaq. He has a true dual coat, 74lbs, nice head, and appears to have pretty nice overall conformation. There are only 2 dogs in her 3 generation pedigree that are not Ch's, and they are Dickendalls A-Ha( Arnolds dam), and Dickendall Davaron No Exit. So she really is put together very nicely. She is also full of go, I would just like to add a bit more tenacity to the next generation, you know working on that Dual Champion thing. What do you all think?


I think she looks quite nice.I've not seen Shaq in person but heard nice things about him. The only picture I have seen, did not really impress me though.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> I doubt if any "dual purpose" labs are going to make it both games. It could well be that we have seen the last of the dual champion labs. The body types are too divergent.
> 
> Attempts reportedly have been made that would close the gap, but both sides have their are rather entrenched in what they wish to see in the breed. Both sides are changing the breed, but not in the same direction and not necessarily for the good.
> 
> I would just like to have a dog that hunts well and looks good at the same time. After all hunting season lasts only a few weeks. I don't want to waste my time feeding an ugly dog.


I think looks is what we become used to. All my five labradors are certainly different. 

I suppose other examples may be worthwhile adding. Would a racing greyhound breeder look at a show greyhound? Who a working border collie breeder look at show lines? 

Why dilute working perfection/talent, except for health reasons?


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Aussie said:


> .......I suppose other examples may be worthwhile adding. Would a racing greyhound breeder look at a show greyhound? Who a working border collie breeder look at show lines?....


Yes, I think they would, IF those dogs had the raw potential to race or work.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

GoodDog said:


> I have been looking for a really good looking FC/AFC stud to breed my girl to. I need to post a new pic, she has really filled out and looks wonderful, an older pic of her is in my avatar right now. Her dam and sire are both AM/CAN CH/MH's, and I am looking really hard at FC/AFC Wood Rivers Franchise, aka Shaq. He has a true dual coat, 74lbs, nice head, and appears to have pretty nice overall conformation. There are only 2 dogs in her 3 generation pedigree that are not Ch's, and they are Dickendalls A-Ha( Arnolds dam), and Dickendall Davaron No Exit. So she really is put together very nicely. She is also full of go, I would just like to add a bit more tenacity to the next generation, you know working on that Dual Champion thing. What do you all think? I have also looked at Money Talks II, aka Copper. I think he is a really nice dog too, but I think I am leaning toward Shaq. At least for the first breeding. I guess if I can find a high drive conformation stud, I would look hard at that, but I think a proven FC/AFC dog is where I am looking for now.



I think she's quite beautiful as well! Copper is a great looking dog, and has the credit of having a sire known for his looks and throwing good looks. I believe I heard that Copper was 78 lbs, but from the pictures I've seen his structure is quite a bit more substantial than Shaq at 74 lbs.. And I really want to like Shaq! Then again Coppers sire was in the 60's.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I think the thing to really understand when deciding WHO you'll breed to is that it's not JUST the stud who is contributing the genes... it's his whole family you need to look at! If the stud is nice but daddy (or mom or whoever) is UG-ly, you need to realize that it too will just come out in your pups. Aim toward IMPROVING. Don't sacrifice the conformation for something else, just as I didn't sacrifice working ability 13+ yrs ago when I bred to my first CH/SH/Cd. You will get a range of body styles, etc, at first, but you have to do your part and select well....

Do you have a good group of friends (thru kennel club,etc) to help you evaluate for structure, so you at least don't LOSE that good structure? I'm talking about balance, hock stability, feet, etc... the WHOLE package. I have friends who judge and/or breed, who help me evaluate every litter of mine. It helps prevent me from getting tunnel vision too. You, as the breeder, always need to keep the best overall pup. Don't let that get away to a pet home!


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

For classic looking labs with stellar field performance take a look at this breeder:
http://www.jazztimelabs.com/


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie*
> _.......I suppose other examples may be worthwhile adding. Would a racing greyhound breeder look at a show greyhound? Who a working border collie breeder look at show lines?...._
> 
> Yes, I think they would, IF those dogs had the raw potential to race or work.


Think about this for a second Ironman. How would a working dog breeder *KNOW* if a show dog of the opposite sex to his would have the raw potential to work unless the dog was worked in the the right venue?

How would anyone know if a show grayhound was fast if it had never been trained or raced? Same with a working border collie. If all it ever had to do was look good in a ring how would you know if there was any herding in the dog at all? Sure all grayhounds are fast but fast enough to win races against other grayhounds? The herding dog herd as well as working dogs bred to herd?

I get a kick out of lab pet owners. They say their dog would have made a great trial dog 'cause it wears their arm out throwing tennis balls or sticks and loves the water. I'm sure there are many labs in pet homes that could have made FC if they had been put into the right enviornment as pups. But, would I breed my FC bitch to one gambling I've found the right one?


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> Anyone willing to fess up to how much training a dog has cost us? I 'll go first. I have over $12,000 sunk into field training for my oldest dog


We spend that in a just a year.  I get mad when you guys make me think about it. :evil:

I remember the days when I actually went shoe shopping...no more!


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

> Think about this for a second Ironman. How would a working dog breeder KNOW if a show dog of the opposite sex to his would have the raw potential to work unless the dog was worked in the the right venue?


Research and patience.

In Labs, we all descend from the same stock. The blueprint is there it just needs to be used. I have a nice bitch from a well known show kennel, she was nothing but a kennel dog for her first two years, ZERO training, no birds, ever. But In researching lines I found her to have lines I was interested in, Kerrybrook in particular. So I brought her home, and wouldn't you know I threw bumpers, balls, and birds and the most she would do is jog over and look at what fell presumably out of the sky. I felt a little….well like I made a bad choice. Well I tried her again off and on over a few weeks and there was very little improvement. So, I let her rest. She was able to see other dogs as I was working with them, I don’t know if that is what did it, but one day this last summer after a few months, I had her out with me just hanging around (if anything she seemed to be a nice underfoot companion type dog). I thought that I'd see how she was doing and threw a bumper. It about floored me when she went after it with a head of steam.....when she picked it up I was shocked, but when she ran back and dumped it at my feet I was dizzy. I ran to get my wife to see what she did. She said sure, show me. So I did, and she did it again, and again...... I brought out a wingclip pigeon and she loved it, nice soft mouth btw. Over the fall its just been fun retrieving and intro to water, great entry. When retrieving, she is just as "hot" and birdy as my field bred dogs (which may or may not be saying that much). I plan on trying her in Hunt Tests this spring. Though she’ll likely never be a Field Champ, I'm very pleased with her progress.....but I really didn't do anything. It was there all along. I researched the show lines I was after and was patient enough to let those lines prove themselves worthy. If she were started correctly when young, I'm sure she'd be way ahead of where she is at now. I guess my point is, just because a show breeder has ignored instinct does not mean it is not there and cannot be brought to the surface in a big and successful way. 

Research and patience.

+1 on the Jazztime dogs, potential there IMO.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Ironman said:


> Research and patience.


I agree 100%. You just really have to research the lines for those traits and then be willing to be patient for those traits to surface. Not all field dogs immediately "get it" either. I've got one field girl here that just turned one and she is finally just starting to put the pieces together & be more cooperative in training. She's just simply slower to mature mentally. To me, it doesn't mean that she's not birdy, doesn't have a good work ethic, or is a "dud" in any way (although I'm sure she would have been washed out of a professional program by now). It just means I've had to be more patient with her. It's been a grueling year, but I now have that feeling back that I had when I picked her up as young pup...she's going to be an awesome girl!


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

*Ironman* wrote:


> So I brought her home, and wouldn't you know I threw bumpers, balls, and birds and the most she would do is jog over and look at what fell presumably out of the sky.


LOL! Eons ago, a dear friend had bred a very nice FT-bred litter. She had decided to keep a male. But when a bumper was thrown this pup jogged over and sniffed it, and went onto something else. This pretty much was the case until force fetch around 5-1/2 mos of age. He grew up to be FC Backachers Son of a Witch  and a wonderful household companion as well, and quite a handsome boy to boot.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Ironman said:


> Yes, I think they would, IF those dogs had the raw potential to race or work.


Actually no, they won't. I happen to know some working Border Collie people and some working Saluki and Greyhound people and have discussed gentics, working ability, conformation etc.
Anyway, both those two groups (working BC and Greyhound and Saluki) are very much against conformation showing and selecting for looks in general. They have zero respect for breed standards and expect evolution alone to select the breed type.
Also the working Border Collie people don't want to even allow any Border Collie registered with AKC to also be registered with their club (ABCA I think.. The one NOT associated with AKC) especially if it is a breed Champion (as if that harms the dog's genetics or something).


----------



## Sissi (Dec 27, 2007)

Howard N said:


> Think about this for a second Ironman. How would a working dog breeder *KNOW* if a show dog of the opposite sex to his would have the raw potential to work unless the dog was worked in the the right venue?
> 
> How would anyone know if a show grayhound was fast if it had never been trained or raced? Same with a working border collie. If all it ever had to do was look good in a ring how would you know if there was any herding in the dog at all? Sure all grayhounds are fast but fast enough to win races against other grayhounds? The herding dog herd as well as working dogs bred to herd?
> 
> I get a kick out of lab pet owners. They say their dog would have made a great trial dog 'cause it wears their arm out throwing tennis balls or sticks and loves the water. I'm sure there are many labs in pet homes that could have made FC if they had been put into the right enviornment as pups. But, would I breed my FC bitch to one gambling I've found the right one?


I think you are completely right. But still somehow you are going an easy way. I think as purebred-breeders we all have the responsibility to preserve EVERYTHING this breed was designed (stupid word, sorry for my bad English)for. And the overall structure and the look certainly is a part of the breed too
I'm fighting this problem right now. I started out with pure showlines (I think no dogs in the last four generations was ever seriously trained for field work.)
So when I started out working my dogs I wasn't really sure what would happen. I certainly was surprised how well my dogs developed. Now the females I kept from both of my litters both passed their first beginner hunting titles (the younger one with only 16 months) and they look very promising concerning their future field work. But still when I will look for a stud I will not compromise on the appearance. I only want to produce pups which able to do well on shows. And I will try to keep in mind their retrieving abilities also.
I think breeders of working-dogs should think the other way around. I'm sure there are differences in the look of working-dogs too. So even if you put the working-abilities in the first place it is still important to look for the conformation of the potential stud-dog.
But this is only my opinion and it might be too challenging in times of health problems and oeconimic crisis


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

From all my searching, here's what I have for some "short list" dual purpose type studs or stud lines, both from field and/or bench, that have looks/talent. (excuse the lack of full names in the interest of me writing these off the top of my head)  Also, these are just personal opinion driven preferences, as a caveat.

Thanks for some suggestions so far, keep them coming!

Field:
Close haul Windward
Ford
Jazz Rascal (now deceased and semen gone I believe)
Running with the Devil, and son Copper
Candlewoods PDQ
Wood river franchise, Shaq
barracuda blue and son Ryder
Cruise (more of the lean mac/jazztime mix. clicks on talent/looks)
Pachanga Magnum Force
CEO Gates--moreso the offspring he throws
Snake Eyes and Aces High III
Watermarks Howdy
Coolwater's Ready
Candlewood Cash on the Line
Riptide Star
Current derby sensation, Punch, will be interesting to watch (clearances?)

Bench:
CH POPLAR FOREST PLAY IT AGAIN SAM, MH
CH Yellow Rose Rio Bravo SH
Simerdown Dr. Pepper, and son Luke of high voltage
Dickenhall Lines
High Voltage Studs in general
Captains Kennels studs in general-- Rage, Sailor
Merganser retriever dogs
Cook's midnight bandit
Am/Can Ch. Lor-Al's Got Our Power Play CD MH
CH Waterbound Locke On Laddy MH

Alvgarden's lines of Sweden, or Swedish dual lines. Is there a current dual CH there who's siring?

Wow, maybe not a short list. Now it's your turn, help me out folks!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

whelchel said:


> From all my searching, here's what I have for some "short list" dual purpose type studs or stud lines, both from field and/or bench, that have looks/talent. (excuse the lack of full names in the interest of me writing these off the top of my head)  Also, these are just personal opinion driven preferences, as a caveat.
> 
> Thanks for some suggestions so far, keep them coming!
> 
> ...


Snake was VERY field looking. Some of the others on your list I would be hard pressed to think of in terms of dual purpose.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Snake was VERY field looking. Some of the others on your list I would be hard pressed to think of in terms of dual purpose.


 I agree, perhaps the classic looks of the 60's-70's field trial dogs of the past, but definitely not dual purpose in today's U.S. Labrador standards..IMHO


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Snake was VERY field looking. Some of the others on your list I would be hard pressed to think of in terms of dual purpose.


Yes I know, I wasn't ultra discerning on the field side, in the interest of naming sires who I have seen to bridge the gap-- a very relative judgement call. In some instances, that involves the type progeny they throw, and not necessarily the sire themselves. 

I would love love for folks to list their opinions of who are the most conformationally correct FT sires who are currently viable studs!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Confused, the title is dual purpose, are we talking about that, or dual champion? They don't seem the same goal to me.

Clearly, dual purpose is within reach, there are CH/MH.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

frontier said:


> I agree, perhaps the classic looks of the 60's-70's field trial dogs of the past, but definitely not dual purpose in today's U.S. Labrador standards..IMHO



"Classic looks" is what I'm referring to. Many believe that bench dogs cannot work, due to the standards they are being judged by, i.e. excess build/weight. Don't kill me on this comment. I don't know a heck of a lot, just my observation of other peoples beliefs/comments about the diverging paths of bench and field dogs. ;-)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

whelchel said:


> Yes I know, I wasn't ultra discerning on the field side, in the interest of naming sires who I have seen to bridge the gap-- a very relative judgement call. *In some instances, that involves the type progeny they throw, and not necessarily the sire themselves.
> *


I'm looking at what they throw.  The person who to me does the best job of blending is Mary Howley and yet most of them probably still couldn't go bench. Ear set, tails, and especially coat which is huge in the bench lines and that thick coat can be too much coat for dogs that would be competed in all age field trials and in training year round. Fran Smith DVM took an Abe son to the labrador specialty years ago (mid-90's?) and did very well although I wouldn't want to quote what he did, he did very respectably.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> Confused, the title is dual purpose, are we talking about that, or dual champion? They don't seem the same goal to me.
> 
> Clearly, dual purpose is within reach, there are CH/MH.



Most easily stated, I'm talking about prospective "tweener" genetics. Good looking dogs with substance, who can mark well, find and/or retrieve birds, and be athletic/stylish doing so. Is that not dual purpose? Sure I'd rather have a dual champion, but these qualities I believe will have to be re-infused through generations of selective tweener breeding.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> I'm looking at what they throw.  The person who to me does the best job of blending is Mary Howley and yet most of them probably still couldn't go bench. Ear set, tails, and especially coat which is huge in the bench lines and that thick coat can be too much coat for dogs that would be competed in all age field trials and in training year round. Fran Smith DVM took an Abe son to the labrador specialty years ago (mid-90's?) and did very well although I wouldn't want to quote what he did, he did very respectably.


Yep, looking at what they throw, roll eyes or not.  Wouldn't call Devil the best prospect because of his size, but his progeny like Copper have the substance and good looks. Aces High III, not the best prospect, but same story there. Apparently you've got the genetic code figured out, so just list the best 5 dogs to re-infuse FC type talent and classic looks, and all health clearances as a bonus.  I may agree or disagree, but appreciate the informaiton for consideration just the same.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

whelchel said:


> Apparently you've got the genetic code figured out, so just list the best 5 dogs to re-infuse FC type talent and classic looks, and all health clearances as a bonus.  I may agree or disagree, but appreciate the informaiton for consideration just the same.



Wow! You're asking all 50 million of us to give you a list that will produce your ideal pup. If we all give our opinion, I'm afraid we will succeed only in paralyzing you with too many choices. 

Your own list looks pretty good to me. You never know how a breeding will shake out or which parent the pup will favor. You spends your money and takes your chances.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Snake was VERY field looking. Some of the others on your list I would be hard pressed to think of in terms of dual purpose.


I don't even understand the list. Are they on there because they are big and/or good looking? Do you have any information whatsoever as to the quality of the their actual conformation?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Apparently you've got the genetic code figured out, so just list the best 5 dogs to re-infuse FC type talent and classic looks


No, I don't have "the genetic code figured out". Good luck with that. Lots of years and hard work because there is no easy way to get what you want or have an idea of what works when combining true FC talent with bench dogs or even with your own lines, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder because some of the dogs you list sure wouldn't be on my short list because they aren't prepotent for one, and they pass what's in back of them too much for another.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> I don't even understand the list. Are they on there because they are big and/or good looking? Do you have any information whatsoever as to the quality of the their actual conformation?



I thought I caveated my initial post enough, but apparently not. Since there is a standard, based on that standard, which FC type dogs currently come closest. Or, which Bench type dogs come the closest to having FC talent. (And a likelyhood of passing along respective traits based upon lineage)

Sorry, I do equate big and good looking with dual purpose or conformation; that's just personal preference, and doesn't necessarily equal a CH. 

So.. suggesstions?


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2008)

whelchel said:


> Sorry, I do equate big and good looking with dual purpose or conformation; that's just personal preference, and doesn't necessarily equal a CH.


OK, so basically you're just looking for big dogs that can hunt.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Again; Since there is a standard, based on that standard, which FC type dogs currently come closest. Or, which Bench type dogs come the closest to having FC talent. (And a likelyhood of passing along respective traits based upon lineage). This is the question I'm asking.

So.. Suggestions? Or more of the same criticality in lieu of useful information for those who would like to breed for looks and talent, with a stated goal of merging conformation and field lines. No wonder this disparity exists in the first place.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

whelchel said:


> all health clearances as a bonus.


A bonus?  That's where I start. You'll be hard pressed to sell tweeners to folks looking for a trial dog and you certainly won't sell them to conformation folks....the pups should be your best attempt at producing healthy, sound dogs. Risks for this type of breeding are not warranted.

It takes years of research and breeding to figure some of your questions out.
Nancy is probably one of, if not THE most knowledgeable breeders here and I'm sure she'd be the first to tell you that even she doesn't have all the answers.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

whelchel said:


> Again; Since there is a standard, based on that standard, which FC type dogs currently come closest. Or, which Bench type dogs come the closest to having FC talent. (And a likelyhood of passing along respective traits based upon lineage). This is the question I'm asking.
> 
> So.. Suggestions? Or more of the same criticality in lieu of useful information for those who would like to breed for looks and talent, with a stated goal of merging conformation and field lines. No wonder this disparity exists in the first place.


Yikes...there are several breeders here on RTF with similar goals. No one has ever been critical of what they aspire to...
It just seems as though you want an FC/CH yesterday and we are trying to let you know that it is gonna take years...if it ever happens at all.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

People that are looking for dual purpose, surely there are CH/MH, CH/SH breedings to look at. Not sure I understand the problem there. 

But, as I implied earlier, dual champion is a whole other thing entirely.

Can't speak for the conformation folk, but as a FT person, I would never buy a "tweener". I don't have the time, money, patience, or interest, to experiment with that kind of thing. 

Couldn't say which FC comes closest to conformation standards, but at least that might be doable. No one could tell you which conformation dog could acheive FC title, if any. That would need to be proven in the field, by winning. You can't judge qualities you can't see. and, there are many important qualities that are needed for FC.

I never know if any of my dogs will title, until they do.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> *A bonus?  That's where I start. * You'll be hard pressed to sell tweeners to folks looking for a trial dog and you certainly won't sell them to conformation folks....the pups should be your best attempt at producing healthy, sound dogs. Risks for this type of breeding are not warranted.
> 
> It takes years of research and breeding to figure some of your questions out.
> Nancy is probably one of, if not THE most knowledgeable breeders here and I'm sure she'd be the first to tell you that even she doesn't have all the answers.


I see how that was easily misunderstood. Absolutely health is important, and limits prospective lines to START (or in some cases continue) bridging the gap. Apparently there are not any successful FT or HT sires who are known for having more correct conformation than others. ;-) There are sires who are products of generational breeding programs, for both conformation and ability. Not trying to create one with one breeding. Just trying to get feedback on who those studs are, so I can find a fit and use one.

I think it's irresponsible to breed hunting greyhounds, or non retrieving fatties, that's all. :razz: So that's my driving motivation, not if conformation or FT folks are going to buy and title them. Moreso to create more good looking dogs with instinct.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I know there are a lot of field trial people who wouldn't care one bit about tweener pups, and the same can be said about a lot of show people wouldn't consider one either. That being said, there are a ton of people who want a nice looking, very good field dog. You know, the one dog that does it all, but doesn't have to be the best at everything. If this weren't true, then Mary Howley wouldn't be breeding Ch Surray Ask Jeeves of Stone Cliff to Candlewoods Grace Kelly, a daughter of fc/afc Watermarks the Boss and FC/AFC Candlewoods Rita Reynolds, or she wouldn't breed FC Candlewood's Meet Joe Black, to Oasis Candlewood Willow, a conformation bitch. There is obviously a market for the tweener dogs, and there are some really good ones out there, sleeping with the kids, and picking up ducks on the weekends.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I have really enjoyed this thread, I am obviously a dual purpose dog owner, I have two, but I also have a FC bitch. I thought I had seen most all CH/MH dog's, but I read about Kobe here on this thread. What an awesome dog!!! He is a Champion, Master Hunter, Master Agility Champion, and on and on, some of which I don't even know what they mean. He even has 3 Field Trial JAMS, and he is from all conformation breeding. Most impressive!!! I spoke with his owner yesterday, and he is still competeing in agility at the ripe old age of 11. I would say this dog fills the title of multipurpose dog.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

GoodDog said:


> I know there are a lot of field trial people who wouldn't care one bit about tweener pups, and the same can be said about a lot of show people wouldn't consider one either. That being said, there are a ton of people who want a nice looking, very good field dog. You know, the one dog that does it all, but doesn't have to be the best at everything. If this weren't true, then Mary Howley wouldn't be breeding Ch Surray Ask Jeeves of Stone Cliff to Candlewoods Grace Kelly, a daughter of fc/afc Watermarks the Boss and FC/AFC Candlewoods Rita Reynolds, or she wouldn't breed FC Candlewood's Meet Joe Black, to Oasis Candlewood Willow, a conformation bitch. There is obviously a market for the tweener dogs, and there are some really good ones out there, sleeping with the kids, and picking up ducks on the weekends.


That's my point, I don't really see a problem here. One size doesn't fit all, there are breedings for whatever type dog one wants. Unless it is that elusive dual champion.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I think all of the dual champion dogs are hanging out with the unicorns right now. Maybe someday they will return.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

GoodDog said:


> I know there are a lot of field trial people who wouldn't care one bit about tweener pups, and the same can be said about a lot of show people wouldn't consider one either. That being said, there are a ton of people who want a nice looking, very good field dog. You know, the one dog that does it all, but doesn't have to be the best at everything.


Hear, hear! I enjoy showing up at HT's and FT's with my tweener. I get all kind of good natured ribbing about my "calendar dog" and about that "black bear" I have on a leash. He doesn't embarrass me too often (although, we have had a few behind the truck moments). If you can have fun, then its a good weekend. If you expect to win at these games, whether you 're running a supercharged fire breather or a beauty queen, you are going to be repeatedly disappointed. 

If you want a gundog with good looks that will bring home the chickens, then a tweener will provide you what you need and he/she will love you to death.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

GoodDog said:


> I think all of the dual champion dogs are hanging out with the unicorns right now. Maybe someday they will return.


I don't care who you are...THAT is HILARIOUS!!!!


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> It just seems as though you want an FC/CH yesterday and we are trying to let you know that it is gonna take years...if it ever happens at all.


I agree it will take several generations of breeding. Obviously we have a good starting point with some CH/MH dogs out there, but there aren't a bunch. And there are a LOT of CH's out there with no drive at all.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

As far as field dogs, I think we missed one (and one who's often overlooked)- FC AFC Rocky. Not only was he a good looking dog, but he also produced some awesome dual/multi-purpose dogs- even one or two with show points, as far as I understand. I have a girl that's linebred on Rocky. She's actually got 2/3 of her Nat Puppy CH (IABCA/UCI) and a pretty good start on her performance career with a RN title at 11 months old. She's fairly stocky for a field girl too.

As far as current CH/MH most likely to have or produce FT potential, I'd say Kobe, Laddy, and Blades.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

So if I breed my Blades and Misty daughter, both CH/MH's to Kobe, keep a female out of that litter, and then breed that female to my Laddy son, I might have a chance. The funny thing is, this is my plan right now. For a breeding next year, I am wanting to put at least a SH on her.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

GoodDog said:


> I think all of the dual champion dogs are hanging out with the unicorns right now. Maybe someday they will return.



Maybe I'll actually live long enough to see it!


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

GoodDog said:


> So if I breed my Blades and Misty daughter, both CH/MH's to Kobe, keep a female out of that litter, and then breed that female to my Laddy son, I might have a chance.


Only if you can clearly *identify the strengths and weaknesses* of all dogs involved and find mates that will complement them. Since we're talking about breeding for dual purpose, that means there's double the research that needs to be done. ;-)


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

LabLady101 said:


> As far as field dogs, I think we missed one (and one who's often overlooked)- FC AFC Rocky. Not only was he a good looking dog, but he also produced some awesome dual/multi-purpose dogs- even one or two with show points, as far as I understand. I have a girl that's linebred on Rocky. She's actually got 2/3 of her Nat Puppy CH (IABCA/UCI) and a pretty good start on her performance career with a RN title at 11 months old. She's fairly stocky for a field girl too.
> 
> As far as current CH/MH most likely to have or produce FT potential, I'd say Kobe, Laddy, and Blades.


Come on now. WE didn't miss anybody. Whelchel (Me) might have, and taken the brunt of all the heat for his suggestions! :razz: Yes I agree on Rocky-- roundabout got to him at Cash on the Line, but missed saying Elwood as well. Glad we're all chipper on the thread now at least!


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

whelchel said:


> but missed saying Elwood as well.


if you're talking about Nan-dools Elwood Blues, Elwood has gone to the big duck pond in the sky. I don't Know if Dooley saved any of his sperm.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

That be he. He seemed to have a different look about him, maybe more field conformation, but to me he threw nice looking dogs. His son O'Riley ( Elwood x Lena-- lean mac and sweet potato pie) is a nice looking boy. Both are available, if the website is up to date. Pie carried through nice looks, but there again back to Pacanga, who's looks seem to me to be a good 3 generations dominant; very strong at throwing looks and size.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

whelchel said:


> field conformation


What does this mean? Whelchel, do you understand what conformation is? Or what it means for a dog to be conformationally well put together? It's *not* about size and/or "classic good looks"!


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> What does this mean? Whelchel, do you understand what conformation is? Or what it means for a dog to be conformationally well put together? It's *not* about size and/or "classic good looks"!



Nope, don't know much of anything, that's why I'm here to learn. Asked numerous times for your input specifically, received not one recommendation for a sire that is conformationally more correct than most, with FT ability, and a pedigree that indicates a propensity to throw those traits. Do you have a recomendation(s) that meets those criteria? Otherwise there are some on this thread who I know from personal contact would like to make progress towards this goal. But naysay away.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> What does this mean? Whelchel, do you understand what conformation is? Or what it means for a dog to be conformationally well put together? It's *not* about size and/or "classic good looks"!


In the interest of answering your query about "Field Conformation"; I didn't coin the term. Perhaps those who did, or those who widely accept what it means  (blockiness and stout build), can better answer it. I don't know that we will get FC's by breeding CH/MH's. The higher level abilities, and continual reproduction thereof, have to be re-infused, IMO. To me that means incorporating those few lines that have some conformation but a ton of talent. It will happen, it has been happening, and you can see the infusion and progression if you look at some pedigrees of dual purpose breeders. When it does become more prevalent, we'll look back and say, "oh, yeah I can see how that worked", and it won't seem like the impossibility you make it out to be.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Dog in the middle is an FC with nice conformation, but he is at the bridge.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

whelchel said:


> Nope, don't know much of anything, that's why I'm here to learn. Asked numerous times for your input specifically, received not one recommendation for a sire that is conformationally more correct than most, with FT ability, and a pedigree that indicates a propensity to throw those traits. Do you have a recomendation(s) that meets those criteria? Otherwise there are some on this thread who I know from personal contact would like to make progress towards this goal. But naysay away.


I'd sure like to see a dual CH but I don't have the knowledge, cash, or physical plant to chase those goals. In the meantime, you have to produce and sell a lot of pups in the endless pursuit of perfection. Breeders have told me that is mostly a loosing proposition.

One thing that slows down the cycle is, when at 8 weeks it comes to sell a pup, it is hard to tell how that pup will develop either conformationally or performance wise. Your best stock may go out the door to spend life on some family's couch.

I know of pros that choose dogs for themselves that look great on paper, but end up a wash out of training early. There is no way to avoid the gamble.

You might hit your objective spot on the first time, but be prepared to sell a pup that doesn't work out. Learn from the experience and move on.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Whelchel:

I am a bit confused as to your goals here. Are you looking for a stud for your dog? What traits does she bring to the table? Have you shown her in conformation or run a hunt test or field trial? What activity level are you willing to put up with. (I like mine spirited and rowdy). How much money do you want to spend? What are your plans for selling the pups you don't want to keep?

First, I would take in several dog events both in bench or field trial to get an idea of what each is about. Talk to people there that are showing/running their dogs . Ask questions. I found that dog people are always willing to help. I don't know about bench events, but field events charge no admission.

The AKC and the Labrador Retriever Club have calendars for bench shows. Working-retrievers.com and Entryexpress.net have calendars for hunt and field trials.

Next I would work on building up some of your present dog's credentials. Is she trained? Are you trained? I would look for a good obedience and/or field trainer. If you can't go $700-1000 a month training costs, there are books and CD's to help you go in any direction. I personally like Rick Stawski's "Fowl Dog" CD's for field dogs.

I would suggest and encourage you to volunteer working at a dog event. It is a great way of watching a dog's performance and seeing conformation up front. I volunteer to marshall at field trials and hunt tests. I get to know dogs and their owners and handlers on a first name basis. Some of the great dogs and trainers in the field game will be close to your location for the next 3-4 months. Take the opportunity to see them first hand. 

If all you are looking for is a stud that will produce a good looking gun dog with a the help of some training, that can be done by selecting a dog with traits that best compliments your dog's. 

What kind of of beauty are you looking for? I have some serious dislike for those lumbering lard buckets that look like they are crossed with Newfies. But some judges somewhere decided these dogs are just wonderful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps we do not have an idea what you consider pleasing. I have an image of what in a dog pleases me. I wish to satisfy that before chasing down a judge to confirm my choice.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Excellent post Zeus. More hands on and a thick skin-if you think a forum is bad, wait until you get in the real world.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> Only if you can clearly *identify the strengths and weaknesses* of all dogs involved and find mates that will complement them. Since we're talking about breeding for dual purpose, that means there's double the research that needs to be done. ;-)


Yes, yes, yes.



whelchel said:


> Just trying to get feedback on who those studs are, so I can find a fit and use one.
> 
> I think it's irresponsible to breed hunting greyhounds, or non retrieving fatties, that's all.


So would you please explain why your dog should be bred? As you state you are looking for stud.

As for non retrieving fatties, don't own one of those, but might have a couple of those hunting greyhounds living with me. They might have a few AA points between them, guess I was irresponsible to breed , next time I will know better. 

Not meaning to rag on you, but really, some might find that statement somewhat offensive.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

When one says select a stud with traits that *best compliment* your dogs.
What is meant by that ? Is that the politically correct way of saying supply, to the litter, what my bitch is lacking ?

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

john fallon said:


> When one says select a stud with traits that *best compliment* your dogs....
> john


While I'm sure the bitch would like the _compliment_ from the stud dog ('cause we know they talk _their_ talk...), the breeder is looking for a stud that would be _compl*e*ment_ the female.....;-)

The devil is in the definition details regards, 

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> While I'm sure the bitch would like the _compliment_ from the stud dog ('cause we know they talk _their_ talk...), the breeder is looking for a stud that would be _compl*e*ment_ the female.....;-)
> 
> *The devil is in the definition details* regards,
> 
> kg


 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *K G*  
_John, while I understand the point you're trying to make, there is still no controlled break allowed by the honoring dog in the Master test level._

_By definition, a controlled break calls for a dog to attempt to retrieve before being released to retrieve. *On the honor, this calls for the honoring dog to not attempt to retrieve at all.* That the handler does what he/she is allowed to do by the regs/guidelines does NOT mean that the dog is being stopped from attempting to retrieve. We can't judge intent._

_Interference with the running dog, the running dog's handler, or the judges is NOT allowed by the honoring dog or its handler. Therefore, short of stopping the dog from retrieving (the allowed actions by the honoring dog's handler do NOT consitute interference according to the regs/guidelines), the dog is NOT committing a controlled break._

_kg_


Yes it is. so tell me what is conSITute ???? Could you have meant constitute

I knew what you meant and just let it slide.
Just stick to the freaking topic why don't you

People in glass houses regards
john


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

john fallon said:


> When one says select a stud with traits that *best compliment* your dogs.
> What is meant by that ? Is that the politically correct way of saying supply, to the litter, what my bitch is lacking ?
> 
> john


Yes.

No dog is perfect regards,


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sean H said:


> Yes.
> 
> No dog is perfect regards,


When breeding the extremes, is not possible to end up with a litter of ugly Labs with little or no field talent ? 

john


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Thanks Sean!


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

john fallon said:


> When breeding the extremes, is not possible to end up with a litter of ugly Labs with little or no field talent ?
> 
> john


If you are talking about breeding bench dogs to field dogs, then yes.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> When breeding the extremes, is not possible to end up with a litter of ugly Labs with little or no field talent ?
> 
> john


Absolutely possible. Let's say we breed a high talent, ugly, to a low talent, pretty. Might get high talent/pretty, but just as likely to get low talent/ugly.and, stuff in between. Bad things seem to get passed on just as much as good things, maybe even more. Talent is pretty elusive, otherwise there would be more great dogs, IMHO. When breeding high talent to high talent, lucky to get a couple high talent pups from litter. 

That's why owners of such dogs are loath to breed them to anything else, the odds are against you anyway. Edit to say, especially bitches.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I knew what you meant and just let it slide.
> Just stick to the freaking topic why don't you
> 
> People in glass houses regards
> john


There's a difference between a typo and the blatant misuse of a word, but recognizing that would keep you from furthering your mission.

John, that I used yellow "good attitude" icons to make _my_ point and you used the blue "bad attitude" icons to make _your_ point is quite telling.

At least you're _predictable_ regards,

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> There's a difference between a typo and the blatant misuse of a word, but recognizing that would keep you from furthering your mission.
> 
> John, that I used yellow "good attitude" icons to make _my_ point and you used the blue "bad attitude" icons to make _your_ point is quite telling.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between a misuse and a misspelling . I am often guilty of the one but very seldom guilty of the other. Either way what does you pointing it out do for the thread.

You , with your Minor in English in one hand, with the other hand now trying to pass off a misspelled word as a typo, is also quite telling of you.

john


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> Yes, yes, yes.
> 
> So would you please explain why your dog should be bred? As you state you are looking for stud.
> 
> ...



cakaiser, you mis-quoted me. You didn't put the Razz face (  ), now that makes all the difference right there. J

As far as offending people, why would they be offended if they feel they accomplished what they wanted with their dog? So what if Whelchel thinks they might or might not be the prettiest, regardless of what ribbons they have.  We're not politicians here, at least I'm not, so we don't have to be PC in our pursuit of progress; or for some, hanging on to the status quo with a kung fu death grip! My girl has pro's and con's, like all dogs. I think she's nice looking with nice substance, but with a lot of room for improvement. Best way to compliment her weaknesses IMO would be to go to the dual purpose side, so I'm searching for those like minded folks/breeding programs/kennels. Likewise, I feel that she will compliment dual purpose lines, as her marking ability, athleticism, and drive are spot on. But really that may never happen, and at least not for 9 more months or so, so really just trying to tap the wealth of knowledge here. I wish likeminded people would be more forthcoming, and help me stir the pot a little! 

I do own a 7 month old male as well. He's not bad for one of those lanky hunting greyhound types. Hope he fills out a little and grows a head, so I don't have to put he and I out of our misery. ;-) ;-)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

john fallon said:


> There is a difference between a misuse and a misspelling . I am often guilty of the one but very seldom guilty of the other. Either way what does you pointing it out do for the thread.
> 
> john


From what I read of this thread, it does about as much good as _any_ of your posts. It sure can't contribute any _less_.

And I guess this was one of those "rare" times.....;-)

Have a better day, John.

kg


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Sean H said:


> If you are talking about breeding bench dogs to field dogs, then yes.


I see dual purpose kennels utilize dogs with outcross conformation and field pedigree, import true dual types (i.e. sweden), or both. I don't think that the number 1 show dog can be bred to an NFC bitch, and end up with dual champions from that breeding. That's why I was trying to get people's thoughts on those lines that historically do cross well, and find out studs who contain this sort of pedigree from generational breeding. My female has Rocky, Pachanga, and Riptide Star behind her, and I've found those lines to be utilized in some dual purpose, so I would be surprised to get ugly dogs with zero talent. But, maybe, and if so I'll be honest and share the info!


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

whelchel said:


> I see dual purpose kennels utilize dogs with outcross conformation and field pedigree, import true dual types (i.e. sweden), or both. I don't think that the number 1 show dog can be bred to an NFC bitch, and end up with dual champions from that breeding. That's why I was trying to get people's thoughts on those lines that historically do cross well, and find out studs who contain this sort of pedigree from generational breeding. My female has Rocky, Pachanga, and Riptide Star behind her, and I've found those lines to be utilized in some dual purpose, so I would be surprised to get ugly dogs with zero talent. But, maybe, and if so I'll be honest and share the info!


If a bench breeder is looking to add more performance to his/her line, do you think that he/she is going to go out and find the best field stud out there and use it not caring what it looks like? Obviously not. The breeder will find a field dog that comes very close to proper conformation and use it even if it's not an NFC.

Likewise with a field breeder looking to add structure to its line. It's not going to breed to the #1 labrador in the country not caring about its field performance. It's going to find the best field performing conformation bred dog and use it.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I've just gone back and read this entire thread, all 6 (now 7) pages of it (on my browser, anyway). It contains some fascinating discussion about conformation and field with the _majority_ of participants being experienced breeders and knowledgeable participants in their venues of choice.

My apologies to those participants who've been attempting to further this discussion. While my post was intended to interject a _tad_ of humor to Mr. Fallon, it obviously had the opposite effect; again, to those who can seriously and _knowledgeably_ discuss this topic, I apologize.

John, if you're going to stay here and *on topic*, better grab a snorkel...you're gonna need it....;-)

Back to my place in the cheap seats regards, 

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> What does this mean? Whelchel, *do you understand what conformation is? Or what it means for a dog to be conformationally well put together?* It's *not* about size and/or "classic good looks"!


I'll confess to ignorance. Will someone please volinteer a thumbnail sketch ?

john


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

whelchel,
Perhaps some might be slightly ofended to be called "irresponsible" which is, I believe your word. For me personally, you are correct, I don't care at all what you think. Just pointing out that irresponsible is a fairly harsh word. Many on this board try extremely hard to be just the opposite.

As for ribbons, I agree, they don't mean everything, but at least they mean something, besides saying, but, but, but, my dog posesses "great marking ability, athleticism, and drive." Maybe she does, or doesn't, as you are the only judge of that. I would be willing to bet that those words mean totally different things to me, than they do to you.

At least titles/ribbons show someone else's opinion, other than your own.

As for stirring the pot, and being more forthcoming, just what exactly are you asking? That people post negative things about other people's dogs?? Not a chance, go participate, find out these things for yourself, form your own opinion, not just listen to rumor and gossip.

The dogs you list in your pedigree, yes, I might have an opinion other than ribbons, because I have actually seen, trained, with some of them. But, that's all it is, my biased opinion, worth nothing more than that.

Anyway, got lost in some of this, but still think there is a breeding for most people, just go out there and find what suits you, labs can do almost anything!! 

Sorry, amended to say retrievers can do almost anything, don't want Melanie to yell at me.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

You can read the breed standard here.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

This breeder kind of outlines the kind of things a backyard breeder can get into.

http://www.sandstoneretrievers.com/Beforeyoubreed.html


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

john fallon said:


> I'll confess to ignorance. Will someone please volinteer a thumbnail sketch ?
> 
> john


Again, I'll plug for the Illustrated Standard (see one diagram from it below). Conformation is a package in itself. Then there is health/soundness/temperament and working ability. I'd venture to guess that the "type" and working ability is going to be defined based on the "game/s" the breeders are involved with. For instance, show folks tend to like more bone and more coat and happy go lucky "always up" dogs. Someone breeding service/therapy dogs may be looking for more serious, calm dogs, w/ structure depending on the handler's needs for support, etc. Those of us who like to partake in performance events want a certain amount of coat but not "dripping" with it as some dogs in the ring are. Most of us can see where you can have too much bone to safely jump or run (as in hunt tests/field trials) rough terrain esp. I mentioned before my 2 yos (I co own a male also) out of 3xCH/2xMH Bandit -- we think they are maturing very nicely and I had alot of genuine compliments on the litter running JH last spring/summer. Will they have enough bone/substance to not look out of place in the ring? Who knows.  We'll have to definitely show to judges who prefer moderate labs. But, I will say one thing, I don't dare breed to much more bone than what Sonya has right now if I want to continue in agility especially. And already, she's a hair (~1/2") short on leg, so that will be a factor when I go to breed her. She's also (like her aunts and mom) at the very bottom acceptable height of the standard. That's what we are talking about --- complementing what is there, but also improving where you see shortfalls brewing. I *don't* like short legs.... length of leg is supposed to EQUAL the withers to elbow measurement. 

I have a friend w/ a field bitch who recognizes that his girl's topline and head need particular improvement. He hasn't decided if she's worthy of breeding yet, but is looking for a dual purpose dog to help improve structure if so. My comment to him was--- don't expect miracles w/ just one generation as she has alot of different (body type) dogs behind her! It'll probably take 3 at least (maybe more) and that's if you continue to breed to the same "type" dogs to lock in the conformation you want. Been there, done that (on gen V) and thankfully I think I've still got a few years left in me!  

Good thread.  I added a couple dogs (father/son) who are behind all of my younger ones now. I may end up taking Sonya back to frozen semen of her great grandpa (the choc) some day. I got as much as I could have asked for taking my old girl (13.5) to the choc 10 yrs ago, and did not lose working ability from that breeding-- that I saw, anyhow!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sean H said:


> You can read the breed standard here.


 
Size To +/- - -*/+1/2 " *is* a component , and if not what is depicted by the picture, what is classic good looks ?

john


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

john fallon said:


> I'll confess to ignorance. Will someone please volinteer a thumbnail sketch ?
> 
> john


John,

I just went and reread the Labrador standard. While it is very detailed as to what is correct conformation, it does not explain why all these parts are supposed to the size and shape they are.

I'm going to need to continue this later because I have puppy nails to trim and big dogs to run but the mantra of maintaining the integrity of any breed is *Form Follows Function*.

For those not familiar with the term, it means that every part of the animal in each individual breed is there for a reason, namely, to perform the job that breed was intended to do in the most efficient manner.

The only thing I saw in the Lab breed standard that helps one understand why Labs should be built a specific way was this:

_"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."
_
Goldens have a nifty book called The Blue Book that breaks down the function of everything from ribspring to the amount of stop to the amount of angulation and how proper conformation allows them to perform their retrieving duties efficiently. It really helps one understand why they are built the way they are...or why, if they are lacking, they are hindering their most efficient performance. (BTW efficient performance = not expending unnecessary effort or energy to perform their tasks).

Let me see what I can dig up a little later and I'll try and post a few examples.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Melanie, 
I think our equivalent is the Illustrated standard. It does attempt to explain the why's there as well.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

OK, one quick thought after seeing the couple of notes posted while I was typing.

Remember, we aren't breeding for the sole purpose of meeting particular measurements. Folks often refer to stocky bodies and types of heads, but that is really just talking about "looks." Conformation is how the dog is designed to perform. Peak performance is the ultimate goal.

It may sound like "same difference," but it's really not. I'm sorry...probably clear as mud.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

t when


windycanyon said:


> Melanie,
> I think our equivalent is the Illustrated standard. It does attempt to explain the why's there as well.


Cool, I'll check that out when I get back.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> OK, one quick thought after seeing the couple of notes posted while I was typing.
> 
> Remember, we aren't breeding for the sole purpose of meeting particular measurements. Folks often refer to stocky bodies and types of heads, but that is really just talking about "looks." Conformation is how the dog is designed to perform. Peak performance is the ultimate goal.
> 
> It may sound like "same difference," but it's really not. I'm sorry...probably clear as mud.


There is room there for interpretation *for sure*. Just as your standard says the length should be slightly longer than height (something like 11:10 if I remember right). They put references there as otherwise, what does "slightly" mean? My first lab was VERY long bodied. That's considered by many to be the "drag" of the breed... long body length. I have to admit my 3.5 yo is a little longer loined than I'd like but again, you can breed to a complimentary dog to shorten that back up when/if you need. Sure moves nice though... so is it a major worry? Not really but its something I am still trying hard to lock in. Fronts are another elusive part to lock in, and I am making progress there. Most of the field dogs are very lacking in fronts... though not all! Another friend just sent me photos not long ago of a FT dog she attempted a breeding to. Very nice conformation. 

Our standard also discusses the temperament and general activity level desired as well, though briefly.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Conformation is how the dog is designed to perform. Peak performance is the ultimate goal.


Melanie, I laughed out loud when I read that. If it were true, conformation bred labs would be clustering at the top of performance events. I know this isn't happening in trials or hunt tests.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

If form follows function, what about things like heads, tails,which is a huge criticism of field labs. Guess that must come under type. I would be much more concerned about short legs, dripping coat,or massive bone, that I would be about a poorly shaped head, or a skinny tail. Because, that is the game we play.

Windycanyon, good post, great examples of why different people breed for different things. Not a right,or a wrong, what someone needs as a service dog, I probably don't need for a FT dog. That doesn't make either the lesser dog.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Melanie, I laughed out loud when I read that. If it were true, conformation bred labs would be clustering at the top of performance events. I know this isn't happening in trials or hunt tests.


That's not true, Howard. Judges can only put up (award points to) what is shown to them. In the show ring, it is no secret that bigger is better. If coat is good, more is better. Same for bone and head. That is the mentality and if not all judges can see past that. Scary but very true.

The Golden breed club is making tremendous efforts toward judge education so that they can learn to see past that beautiful dripping coat that sweeps behind the dogs as they traipse around the ring.

My point is that bench Champions are often not the best representatives of efficient conformation. As long as breeders keep breeding with the bigger is better mentality, that will not change.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and lack of flames in such a provocative thread. 

Coming from the Chessie world where it is hard finding a 5g pedigree withOUT a having a field title (FC/AFC) and is fairly common to have at least several CH/MHs or a DC somewhere in the pedigree. Granted there a very few Chessies being shown in comparison to the Lab, due in part to markedly fewer pups that are produced each year. 

Just wanted to point out that there is a a difference in producing a Dual purpose quality litter and a Dual purpose titled litter. A new breeder is going to be very hard pressed in finding the quality buyer/owner that will dedicate the money and time in producing the titles to make a titled litter. And both field and show take a lot of time and money. As Melanie said above, field trial people think nothing of spending tens of thousands of dollars a year in pursuit of the FC/AFC title. While the show people may not spend quite that amount, between show entries and handlers fees (many are more than field trial handlers fees) they can rack up several thousand dollars a year in pursuit of the CH. Most buyers in search of a competitive puppy (either show or field) are not interested in such investments unless the breeder has a proven track record in producing pups that can achieve these goals. 

The hunt test titles are not as expensive a hobby. And as they are an offshoot of training the dog to hunt, these buyers are a lot easier to come by. Even still it can be a hard sell getting even an avid hunter interested in training a dog to the level much beyond a JH as that is not what they are used to in their previous dogs, or because of other time/money constraints. 

So producing a dual purpose titled litter has as much to do with the buyers as it does with the capabilities of the pups that you produced. 

T. Mac


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Conformation is how the dog is designed to perform. Peak performance is the ultimate goal.


Malanie's point that bench Champions are often not the best representatives of efficient conformation is not unfounded in my view

The theoretical "Function" of the retriever is to retrieve fallen game both in the water and on land *for the hunter*.
Do we agree to this point ? If so we can continue. If not we are already at an impasse and must redefine the function of the retriever, or not and maintain the status quo.

Then, with the aid of the computer the best "Form" to perform the myriad of tasks needed to do this could be established.

The bench people would then have an incontrovertible standard. My gut feeling is that it would differ some from what the standard is now, skewing more toward the field look, at least for the Labradore.

john


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Malanie's...Labradore.


Are you doing this on purpose? :lol:


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

John,

If only it was that simple! 

The show judge is very similar to the field judge. Both set up tests for the type of dog they are looking for; marking vs handling vs style; etc. The fact that a dog gets the blue ribbon at a field trial on any weekend does not mean that it is the best dog there, rather that it was the best dog (in the judges opinion) doing the test that weekend. Such it is with the show judge. Some judges base a lot of their decision on coat, others will base it on movement; or rear end angulation; or dentetition; or expression; or head; or substance; or color; etc. And just like the field, there are some judges that put weight as to who is holding the leash or what training group or breeding. While I've seen this in Chessies, I'm sure it is even more prevelant in Labs. 

T. Mac


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> Are you doing this on purpose? :lol:


Actually, I Was looking for Jerry


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Time to jump in. As a HT judge and the owner of 2 CHs both of which were highly rated in the bench ratings, one of which was a CH/MH who beat the number one rated bench dog twice in one year in big shows, I believe that if you look past the weight that some people insist on showing dogs at, they would be very athletic looking. More like a hockey or basketball player than a sprinter. And the big factor here is conformation. Which translates to good movement, soundness, endurance, etc. Having had two very nice field bred dogs, both with problems, I now prefer certain show lines and have had very nice hunting and performance dogs with exceptional soundness. Perhaps they haven't all gotten to the master level. But, at the time that was more my knowledge of the game and other circumstances than their ability. There is no doubt in my mind that all of my show dogs could have had MH titles or atleast given a respectable showing for themselves.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Which is harder CH or MH? I believe the CH is harder in one way and the MH is harder in another. Showing is sooo political and frustrating. And the MH requires a lot of training time. Overall, unless you have an exceptional dog that the judges are willing to look past who is holding the leash, the show ring is harder.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Sean H said:


> If a bench breeder is looking to add more performance to his/her line, do you think that he/she is going to go out and find the best field stud out there and use it not caring what it looks like? Obviously not. The breeder will find a field dog that comes very close to proper conformation and use it even if it's not an NFC.
> 
> Likewise with a field breeder looking to add structure to its line. It's not going to breed to the #1 labrador in the country not caring about its field performance. It's going to find the best field performing conformation bred dog and use it.


I think you are just repeating here what whelchel was trying to say. What whelchel was trying to find out was which lines/studs are known to or have the most potential to produce dual purpose dogs- not necessarily which lines are producing top Labradors.

I also think you might be trying to fit some folks in a hole here- a hole that they've already implied they don't necessarily want to be put in. There are definately more than just Bench/Conformation and Field breeders out there- as pointed out. However, if you're content, for the moment, to put folks in certain holes, you might consider that a true Conformation breeder (one who is solely after CHs) will never breed to a Field dog, and true Field breeder (one who is solely after FCs and/or AFCs) would never consider breeding to a Conformation dog. Their goals are much too different regardless of what they need to improve upon in their programs.

Is it a little sad that this is the actual reality? Yes, but folks have their own goals and games to play. Neither game is better or worse than the other, but both have become extremes with borders that some would never consider crossing.



> Malanie's point that bench Champions are often not the best representatives of efficient conformation is not unfounded in my view
> 
> The theoretical "Function" of the retriever is to retrieve fallen game both in the water and on land for the hunter.
> Do we agree to this point ? If so we can continue. If not we are already at an impasse and must redefine the function of the retriever, or not and maintain the status quo.
> ...


Yes, form follows function...but what if that function has gone to extremes? Does that mean the function, and therefore the form, described in the breed standard should be changed to suit those extremes? It's just MHO, but I don't believe so. I believe doing so would ultimately alter what the breed, not only originated as, but also what it was meant to be and, therefore, the purpose it was meant to serve.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Is it a little sad that this is the actual reality? Yes, but folks have their own goals and games to play. Neither game is better or worse than the other, but both have become extremes with borders that some would never consider crossing.
> 
> Yes, form follows function...but what if that function has gone to extremes? Does that mean the function, and therefore the form, described in the breed standard should be changed to suit those extremes? It's just MHO, but I don't believe so. I believe doing so would ultimately alter what the breed, not only originated as, but also what it was meant to be and, therefore, the purpose it was meant to serve.


What "extreme" function has the performance game morphed into, that would cause a change in form? If you wish to say the FT game is "extreme", ok, I'll give you that one, although I might use another word.... . But how about HT? What do those dogs do that the breed was not originated for, and not meant to be? They retrieve game, don't they? As in Labrador Retriever?

FT, HT lines look the same. For the most part. ;-)


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Someone mentioned earlier about money. I see this whole Dual Champion thing as a challenge because of the amount of dollars needing to be invested in both venues. Who is capable of paying the exorbitant amounts to finish both titles?

Also, and this is for those of you competing in FT, of which I have never competed, how much have FT's changed over the years? One thing I hear is that they have gotten so extreme (distance to marks for example) that it takes a specialist to finish. Have we gotten so extreme in these tests as to be unrealistic? I'm saying this knowing that the extreme has occurred on the show side also - bone, coat, etc.... A lab shouldn't have too much of ANYTHING, it is a moderate breed. Yet, we have divergence on both sides - show and field.

As to the question on type: TYPE is what makes you look at a Lab or chessie or golden and say that's a Lab (or whatever). When you look at a lab and say, man, that could be a rottie or is that a greyhound, you are, in my mind, losing type. I prefer something in between. 

The breeders of yesteryear that helped foster our breed said that a Lab is a gentleman's hunting dog. A dog that will lay at it's masters feet in the evenings, but be ready to hunt all day at a moments notice. To me, that dog needs to be of correct structure: DOUBLE coat, to keep it warm in challenging conditions; Upper arm and scapula of close to equal length to provide reach; legs of adequate length (of which should be equal or close to the length from elbow to withers); square bodied; rear that is neither too straight nor overangulated; so that the dog can comfortably work at a gate that will allow it to work for extended periods of time (in my mind, an energy conserving gait, the trot). 

Anne posted a pic of a dog that I think represents that well, above. It's the middle black dog in her last post. He's moderate, with correct coat and lovely, balanced angles and a kind head. http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1954&d=1229197734

Is he perfect, no, but boy he's nice. As to what show lines can produce? Look for Marshland Blitz in any pedigree of Ch/MH. A lot of times he's back there. Some show dogs that have never worked a day in their life have produced great working dogs. They often have Blitz back there two or three times.

JMO.

SuePuff


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> What "extreme" function has the performance game morphed into, that would cause a change in form? If you wish to say the FT game is "extreme", ok, I'll give you that one, although I might use another word.... . But how about HT? What do those dogs do that the breed was not originated for, and not meant to be? They retrieve game, don't they? As in Labrador Retriever?
> 
> FT, HT lines look the same. For the most part. ;-)


Yes, FT (as well as CH) is what I was referring to. It's been my experience that FT folks will only look for FT lines. Not that a dog from a different kind of breeding couldn't possibly play, but it's very uncommon (especially without professional help) because other dogs are just not buildt for the game. HT folks are, generally, a little more forgiving (probably not the right word to use, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment) when looking for a pup. You're much more likely to see dogs come from all sorts of different breedings in the HT game- not just FT breedings. IMHO, that right there should tell folks something about how this particular game (FT) is affecting the breed- for better or worse. Yes, the same could be said about the Show side.


Great post, Suepuff! I completely agree on Blitz too.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> IMHO, that right there should tell folks something about how this particular game (FT) is affecting the breed- for better or worse. Yes, the same could be said about the Show side.


Sorry if I'm not uderstanding you correctly, but you seem to be saying that FT breeders are adversely affecting the breed. 

Could you be more specific why you feel this is so? Is it because of looks, or performance standards?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> What "extreme" function has the performance game morphed into, that would cause a change in form? If you wish to say the FT game is "extreme", ok, I'll give you that one, although I might use another word.... . But how about HT? What do those dogs do that the breed was not originated for, and not meant to be? They retrieve game, don't they? As in Labrador Retriever?
> 
> FT, HT lines look the same. For the most part. ;-)


I would agree. I don't believe the extreme function of a FT is at odds with the original function of retreiving game when it comes to the form-function aspect of any of the breeds.

There would always be some "range" of form that would suit the function. For example, you would have certain parameters within which a head would be suitable for retrieving birds. Whether one head were one inch broader in skull than another would not impact the function. But there would always be those who would prefer to have the skull a bit wider, and others who would not care if it was narrower. You would still get variation within the overall parameters that are functional. Would one preference be more "correct" than the other?

There is one area that we don't really "test" except in actual hunting. That would be stamina. A dog in HT or FT may not get the "workout" of a hunting dog out for several hours at a time. Certainly the CH does not get this kind of workout (unless he also hunts) either.

Just food for thought


P.S. Bravo for those of all "persuasions" who do go hunting and get to also validate that they have the stamina factor.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

For what its worth, there were six CH's out of 290 entries in this years Master National Hunt test. There was 1 OTCH. 1 FC.

Two of the CH's were Irish Water Spaniels. I don't know the breeds of the others.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> Sorry if I'm not uderstanding you correctly, but you seem to be saying that FT breeders are adversely affecting the breed.
> 
> Could you be more specific why you feel this is so? Is it because of looks, or performance standards?


I didn't say adversely. I'm sorry you missed the "better or worse" part. However, they have affected the breed, and I don't think anyone can deny that. It's up to each individual to decide whether it is a good or bad affect. 

Yes, I, personally, feel it's a bad affect by structural standards (and notice I didn't say "looks" as Structure/Conformation is much more than that), but that's just MHO and, obviously, not one I expect everyone else to share.



> For what its worth, there were six CH's out of 290 entries in this years Master National Hunt test. There was 1 OTCH. 1 FC.
> 
> Two of the CH's were Irish Water Spaniels. I don't know the breeds of the others.


I think this goes to prove the diversity of lines still left in the HT game. Now, for comparison, does anyone know how many dogs with non-FT lines ran the National and National Amateur FTs?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> they have affected the breed, and I don't think anyone can deny that. It's up to each individual to decide whether it is a good or bad affect.


I don't think so. This photo is from about 1950 left Dual Ch Grangemead Precious and his son second from left Dual Ch Cherokee Buck. The two on the right are his also his sons that are field champions. Beautiful then and beautiful now. Enough said.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> I didn't say adversely. I'm sorry you missed the "better or worse" part. However, they have affected the breed, and I don't think anyone can deny that. It's up to each individual to decide whether it is a good or bad affect.
> 
> Yes, I, personally, feel it's a bad affect by structural standards (and notice I didn't say "looks" as Structure/Conformation is much more than that), but that's just MHO and, obviously, not one I expect everyone else to share.
> 
> ...


In your first sentence, you say, no, you didn't say adversely, then in your second sentence, you say yes, it is a bad effect??

And because certain lines/dogs can't cut it in FTs, so what? Most that are bred SPECIFICALLY for that very reason can't make it either. It is a game to select the best, not too many of those kind out there, at all.

6 out of 290 ain't many, 2 of which not even labs.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> In your first sentence, you say, no, you didn't say adversely, then in your second sentence, you say yes, it is a bad effect??
> 
> And because certain lines/dogs can't cut it in FTs, so what? Most that are bred SPECIFICALLY for that very reason can't make it either. It is a game to select the best, not too many of those kind out there, at all.
> 
> 6 out of 290 ain't many, 2 of which not even labs.


Yes, but the best of what? A game that only dogs who are specifically bred for it can play? Isn't that the very definition of extreme?

Now, as much as you may or may not think so, I'm not trying to demean the accomplishment of an FC or AFC. I'm simply pointing out that if you're considering the whole dog, you're most likely not going to breed for an extreme because, as Sue pointed out, the breed standard is all about moderation.

Also, what I meant was, while I feel it's a bad affect, I obviously cannot decide that for others. It is a choice they need to make for themselves and I don't presume to make it for them.

As far as 6 out of 290 not being many; true, but I'm willing to bet it's still many more than ran the National FTs.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Yes, but the best of what? A game that only dogs who are specifically bred for it can play? Isn't that the very definition of extreme?
> .


 The best of the dogs that are entered. Do you think dogs that aren't bred for it can compete in herding dog trials? Pointing dogs? Greyhounds? When you have a competition, by definition, that means you are selecting for the best dog there, on any given day. If you don't feel those dogs are the best Labradors, that's fine, don't get one, don't enter. 

If some can't play, no, I don't think that is the definition of extreme. Unless you mean, extremely talented, extremely intelligent, extremely trainable, and somehow, I don't think you do.  Because, you speak for moderation.

I have said, get a dog from a breeding that suits you, they are out there. Dual purpose for some is great, no argument there. I applaud all of you who seek this, just not for everyone. 

It's been fun.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

From a historical timeline perspective how did the standard develop.. cronologically....and when there were changes, what was the criteria for those changes.

An example would be when the max/min height was changed, when was it done and why was it done as it relates ....it needed to be done to properly function?

Did these changes mirror changes to the nuts and bolts of of retrieving a shot bird in the water or on land????

john


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

LabLady101 said:


> Yes, I, personally, feel it's a bad affect by structural standards (and notice I didn't say "looks" as Structure/Conformation is much more than that), but that's just MHO and, obviously, not one I expect everyone else to share.


What physical feature of the dog (breed) do you believe that Field Trials and FT breeding is affecting? It is hard for me to believe that field breeding would have much effect on the overall structure of a breed other than the inclusion as breeding stock some specimens that might have an undesirable feature from a very succesful field trial dog. 

The primary features of good field retrievers are that of marking and handling. Marking would include sight and memory, the improvement of either would not be reflected in the structure of the dog. Improved handling capabilities would be the result of increasing bidability, and again should not affect the physical structure of the dog. Rather, the dog's mental capacity and their personalities should be improving to allow for the increased memory and handling ability. 

If you are referring to the extremes of ever increasing distances of marks and blinds, bear in mind that the retriever breeds were originally bred to retrieve all day in eras when limits were markedly higher than now. In the course of a trial, a dog may, at most, get 6-8 birds per day to retrieve, spread out into a couple series. And this will only be seen at a national event. Two series of retrieves translates into working for, at most, 30 minutes per day. Usually if dogs get this many birds/series, they will have a period of inactivity (rest) of several hours between series. While a fast stylish dog is preferred, the marking and handling skills are paramount. So if the stylish/fast dog doesn't have the memory or the ability to handle it will not do well at a field trial.

When comparing the expectations of a field trial to expectations that dogs work all day and might retrieve dozens to hundreds of birds a day or to historic requirements of the early years of market hunting in the US, it would be hard to imagine that the limited amount of work required of a field trial will affect the structure (or the breeding requirements for structure) of the dog any if at all.

T. Mac


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

john fallon said:


> An example would be when the max/min height was changed, when was it done and why was it done as it relates ....it needed to be done to properly function?
> john


John,

That is a HUGE can of worms....that would take more posts that Chris would probably allow on this forum!! Needless to say, the US is the ONLY country with a height disqualification...

Sue


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

brandywinelabs said:


> Time to jump in. As a HT judge and the owner of 2 CHs both of which were highly rated in the bench ratings, one of which was a CH/MH who beat the number one rated bench dog twice in one year in big shows, I believe that if you look past the weight that some people insist on showing dogs at, they would be very athletic looking. More like a hockey or basketball player than a sprinter. And the big factor here is conformation. Which translates to good movement, soundness, endurance, etc. Having had two very nice field bred dogs, both with problems, I now prefer certain show lines and have had very nice hunting and performance dogs with exceptional soundness. Perhaps they haven't all gotten to the master level. But, at the time that was more my knowledge of the game and other circumstances than their ability. There is no doubt in my mind that all of my show dogs could have had MH titles or atleast given a respectable showing for themselves.


I started in horses and have always been very interested in the relationship between conformation, performance and soundness. One thing I've learned is that there are exceptions to every rule. I've also learned that oftentimes we make theoretical assumptions without actual proof. For example, many show breeders can speak eloquently and endlessly about how their angles translate to good movement, soundness and endurance. But the theory is never tested because the dog doesn't do enough work in his lifetime to test his soundness. He doesn't do a job that tests his endurance. He paces around a show ring and everyone talks about what a great mover he is and they believe that he has the correct conformation because that's what they've been told and that's what it says in the book. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying it isn't proven.
I imagine that if we want to find the conformation that truly translates into good movement, soundness and endurance, we find some dogs that work every day for several months out of the year guiding pheasant and duck hunters and that train and run hunt tests during the remainder. If we could find some of these dogs that are 8-12 years old and still have 4 good wheels, we should really take a good look at them and see how they are put together. These dogs are truly sound. Do they have the correct angles we look for? Do they move the way we want them to? Do they have enough "substance" and "bone". Maybe.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

T. Mac said:


> What physical feature of the dog (breed) do you believe that Field Trials and FT breeding is affecting? It is hard for me to believe that field breeding would have much effect on the overall structure of a breed other than the inclusion as breeding stock some specimens that might have an undesirable feature from a very succesful field trial dog.
> 
> T. Mac


T.Mac,

I can answer here. The FT stock has certainly kept fronts. You look at length of upper arm in those dogs, they haven't lost if for the most part. One difference you will see is related to depth and structure of chest and width of chest. In the beautiful pic of Dual Ch Grangemead Precious that Nancy posted, you can see the width there, even in his son. 

From the Standard, dealing with chests, text bolded by me:

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.

The greyhound reference has come about because of this chest/tuck up difference. Note that I'm not leaving out the reference to the issues related to show dogs.

In reference to another area that has changed in FT stock is the tail. Though it doesn't affect performance, except maybe helps in water, the tail has always been a hallmark of the breed. Again, from the standard:

Tail -T*he 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. 

Coat could affect performance, especially when talking about day long duck hunts in the winter. How many FT dogs have a true double coat? How many show dogs have TOO much coat?

Lastly in dealing with substance: Substance - Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog.* Light,"weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens.*

Again, is there extreme in both sides? Can some of the cloddy specimans run in agility, maybe. The FT dogs can. We can get too much substance that detracts from ability or too little coat.

From the first paragraph of the standard:

The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, *medium-sized*, *short-coupled*, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation 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. 

Back to the original question: You need to find a dog to bring to your bitch that has the appropriate health clearances, is correct structurally (read 'balanced', not overdone or incorrect/correct in any one area), has working ability and that can compliment your bitch. Breeding to a dog with a huge head but that has a terrible front or no rear can bring you all three; not just that beautiful head. Unfortunately, the law of averages generally doesn't work with breeding. I can't speak for the FT recommendations given to you, but you certainly have some correct dogs that can work and aren't overdone in the list of show dogs.

Forgot to say, I'm not looking for a Dual Champion. I'm a staunch believer in a dog that tries to conform to the standard. That means they need to have working ability and type. Tough combo...

Sue Puff


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Hookset "I imagine that if we want to find the conformation that truly translates into good movement, soundness and endurance, we find some dogs that work every day for several months out of the year guiding pheasant and duck hunters and that train and run hunt tests during the remainder. If we could find some of these dogs that are 8-12 years old and still have 4 good wheels, we should really take a good look at them and see how they are put together. These dogs are truly sound. Do they have the correct angles we look for? Do they move the way we want them to? Do they have enough "substance" and "bone". Maybe.[/QUOTE]

Hookset, good points. A couple issues back in Retriever Journal magazine, they had a article talking about post legged dogs, lack of angulation. They gave a number of examples of how dogs with this condition where much more prone to blowing ACL's. I think an excellent dog to look at for your test would be Kobe. He is a champion, master hunter, master agility champion, pax, and on and on in performance events, he even has 3 field trial jams. He is now 11 years old, and he is still competing in agility competitions. This is a dog that has gone hard his whole life, and still pushing hard at 11. A great example of bone, angulation, conformation, performance, etc. Ihttp://www.citrushillcaninecenter.com/Citrus_Hill_Canine_Center/Kobe.html


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

GoodDog said:


> Hookset, good points. A couple issues back in Retriever Journal magazine, they had a article talking about post legged dogs, lack of angulation. They gave a number of examples of how dogs with this condition where much more prone to blowing ACL's. I think an excellent dog to look at for your test would be Kobe. He is a champion, master hunter, master agility champion, pax, and on and on in performance events, he even has 3 field trial jams. He is now 11 years old, and he is still competing in agaility competitions. This is a dog that has gone hard his whole life, and still pushing hard at 11. A great example of bone, angulation, conformation, performance, etc. Ihttp://www.citrushillcaninecenter.com/Citrus_Hill_Canine_Center/Kobe.html


That's a good point. Although there are a lot of conformation dogs out there not physically able to retrieve to a high degree, most of the stuff in the breed standard is there for a purpose. Some of the dogs with these positive properties have the potential to be a more 'hardy' dog.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I also agree with JBURN. In today's show ring, there a plenty of dogs winning that don't come close to being able to fill the shoes of the standard. Plenty of lumbering, cloddy dogs winning conformation titles. I believe that is very wrong and hurting the breed. I was at a specialty and watched a 110+ lbs dog win his class, when more breed standard dogs where competing against him. He is only 30+ pounds over standard, and in no way could he hunt 1 hour much less many in tough conditions. It is not right, and those judges should be repremanded.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

suepuff said:


> In reference to another area that has changed in FT stock is the tail. Though it doesn't affect performance, except maybe helps in water, the tail has always been a hallmark of the breed. Again, from the standard:
> 
> Tail -T*he 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.


This is almost the way the tail is described in the Chessie standard. But it raises several questions for me. If you are to say that form follows function, why is this the standard for the breeds? And why is it such a big deal? As you stated, on land the tail does not affect (directly) performance. I have heard many breeders (mostly show breeders) state that the tail acts as a rudder for the dog while swimming. Yet if you watch dogs swimming, nearly all of the steering is done in the front end while twisting at the midsection. Reaching with the arm and pulling in the direction of travel. And if you closely watch dogs turning while swimming, the tail does not seem to affect the turns. I've also heard that the tail adds to the stability of the dog in the water, but have never been able to demonstrate this either. In fact if you watch a dog with a gay tail swimming with a normal otter tailed dog, the dog with the gay tail is almost always the faster swimmer. Hence, the dragging of the tail through the water must add drag and reduce the dogs speed with no other appreciable benefit. Granted, the otter tailed dog looks cleaner and has a nicer looking top line, but this form doesn't seem to follow the function. And as another thought, the gay tailed dog is easier to spot at a distance or in heavy cover on land with the flag up! 

When you speak of depth and structure of chest and width of chest as being the main point of contention between the field Lab and the show Lab, I think you are implying that the field lab is narrow chested or has the appearance of being hollow. Again, from a Chessie person point of view I don't see this. Rather I see a dog that has a more athletic look in the field Lab in comparison to the show Lab. Note that most field labs (and many show Labs) are much more narrow chested than many Chessies, but the Chessie tuck tends to give them their athletic look. As your standard says; "Chest breadth that is either too wide or too narrow for efficient movement and stamina is incorrect" and, as the field lab continually demonstrate that it has both the stamina and movement to perform in the field, doesn't this tend to suggest that they are more correct? Having judged numerous hunt tests and having watched both styles of dog performing their intended fuction, I don't think that many (most) show labs have near the stamina or movement of their field brethern. And as most show Labs have chests that are wider than the field Lab, could this be the cause of their lessor stamina and poorer movement? And thus in conflict with the standard? 

T. Mac


----------



## justamere (Feb 19, 2008)

whelchel said:


> From all my searching, here's what I have for some "short list" dual purpose type studs or stud lines, both from field and/or bench, that have looks/talent. (excuse the lack of full names in the interest of me writing these off the top of my head)  Also, these are just personal opinion driven preferences, as a caveat.
> 
> Thanks for some suggestions so far, keep them coming!
> 
> ...



That's a nice list. You've got some good looking dogs who work and some good working dogs who look good - some more than others. You also have to look at the offspring and the mothers. Some of the dogs on your list are no where near what I would consider a dual purpose sire, but when bred to a prepotent bitch got some nice youngsters. Also lotta chocolate or chocolate-factored. Although I don't usually advise crossing chocolates and yellows, you may want to look at some of the yellows or Bys for the needed traits and breed for color when you have the structure and working ability you want. 

One caveat about your list - there are some known genetic problems in there. Be sure to check on these issues beforehand. Breeding is a crap shoot and our job is to increase our odds of getting good puppies. If you put health and temperament at the top of your must-have list, then even if you don't get what you want there are still people who would want those puppies.

Another random thought - while there seems to be quite a few people on here who are interested in the dual purpose Labs, we are still in the minority. A friend of mine had a nice male who was the grandson and great-grandson of the last two Dual Champions. (Awesome dog, BTW, Master Nat'l Hall of Fame with numerous titles in various venues.) However the owner of the grandfather had worked hard to finish his Dual Championship, only to be very disappointed that the dog was rarely used at stud. The field people didn't like him because he wasn't enough dog and the show people felt he would be a step backward in their breeding program. Sad commentary on our breed.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Woohoo, the thread lives on!  Hey I'm just here for my man Randall, who started the post asking about these types of dogs, haha. I don't know the how of combining these dogs for the desired end result, and obviously it's responsible and important to do the research. That's why we're here learning, asking, telling, listening, discussing, right? That said, PM me some of those known genetic problems would you? I'd like to find more lines that have discerningly combined field and show pedigree, so we continue upon those improvements vs. starting at square one. I know they are out there, I've been able to find some, but it takes some looking.


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

justamere said:


> Another random thought - while there seems to be quite a few people on here who are interested in the dual purpose Labs, we are still in the minority. A friend of mine had a nice male who was the grandson and great-grandson of the last two Dual Champions. (Awesome dog, BTW, Master Nat'l Hall of Fame with numerous titles in various venues.) However the owner of the grandfather had worked hard to finish his Dual Championship, only to be very disappointed that the dog was rarely used at stud. The field people didn't like him because he wasn't enough dog and the show people felt he would be a step backward in their breeding program. Sad commentary on our breed.


That is very true. From what I understand the breeder of my pup had to work pretty hard to convince the owner of the Dickendall lines to let him breed his field line female to to CH Dickendall Davaron Gable. And he only did two litters thinking there would be a limited demand - however I think the demand for the pups (especially the second litter) turned out to be pretty high. I've seen some crosses that turned out awkward looking - gangly legs, bad conformation etc, and I think that the first time you do a cross it is a crapshoot. At least after the first litter you have a good idea of what you are going to get.

As for the genetic problems, I was a little worried to see if crossing the lines would still maintain their good health clearances. Fortunately they did, as I think all of the pups tested have been good or better on the hips, etc, and my pup ended up being excellent on the hips and has normal elbows.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

justamere said:


> That's a nice list. You've got some good looking dogs who work and some good working dogs who look good - some more than others. You also have to look at the offspring and the mothers. Some of the dogs on your list are no where near what I would consider a dual purpose sire, but when bred to a prepotent bitch got some nice youngsters. Also lotta chocolate or chocolate-factored. *Although I don't usually advise crossing chocolates and yellows, you may want to look at some of the yellows or Bys for the needed traits and breed for color when you have the structure and working ability you want. *


Yes I've thought of that, when I see a dog like MACH CH prospect's slam dunk MH, mentioned on here previously. But then I'd really be in uncharted territory, breeding tweeners with a chocolate and a yellow. ;-) Probably have to pay to get rid of them.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

justamere said:


> Another random thought - while there seems to be quite a few people on here who are interested in the dual purpose Labs, we are still in the minority. A friend of mine had a nice male who was the grandson and great-grandson of the last two Dual Champions. (Awesome dog, BTW, Master Nat'l Hall of Fame with numerous titles in various venues.) However the owner of the grandfather had worked hard to finish his Dual Championship, only to be very disappointed that the dog was rarely used at stud. The field people didn't like him because he wasn't enough dog and the show people felt he would be a step backward in their breeding program. Sad commentary on our breed.


Yes, it is a sad commentary on our breeders. 

Moderation just isn't cool for most. 

Remember this, many top Field Trial breedings are about producing dogs with a potential to win in Field Trials period. These top breedings DO NOT take hunting into consideration as many are too tightly wound for duck hunting. If they did, we wouldn't have so many noisey and hard to control Labs. And, many top bench breedings do not take ability in the field into consideration either. That is obvious in the dog's weight and size. 

In my book, the animals ability to be a great hunting companion and hunter are first and foremost. All the dog games are secondary to that!


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

GoodDog said:


> I also agree with JBURN. In today's show ring, there a plenty of dogs winning that don't come close to being able to fill the shoes of the standard. Plenty of lumbering, cloddy dogs winning conformation titles. I believe that is very wrong and hurting the breed. I was at a specialty and watched a 110+ lbs dog win his class, when more breed standard dogs where competing against him. He is only 30+ pounds over standard, and in no way could he hunt 1 hour much less many in tough conditions. It is not right, and those judges should be repremanded.


I'd like to see a weigh in before entering the ring!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

suepuff said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john fallon*
> _An example would be when the max/min height was changed, when was it done and why was it done as it relates ....it needed to be done to properly function?
> john_
> ...


I think that this is the kind of thread that warrants the bandwidth.

I would hate to think that it was a matter of _form following fad._

_john_


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> I'd like to see a weigh in before entering the ring!


I would too. Just as there is a DQ for being too tall or short at the withers, I think a dog over 80lb and bitches over 70 lbs must also be a DQ as written in the breed standard! I personally liked the old 75lbs limit on males better than the current weight standard for dogs per AKC and LRC.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> I'd like to see a weigh in before entering the ring!


 :BIG:

Even in the show community the weight thing is a common topic! I just went to see my YLF that's been with a trainer for 4 months. She's from show lines. She's RIPPED. Not an ounce of fat on her. According to the standard, she should be shown that way; according to current fad, she wouldn't even get looked at. In fact, though she has a correct double coat, it's not 'enough' for most judges...

There is also a difference between dogs shown at Specialties vs. All breed shows. The latter tending to lean more moderate. I prefer moderate.

To the height standard John:

I was only involved with labs on the periphery at that time, but in a nutshell; AKC wants all breed clubs to redo their written standard to a common format. So the LRC (The Labrador Retriever Club) re-did theirs and at the time, there was lots of complaints about dogs that were too short (in the show lines) and dogs that were too tall (field lines). That was definitely true on the show side, I can't speak for the other. Again, to my mind, the extreme issue. It was sent out to the membership, including member clubs, for comment. Apparantly, the major comment was to drop the disqualification. A lawsuit ensued between club members and the LRC. The LRC won. The info pertaining to the lawsuit and the complete complaint can be found at 

http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/standard_appeal.php

It's an interesting read...

Sue Puff


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

suepuff said:


> :BIG:
> 
> Even in the show community the weight thing is a common topic! I just went to see my YLF that's been with a trainer for 4 months. She's from show lines. She's RIPPED. Not an ounce of fat on her. According to the standard, she should be shown that way; according to current fad, she wouldn't even get looked at. In fact, though she has a correct double coat, it's not 'enough' for most judges...
> 
> ...


Drives me crazy. The judges, especially all breed judges don't even know what working condition looks like. Around here when you take a dog in true working condition into the ring they stick out like a sore thumb. 
Not an ounce of fat on Magic either. He's training for open ob and competing in rally. I can't imagine jumping him if he had those show lbs on him. 79 lbs of pure muscle!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

suepuff said:


> It was sent out to the membership, including member clubs, for comment. Apparantly, the major comment was to drop the disqualification. A lawsuit ensued between club members and the LRC. The LRC won. The info pertaining to the lawsuit and the complete complaint can be found at
> 
> http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/standard_appeal.php
> 
> ...


Good for the LRC! One has to draw the line somewhere. The breed is defined and shouldn't be left to fad or field or show speciality. Where the LRC failed was in not including weight as a DQ. No real difference between height or weight, so why is one so resolute and the other not enforced?


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Drives me crazy. The judges, especially all breed judges don't even know what working condition looks like. Around here when you take a dog in true working condition into the ring they stick out like a sore thumb.
> Not an ounce of fat on Magic either. He's training for open ob and competing in rally. I can't imagine jumping him if he had those show lbs on him. 79 lbs of pure muscle!



I was told the same thing about Cash. The show people said I would have to fatten him up for shows. This seems ridiculous being that he is in optimal condition right now.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

jburn34 said:


> I was told the same thing about Cash. The show people said I would have to fatten him up for shows. This seems ridiculous being that he is in optimal condition right now.


I was told by a show breeder that works at my vet that Stryke would look really good if we added a few pounds, right before the vet said he's at a really good weight and you wouldn't want any more on him. The show breeder said maybe he'd finish filling out by the time he's 4. 

He's 70 lbs, and maxes out the height standard. He looks really plump compared Gunner (who happens to weigh 80 lbs) but when he's wet you can see just how thin he is. His muscles do not show like Gunner's do. For both having Dickendall's Arnold in their pedigree, they're built completely different.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Mr Booty said:


> Good for the LRC! One has to draw the line somewhere. The breed is defined and shouldn't be left to fad or field or show speciality. Where the LRC failed was in not including weight as a DQ. No real difference between height or weight, so why is one so resolute and the other not enforced?


Boy, wouldn't that bring out the fireworks!!!!!!!!! 

Sonya, 2 yo, is BARELY 21" tall (height standard is 21.5"- 23.5" for bitches but they allow 1/2" under/over). Weighed in at 61.3# recently at the vet's office in very nice working condition. The weight range for bitches is 55-70#. I think she looks great but I am really curious to see her in a line up at the Intl shows in Feb. I am betting she looks VERY moderate there.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

suepuff said:


> There is also a difference between dogs shown at Specialties vs. All breed shows. The latter tending to lean more moderate. I prefer moderate.
> Sue Puff


This is why my boy will be going with an all breed handler to all breed shows in January. 

And even she asked that I put a couple of pounds on him beforehand!!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sean H said:


> This is why my boy will be going with an all breed handler to all breed shows in January.
> 
> And even she asked that I put a couple of pounds on him beforehand!!


Why ?????????

From the breed standard:The Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog

From the breed standard : *Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition, well-muscled and without excess fat.* 

From these two exurbs it is not unreasonable for the uninitiated to expect to see a dog that *looks like it could do a days worth of hunting.*


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

So which is more important, weight or build, per se? Well muscled dogs can carry more than 80 lbs easily, so should that be considered outside the parameters? (Assuming a stocky build as called for, and within the acceptable height ranges).


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Hookset said:


> I started in horses and have always been very interested in the relationship between conformation, performance and soundness. One thing I've learned is that there are exceptions to every rule. I've also learned that oftentimes we make theoretical assumptions without actual proof. For example, many show breeders can speak eloquently and endlessly about how their angles translate to good movement, soundness and endurance. But the theory is never tested because the dog doesn't do enough work in his lifetime to test his soundness. He doesn't do a job that tests his endurance. He paces around a show ring and everyone talks about what a great mover he is and they believe that he has the correct conformation because that's what they've been told and that's what it says in the book. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying it isn't proven.
> I imagine that if we want to find the conformation that truly translates into good movement, soundness and endurance, we find some dogs that work every day for several months out of the year guiding pheasant and duck hunters and that train and run hunt tests during the remainder. If we could find some of these dogs that are 8-12 years old and still have 4 good wheels, we should really take a good look at them and see how they are put together. These dogs are truly sound. Do they have the correct angles we look for? Do they move the way we want them to? Do they have enough "substance" and "bone". Maybe.


I would disagree. After all of these years, in all of the various disciplines that have a standard of conformation which includes movement,
those standards still exist. Most likely for good reason. My training in Physiology of Exercise and Kinesiology would also tell me that conformation
is important. There are many other factors that contirbute. Wieght, jumping off the tailgate, etc that contribute to how a dog is at 10 yrs of age. With or without good conformation. My experience and training says conformation.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Drives me crazy. The judges, especially all breed judges don't even know what working condition looks like. Around here when you take a dog in true working condition into the ring they stick out like a sore thumb.
> Not an ounce of fat on Magic either. He's training for open ob and competing in rally. I can't imagine jumping him if he had those show lbs on him. 79 lbs of pure muscle!


In all cases, of the dogs I have seriously shown, it is the all breed judges that will tell you how they like the "in shape" dogs when you win with a close to in shape dog. You have to sort of play the weight game in the show ring.
I won't go to the extreme that some want.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Mr Booty said:


> Yes, it is a sad commentary on our breeders.
> 
> Moderation just isn't cool for most.
> 
> ...


Booty, I think you've really nailed what I've been trying to say. I'll admit that I'm poor at trying to convey what I mean in the written word sometimes. But, I 100% agree with you here.




> Good for the LRC! One has to draw the line somewhere. The breed is defined and shouldn't be left to fad or field or show speciality. Where the LRC failed was in not including weight as a DQ. No real difference between height or weight, so why is one so resolute and the other not enforced?


Just MHO, but as far as the weight being a DQ, while I agree that the type of dual purpose dogs we're discussing and the moderate dog the standard is describing shouldn't be 110#, I honestly don't think we should put an 80# cap on it either.  There are several dogs who are very moderate who are right around the 90+# range. However, they are moderate because they balance their weight out nicely with their height and substance. When you think about it, an 80#, 25" (the very top of the height allowance, right before DQ) dog would most likely lack proper substance and would probably be quite on the weedy side. This is why the weight has remained a suggestion/recommendation all this time. For myself, as long as the dog is in working condition, I care much more about how evenly a dog distributes his weight than I do about how much he actually weighs. I hope that makes sense as I feel it really does make a big difference.



> Boy, wouldn't that bring out the fireworks!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Sonya, 2 yo, is BARELY 21" tall (height standard is 21.5"- 23.5" for bitches but they allow 1/2" under/over). Weighed in at 61.3# recently at the vet's office in very nice working condition. The weight range for bitches is 55-70#. I think she looks great but I am really curious to see her in a line up at the Intl shows in Feb. I am betting she looks VERY moderate there.


Wow! Anne, it will be interesting to see what happens at the Intl show- you'll have to let me know (I'm rooting for Sonya, of course!). Blue's 21" and, in working condition, her weight fluxuates in between 66-68#. Reba is right around the same height. Even though she's only about 2# behind Blue (so she's got some bone, coat, and substance to her), she still looked very fieldy when put against the other two puppies at the Nov show.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

whelchel said:


> So which is more important, weight or build, per se? Well muscled dogs can carry more than 80 lbs easily, so should that be considered outside the parameters? (Assuming a stocky build as called for, and within the acceptable height ranges).


I think the answer to that is moderation. The black male in my Avatar is at the middle of the height standard and is 75 pounds when he's in good condition, no fat. They are a moderate dog.

I can lift him in a john boat when in water. I couldn't lift that 100 pound dog that someone else was looking for either into my boat or carry him down the road in an emergency. But to each his own.

Sue


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Wow! Anne, it will be interesting to see what happens at the Intl show- you'll have to let me know (I'm rooting for Sonya, of course!). Blue's 21" and, in working condition, her weight fluxuates in between 66-68#. Reba is right around the same height. Even though she's only about 2# behind Blue (so she's got some bone, coat, and substance to her), she still looked very fieldy when put against the other two puppies at the Nov show.


I thought you told me earlier that Blue is 22" or a hair over.  Let's just say that both Mata and Sonya need to be measured at "full alert" status to meet the 21" min.  Thank god for the gunfire over at the MH test when Mata did her CC!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Wow! Anne, it will be interesting to see what happens at the Intl show- you'll have to let me know (I'm rooting for Sonya, of course!). Blue's 21" and, in working condition, her weight fluxuates in between 66-68#. Reba is right around the same height. Even though she's only about 2# behind Blue (so she's got some bone, coat, and substance to her), she still looked very fieldy when put against the other two puppies at the Nov show.


I thought you told me earlier that Blue is 22" or a hair over.  Let's just say that both Mata and Sonya need to be measured at "full alert" status to meet the 21" min.  Thank god for the gunfire over at the MH test when Mata did her CC!


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> I thought you told me earlier that Blue is 22" or a hair over.  Let's just say that both Mata and Sonya need to be measured at "full alert" status to meet the 21" min.  Thank god for the gunfire over at the MH test when Mata did her CC!


Yeah, that's what I always thought she was- until we got her measured by a VMO. In fact, I was kind of hoping she was 22" because then she'd only need one measurement for an agility card. No such luck, lol. She measured at 21". Sure glad Sailor's got some height, lol!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

LabLady101 said:


> Yeah, that's what I always thought she was- until we got her measured by a VMO. In fact, I was kind of hoping she was 22" because then she'd only need one measurement for an agility card. No such luck, lol. She measured at 21". Sure glad Sailor's got some height, lol!


Ahhh, but that was for agility? I'd measure ala show style too and you may be surprised. Mata measured ~1/2" under her actual show height as they want a more natural/relaxed (head down) pose for agility measurement. Pull that head up like in your show shots, and I bet you'll see her "grow" at the withers. I know many dogs that lose up to 1" once they drop their head. Have a friend w/ a very tall Aussie who is jumping in my girls' 20" classes!

Agility now requires 2 measurements in AKC and I think they take the taller of the 2 (I'd have to look at that now as I think Jazz came in at 21 and 20.75 but her card height is 21"). Jazz is actually a hair over 21" if measured in a show stack/head up pose.


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

Are labs suppose to be bred to do 400 yard retrieves?

Or are labs suppose to look like hippos!

Because it seems 95% of breeders are concerned with the former or the latter.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

There may actually be a good reason why the retriever breeds are "medium"-sized. Can't remember the researchers' names, but they delved into how a dog's stamina is determined by how their body dissipates heat. By their calculations, about 70# was the most ideal canine weight for stamina.

The originators of the retriever breeds probably came to the medium size simply because "it worked" for their purposes.

Maybe someone out there has a URL for the source of this info.

While an exceptional dog who weighs 110# maybe shouldn't be "culled", one has to be careful that it doesn't create a trend that "bigger is better". We dog people can get into those ways of thinking pretty easily


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> Ahhh, but that was for agility? I'd measure ala show style too and you may be surprised. Mata measured ~1/2" under her actual show height as they want a more natural/relaxed (head down) pose for agility measurement. Pull that head up like in your show shots, and I bet you'll see her "grow" at the withers. I know many dogs that lose up to 1" once they drop their head. Have a friend w/ a very tall Aussie who is jumping in my girls' 20" classes!
> 
> Agility now requires 2 measurements in AKC and I think they take the taller of the 2 (I'd have to look at that now as I think Jazz came in at 21 and 20.75 but her card height is 21"). Jazz is actually a hair over 21" if measured in a show stack/head up pose.


Nope, she was stacked (as in show stacked). It must differ between VMOs because ours actually wanted the dogs stacked (head up, etc). We were just as surprised at the measurement, so we actually remeasured her ourselves when we got home. Sure enough, the VMO was right. Like I said, we were actually hoping she'd measure at 22 because, according to current rules, she'd only need 1 measurement for the card. Now, since she obviously came in under that, she needs another. I guess we always just figured she had to be around 22 because she's so leggy, but I guess those legs can be deceiving...Oh well! I guess we'll just have to see what the 2nd measurement says when we can get it...


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Randall said:


> Are labs suppose to be bred to do 400 yard retrieves?
> 
> Or are labs suppose to look like hippos!
> 
> Because it seems 95% of breeders are concerned with the former or the latter.


I think or is that thank..........successful dogs are used regardless of the reason, show (beauty/standard contest in which the dog must not bite the judge), pet and various working. 

Changes of shapes is a result. Look at greyhound shape. Keplies. Look similar to some labradors? Selecting for other shapes - brains, stamina and ability. 

I have some friends who breed for show, very few whole litters make the grade. Actually I can think of none. Where as if nearly a whole litter of "working" labradors/dogs make IT, they may grab my attention.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I have done the hunt test and the field trial games. I agree with a good many people that the FT game has become really absurd. Wearing white coats and pitching birds out on a semi-golf course at 400 yards ain't like any hunting situation I've been in. The argument is that the dogs have become so good it is hard for judges to separate them out. 

Well then, as just a suggestion ,why don't we take off the white coats come in a hundred or so yards and throw the birds into some really dirty stuff. I believe it would be just as effective in separating them out. 

The main driving force for developing the lankier breedings are speed and endurance at those extreme distances. The upshot is that the breed is developing toward the day when we will have two distinct breeds. 

I don't see the emergence of any consensus that would bring the breed back to common ground. I would hope to see the development of an ethos in the bench and field camps about adhering to a common standard. Unfortunately, it may be too late to save the breed. I just may be hoping for the reunification of Pangea.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I have done the hunt test and the field trial games.


What FT stakes have you run and when?


> I agree with a good many people that the FT game has become really absurd. Wearing white coats and pitching birds out *on a semi-golf course* at 400 yards ain't like any hunting situation I've been in. The argument is that the dogs have become so good it is hard for judges to separate them out.


Where are those FT on golf courses-certainly not any I have seen?


> Well then, as just a suggestion ,why don't we take off the white coats come in a couple hundred or so yards and throw the birds into some really dirty stuff. I believe it would be just as effective in separating them out.


Those would be hunting retriever tests. I read this post as the FT should be dummied down so the bench dogs can become duals-and I don't mean CH/MH.


> The main driving force for developing the lankier breedings are speed and endurance at those extreme distances.


This is the one that kills me is the speed factor. FT are not timed. Endurance yes, but the standard dictates endurance, which many bench dogs are not capable of. FT dogs are bred based on natural marking ability, intelligence, courage, trainability,and the ability to be a team player. Never have I heard someone say lets breed these two so we can get the fastest dog. Granted, FT dogs have evolved to be animals that can work under all conditions, and that does mean they have shed the fat layer. I can go and microchip a bunch of dogs (which I have done) with my eyes closed and tell you which ones are bench and which are field and which are moderate.


> The upshot is that the breed is developing toward the day when we will have two distinct breeds. I don't see the emergence of any consensus that would bring the breed back to common ground.


We have had two distinct breeds since the mid 1980's when the overdone English imports became the look the conformation ring sought to achieve completely ignoring the standard which says the Labrador should be able to hunt for long hours in difficult terrain.
This thread is turning the same way they always do and that is throwing out inaccuracies based on bias.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

And BTW, the white coats pre-dated the distance. FTs have used white coats for just about as long as there have been FTs. When I first became involved with FTs in the 60s, distances were like long HTs with long marks about 200yds in some cases -but there were still white coats.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> What FT stakes have you run and when?[\QUOTE]
> 
> I have a Master Hunter on my dog and we ran the in MNHT this year. I have run in the FT game for 5 years now. I marshall and work at other tasks at 6-8 trials for several clubs each year. I have competed in Qualy's and Amateur stakes including several this year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

A cohort of mine shared this insight with me, I found it particularly relevant to this discussion.


> ....You see strict field people usually don't even pay attention to the show contingent or what the breed is doing in the show ring. Whereas the show people would like to believe that their dogs are still every bit the hunting/birddog/pointers/retrievers that their breed exemplifies. Yet they get snubbed by the group they would still espouse....


 No doubt there are exceptions, but from what I have seen this holds true in the Lab community. You don't ever hear FC/AFC people claiming their dog could win in the Show ring, but CH people suggest, with the training, their dogs can win in the Field (whether true of not, they believe it).
At the present rate of degradation on both ends, I doubt we'll see another US DC, but if we do, it will not come from the typical Field lines as they do not conform to the standard. It will come from a "moderate" Conformation line. You'll never change a zebras stripes, but with work you can teach an old dog new tricks.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> but there is an emergent viewpoint in mine that speed = style


Style is so much more than speed. It certainly sounds like you have some FT sour grapes going. It happens a lot.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Ironman said:


> At the present rate of degradation on both ends, I doubt we'll see another US DC, but if we do, it will not come from the typical Field lines as they do not conform to the standard. It will come from a "moderate" Conformation line. You'll never change a zebras stripes, but with work you can teach an old dog new tricks.


I agree with this...


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

suepuff said:


> I agree with this...



Me too! Does anyone have suggestions as to those "moderate" hunting lines, or dual purpose lines, as requested by Randall when starting the thread?


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Style is so much more than speed. It certainly sounds like you have some FT sour grapes going. It happens a lot.


Sour grapes? I hope not. As I said I have no interest in supporting this view, but it is there for better or worse. Call it sour grapes if you want.


----------



## justamere (Feb 19, 2008)

Mr Booty said:


> I would too. Just as there is a DQ for being too tall or short at the withers, I think a dog over 80lb and bitches over 70 lbs must also be a DQ as written in the breed standard! I personally liked the old 75lbs limit on males better than the current weight standard for dogs per AKC and LRC.


Although I don't like seeing the 100+ pound dogs in the ring, I doubt a weight DQ would work (even if it could get into the standard). There is a height DQ now and it's not enforced. I took one of my 'tweeners out and mentioned to another exhibitor that I was worried about a measurement. She said not to worry, that she'd finished a 19-1/2" bitch. Sure enough my girl was one of the tallest in her class and the judge never called for a wicket. 

On another forum a judge got flamed pretty badly because she had called for a wicket and DQ'd. I wasn't at the show, but as I understand it there was a class of one. This girl was beautiful, but obviously undersize. The judge said she had to choose between placing the girl 1st and seeing her again in Winners or calling for the wicket as required by the standard. I guess her choice wasn't very popular (although correct IMO).

I think we would better serve our breed by educating the judges (at least the all-rounders) rather than having disqualifications in the standard. I know the LRC is trying to improve judging by hosting a judging seminar at the national specialty and I believe they require the national specialty judges to attend at least one field trial or hunt test.


----------



## justamere (Feb 19, 2008)

Ironman said:


> ... but CH people suggest, with the training, their dogs can win in the Field (whether true of not, they believe it).


Yep, I know quite a few show people who feel that way. I've seen a lot of show-bred dogs who have no interest in retrieving anything and some that are great in the field. The trick is to know the difference and it takes a lot of research. There are many show-bred dogs who have lots of drive, but their owners don't have the time or inclination to train so it's harder for us to find them. 

In another plug for the LRC, members cannot call their dog a champion until it has also passed at least a WC. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

whelchel said:


> Me too! Does anyone have suggestions as to those "moderate" hunting lines, or dual purpose lines, as requested by Randall when starting the thread?


Well, I think someone had a pretty good list started, but off the top of my head:

Swedish lines
Cuda & Ryder
Shamrock Acres
Captains
Cedarwood
Dickendall (Ruffy & Arnold)
High Voltage
Marshland (Blitz)
Simerdown
Saddlehill
Janrod
Fawnhaven
Merganser
Candlewoods
Danikk
FC AFC Rocky
Pachanga
ETA: WindyCanyon (Can't believe I forgot this one! Wheres the smacking head "doh!" emoticon when you need it?)

And some newer faces who are involved with moderate dogs:
Canyon
Stormy C
Startop


There's probably a boat load more, but I just can't stretch my brain that far at the moment...


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Add Kerrybrook to that list.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

and Armbrook. 

armbrooklabradors.com


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Totally agree on Kerrybrook and Armbrook. Any others, folks?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Ransom

www.kingsransomlabs.com


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Randall said:


> Are labs suppose to be bred to do 400 yard retrieves?
> 
> Or are labs suppose to look like hippos!
> 
> Because it seems 95% of breeders are concerned with the former or the latter.


The Lab was oiriginally developed for neither! The 400 yard retrieve is a task developed in a speciality venue or Field Trial requirement. In a hunting situation, how often does one release a dog on a 400 yard mark? Yes, we have all had the occaional goose that falls a good way out but, 400 Yards!Field Trials have speciality bred dogs, bred to mark and handle at great distances. To reach those goals with FT bred dogs, many health issues as well as physical breed type have been greatly compromised. Many successful FT dogs are narrow in structure with curling tails. They are built that way to better cover the distances of the required retrieves. This type of dog is a deviation from the defined breed standard. So, to answer your question again, I say, neither the black looking whippet nor the pig a dor.


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

I stumbled across Critter Creek Kennels as well. In my estimation they do a nice job of blending health, performance, looks.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

I would add Waterbound Labradors, and Locke to that list


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

This was glossed over earlier, but how does the "classic"looks in the Labrador differ from the standard ?

john


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

john fallon said:


> This was glossed over earlier, but how does the "classic"looks in the Labrador differ from the standard ?
> 
> john


Depends on your definition of "classic" looks! Some that I've seen folks "represent" as the classic breed example had pointer-like features......


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

Good question there! We never did get the answer did we. While looking for stud dogs, it's much easier to find that "classic" look, going back about 15 or 20 years. I'd like really know the difference as well. I know conformation is theoretically based on the standard, but to me a "classic" looker has the nice bone structure/build, larger head, eyes usually set wider, shorter muzzle, all looking proportional. The kind where your eyes can be tired from looking at different dogs all night on the computer (who does that? ) , and then you glance one out of the corner of your eye, and immediately recognize it. Always to find they are long gone and not collected. :-x


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

In the abstract wouldn't they be one in the same ?

john


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

The first time I saw Good Dog's avatar, 3 posts above, I PM'd him immediately to find out which lines she was from. Dogs don't have that look in field game; very rarely. 

This was before I knew there were working conformation lines in there. Hence my newfound appreciation for dual purpose! Yes if we had more "classic looking" FC's, we would be closer to a dual CH.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Here is another dog that looks very nice, and has a nice performance record. 
HRCH UH CP Treddolphin Blazing Red SH. http://www.blazingredkennels.com

I believe he is also 1 for 1 on master passes. Nice looking dog.


----------



## Scout (Dec 23, 2007)

I have always associated the problem with CHs not being able to do the FT work because of a lack of desire. What is the argument for there physical build inhibiting them from running those long long retrieves.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Scout said:


> I have always associated the problem with CHs not being able to do the FT work because of a lack of desire. What is the argument for there physical build inhibiting them from running those long long retrieves.


It's not desire. That will be there if raised properly. It's talent.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Sean H said:


> It's not desire. That will be there if raised properly. It's talent.


Talent?? Maybe,,, 

They're not bred for marking or lining. They have to be taught that. Some are better learners then others.

But even if they're taught they're not taught to the level of a AA dog.

Angie


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Talent?? Maybe,,,
> 
> They're not bred for marking or lining. They have to be taught that. Some are better learners then others.
> 
> ...


Painting with a broad brush there! 
Certainly, most CH dogs are not bred specifically for marking and lining, but that doesn’t automatically mean they don’t have those instincts firmly set in their genetic makeup. Simply neglecting to select for a specific trait when breeding does not preclude its existence and influence!


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Some are better learners then others.
> 
> Angie


That would be a talent. :razz:


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Sean H said:


> That would be a talent. :razz:


That would be intelligence... 

Ask any athletic coach... Talent and brains are two different things.....

Angie


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Angie B said:


> That would be intelligence...
> 
> Ask any athletic coach... Talent and brains are two different things.....
> 
> Angie


Now Angie you're getting pretty picky with your words! I was using the word vaguely.....talent, natural ability, etc. I would argue that intelligence is one of those natural abilities, or talents.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ironman said:


> Painting with a broad brush there!
> Certainly, most CH dogs are not bred specifically for marking and lining, but that doesn’t automatically mean they don’t have those instincts firmly set in their genetic makeup. Simply neglecting to select for a specific trait when breeding does not preclude its existence and influence!


How could those traits be firmly set in their genetic makeup?? From how far back and when and to what level?? Certainly not at the AA level?

Anything past the senior level is "work" and maturity.... I don't care if it's teaching them to hold a line or how to appropriately dig out a bird on a mark.

Those ancient instincts if they're even there from some ancient pedigree rarely rise to the surface of our modern CH dogs.

Brains and desire help them achieve our goals.. Natural marking ability past the yard and holding a line through multiple factors have to be taught..

IMHO

Angie


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Angie B said:


> That would be intelligence...
> 
> Ask any athletic coach... Talent and brains are two different things.....
> 
> Angie



Ahhhhhh....once again. The million dollar body and the 5 cent brain syndrome.

Stupid is as stupid does..............From Forest Gump


Angie should have a pretty good read on these dogs, she's trained enough of them.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Given the option humans will take the easy way. The Labrador FT people have that option, and with few notable xceptions, have chosen to forgo the arduous task of developing the dual purpose Lab in favor of a less challenging route.. They would have had it done by now had they stayed the course. 

john


----------



## susanb (Aug 15, 2008)

Listening to field dog owners discuss traits of working dogs from show lines is akin to listening to men discuss the fine points of labor and delivery - and about as valuable. 

I have two Master Hunters - one is show bred, with show points and an obedience title. The other is entirely field bred. I am as insulted by someone saying that show dogs are fat, lazy, have no talent, etc., as I am by someone saying that my field dog is ugly or must be wild and uncontrollable. 

Is it harder to find a good working dog from show lines? Sure it is, because not many people are pursuing dual titles, so it's hard to know what kind of talent a dog MAY have had if it had been given the opportunity to work. IMO, making a MH out of show lines is similar to buying a horse from halter lines and turning it into a performance champion. Doable given the right dog, but not as easy as buying a horse out of performance lines and trying for a performance title. Also, the current trend in the show ring towards very heavy dogs is not really conducive to the physical demands of a retriever that is working at the higher levels of training. 

As someone who has both types of labs, I wish that more people would move toward the middle and I admire the breeders who are trying to produce a dog that has both good conformation and good working ability. I also wish there could be just one thread on this forum where show dogs could be discussed without disparaging remarks made about their working ability.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> Is it harder to find a good working dog from show lines? Sure it is, because not many people are pursuing dual titles, so it's hard to know what kind of talent a dog MAY have had if it had been given the opportunity to work. IMO, making a MH out of show lines is similar to buying a horse from halter lines and turning it into a performance champion. Doable given the right dog, but not as easy as buying a horse out of performance lines and trying for a performance title. Also, the current trend in the show ring towards very heavy dogs is not really conducive to the physical demands of a retriever that is working at the higher levels of training.
> 
> As someone who has both types of labs, I wish that more people would move toward the middle and I admire the breeders who are trying to produce a dog that has both good conformation and good working ability. I also wish there could be just one thread on this forum where show dogs could be discussed without disparaging remarks made about their working ability.


Well said! I especially wish everyone would ready that last paragraph "...I wish that more people would move toward the middle and I admire the breeders who are trying to produce a dog that has both good conformation and good working ability. I also wish there could be just one thread on this forum where show dogs could be discussed without disparaging remarks made about their working ability." 

I train two "show bred dogs" they are from different lines and they are as different as day and night to train (as I am sure exists with field bred lines). Each one requires a different training approach. And, no, they will not run field trials, but, and this is important, that is not the game I wish to play (although I regularly train with field trial dogs and greatly admire them; I feel no need to continue to drive my preferences home to their owners)...I am not trying to turn my into dogs that win field trials. However, I do believe they have the potential to become very nice hunting dogs that perform well at hunt tests to whatever level I train them; and that is the dog game I wish to play.
________
Iolite Vaporizer


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I also wish there could be just one thread on this forum where show dogs could be discussed without disparaging remarks made about their working ability."


Actually this thread has been pretty tame on both sides for 250 or more posts and then the zingers started flying AT the FTlers. 

There aren't too many pros that know more than Angie about training dual type dogs for the field. The bottom line is your dog has to be very talented to be successful at field trials, _not to just enter them_, but place, and we like it that way because it sorts out the cream from the common. We've all gotten duds, but when you get a really good one, they are a joy to train, instead of beating your head against a wall trying to bring hidden "instincts" to the surface.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Scout said:


> I have always associated the problem with CHs not being able to do the FT work because of a lack of desire. What is the argument for there physical build inhibiting them from running those long long retrieves.


I doubt that anyone here who is dual breeding or trains with someone who does dual breeding, will say there is anything in their build that inhibits them from running FTs. Only those without a solid foundation on which to base their opinion...


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Angie B said:


> How could those traits be firmly set in their genetic makeup?? From how far back and when and to what level?? Certainly not at the AA level?
> 
> Anything past the senior level is "work" and maturity.... I don't care if it's teaching them to hold a line or how to appropriately dig out a bird on a mark.
> 
> ...


I respect your opinion and in many instances you are correct. But, not all CH dog need to be trained to mark well and run straight, just like many FT dogs. I only think you have passed a broad sweeping judgment on CH dogs that is not entirely accurate. Kind of like saying FC dogs are high-strung fire-breathing dragons. Sure some might be, but Its inaccurate to say that is always the case. 
Just because a pedigree is "ancient" does not mean it is not valid. Genetic traits do not automatically diminish with the passage if time. Now I won't suggest that not selecting for those traits lessens their preponderance, it does. But, to say that such is the case for all CH lines is inaccurate. One must research the lines they are looking into, and if possible see the dogs and test the dogs to your liking. In the end you make the best decision you can with the info you have, there are no guarantees. Just like getting a pup from a FC breeding, it might be a fantastic pup, or it might be a dud. In the FC lines you will no doubt better you chances for a fantastic pup than in the CH lines, but the CH lines can and do still produce them…the problem being that many of the dogs never get the chance to perform. 
Of course we do train all our dogs to move their performance beyond their instinct, its the game we love to play.


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

I have zero knowledge of other breeds. When was the last Golden to become a Dual Champion. Is the Golden ring in conformation as tough as the lab ring?


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Look if it was a easy as buying a dog from a CH breeding going to a few shows doing some field work and viola you have a dual champion it would have been done last week. For either side to marginalize what it takes is just showing ignorance in what is involved.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

Randall said:


> I have zero knowledge of other breeds. When was the last Golden to become a Dual Champion.


I think I know the answer to this one. ;-)

The first Dual Champion Golden in North America in over 25 years (and the only one living) is a Canadian Dual. 

*Can. Dual CH AFTCH Firemark's Push Comes to Shove Am.***
*
http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=44966

Last U.S. Dual Champion was approximately 30 years ago. He was also the high point derby dog in 1973.

*Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD*

http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=555



> Is the Golden ring in conformation as tough as the lab ring?


Without a doubt. And we struggle with the same "split" in the breed as well. Notice, I didn't say "suffer," though some tend to act like it is the end of the world at times. 

As with Labs, Goldens are very popular and there are plenty of different types to go around, depending on their owners' preferences.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ironman,,,, you'll have to point me in the direction of those good naturally marking and lining show dog pedigrees?? 

I think we could be talking about 2 different things. What you consider a good marking/lining dog genetically, I may not. My standards are pretty high and I know what I have to do to get my bench bred dogs to understand and utilize they're training. And I have not had one that could do qual level marking or lining without a ton of work. They had to be taught. The lining in particular. 

The pedigrees other then field pedigrees that have done relatively well with both concepts comparatively has been the show/field blends. But that has been with field close up in the pedigree.

It maybe that I feel those concepts are a ton of work because I won't sacrifice style. I have seen show dogs that could mark and line but their style was not stylish. As a matter of fact they were was painful to watch. 

Angie


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Angie B said:


> I have seen show dogs that could mark and line but their style was not stylish. As a matter of fact they were was painful to watch.


It was probably painful for those dogs too...as many are just too fat!

Honestly, finding a show dog pedigree that has excellent instinct and significant potential is, at present, a crap shoot, in my opinion. This because, as has been mentioned, the Show breeders often ignore those traits, so there is little evidence of it, and some show breeders don't even know they have it. But they are out there. A line might produce awesome pups and duds in the same litter; there is not much consistency right now. Just telling you that one line is better than another means very little at this point, in my opinion. The best thing to do is use the "dual breeders" list posted a few pages back as a starting point. It will take research and testing, culling, scraping it all and starting over again....or one might have a spot of luck and do it in a single step. It's a crap shoot, but it is possible to get the type of dog we have been discussing from a show line....believe. That is one of the biggest reasons I think the Dual doesn’t exist anymore, very few believe it can happen. Very few in the field trial game even give a show lined dog a second look, and many carry preconceived perceptions of their inferiority, condemning them to failure before ever giving them a chance.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ironman said:


> It was probably painful for those dogs too...as many are just too fat!
> 
> Honestly, finding a show dog pedigree that has excellent instinct and significant potential is, at present, a crap shoot, in my opinion. This because, as has been mentioned, the Show breeders often ignore those traits, so there is little evidence of it, and some show breeders don't even know they have it. But they are out there. A line might produce awesome pups and duds in the same litter; there is not much consistency right now. Just telling you that one line is better than another means very little at this point, in my opinion. The best thing to do is use the "dual breeders" list posted a few pages back as a starting point. It will take research and testing, culling, scraping it all and starting over again....or one might have a spot of luck and do it in a single step. It's a crap shoot, but it is possible to get the type of dog we have been discussing from a show line....believe. That is one of the biggest reasons I think the Dual doesn’t exist anymore, very few believe it can happen. Very few in the field trial game even give a show lined dog a second look, and many carry preconceived perceptions of their inferiority, condemning them to failure before ever giving them a chance.


Now your painting with a broad brush... The unstylish MH's were not fat.. They were just over trained to the point of losing style. Nothing natural or genetically capable there....

Believe?? I'll believe it can happen when I have all the "money and time" it takes... 

I think there is no more dual CH's for a heck of a lot more reasons then "those condemning a show pedigree to failure in the field"... Come on????

In theory you could be right... In theory only. Since I nor obviously yourself have observed it in reality. So we can talk for pages about what could happen until the cows come home.... Since that's all it is...

Angie


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

For someone wanting to produce the dual purpose or dual champion dog, I still believe it would be quicker to start with the better looking individuals from the field-bred lines and plan on three to four generations of breeding to get to where you want to go. I think it would be easier to hold onto the field talent and change the looks than to hold onto the looks and try to develop the lost field talent.

For those who know their way around both conformation and field dogs have any of you seen FC Free Spirit Par Shooter? I've seen some of his offspring and was impressed with their good looks. I might even try a breeding to him sometime next year.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

My personal experience is limited, but I have seen enough from my dogs out of Ridge View, Kerrybrook, and Timberwood to believe it is very possible. I'm an optimist, what can I say.
(Not claiming my dogs will be Duals, but the potential to become one is in their genetic make up...a few selective breedings to the right match might get there.) My point is if I, a drop in the Lab world bucket, can have such dogs without looking too hard for them, someone with more expierience, time and $$$ can do even more.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

suepuff said:


> I agree with this...


Actually, historically speaking, every Dual Champion Lab or Golden has been a field trial dog who happened to have the merits to win in the show ring as well. Look at the pedigrees and they speak for themselves. I strongly suspect if we ever have another DC in Labs it will be field-bred or a "blend"...That said, back in the day when we had DC, the show ring dogs were far more moderate, and their were many more FT dogs with more breed type.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

john fallon said:


> This was glossed over earlier, but how does the "classic"looks in the Labrador differ from the standard ?
> 
> john


It doesn't. Classic looks IS the standard.. However, wether the standard actually wins.. Well a lot of times the current "fad" is what wins. Labradors and Goldens have changed a lot over the years and what used to be considered a "wonderful" show champion would be dumped in the ring today.
"Classic" is "what used to win".. 
Here's one: CH AFC Jason of the Golden Fleece II from 1969


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Here's one: CH AFC Jason of the Golden Fleece II from 1969[/QUOTE]

BTW, click on the picture to see the picture up close as it got smushed here and makes in the small pic like his nose is way short and it isn't when you see the pic up close.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

I haven't been tracking this thread since Howard laughed at one of my posts. I can't believe he did that. He knows how sensitive I am. 

I hope this hasn't already been discussed, but I touched on it briefly before. Judges can only judge what's in front of them. You all have to admit, there are a helluva lot more show bred Labs participating in field events than there are field bred labs making an attempt in the conformation ring. 

I know when Push was being shown, there were some judges who had never had their hands on a dog in hard working condition. Some judges didn't give him a look; others rewarded him for it. Sometimes you do have to search for judges who will reward working structure and not what is currently in vogue. That is, unfortunately, part of the game. But the dogs must be out there in order to win. Even if they don't win at first, they will be hopefully be giving some judges food for thought!

You all may get a kick out of this. I frequently dream about what is on my mind, and when this thread first got started I had a dream that I was at a dog show and my field girl was being shown in the conformation ring. I was griping about her handler and someone told me if I didn't like it then I needed to do it myself. 

Well it may have been a dream, but heck maybe we'll give it a shot. She's a Push daughter...perhaps the apple didn't fall too far from the tree?

Now can someone please direct me to the website with the application to be adopted by Kippy? ;-)


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

john fallon said:


> This was glossed over earlier, but how does the "classic"looks in the Labrador differ from the standard ?
> 
> john


This is totally different than your original question. You asked how classic looks differ from conformation. That's why I jumped in and tried to explain what the term conformation means. 

Classic looks _should_ be the standard.
Classic looks in no way guarantee good/correct working conformation/structure.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> Now can someone please direct me to the website with the application to be adopted by Kippy? ;-)


Swingle or Kemp??


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> This is totally different than your original question. You asked how classic looks differ from conformation. That's why I jumped in and tried to explain what the term conformation means.
> 
> Classic looks _should_ be the standard.
> Classic looks in no way guarantee good/correct working conformation/structure.


When one judges_ for conformation_ are they not/should they not be using the _standard_ as the benchmark. 
The part of the standard that describes the physical attributes is, as far as I know, the definitive word on structure and therefore good correct working conformation (?).

What an I missing????

john


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

john fallon said:


> When one judges_ for conformation_ are they not/should they not be using the _standard_ as the benchmark.
> The part of the standard that describes the physical attributes is, as far as I know, the definitive word on structure and therefore good correct working conformation (?).
> 
> What an I missing????
> ...


Let's see if this example makes sense. You see a dog with classic good looks. What a fine looking animal, you say to yourself.  What you may not see is that his rear angulation is so poor that he is bound to blow a cruciate at any moment.

Classic good looks: Yes. Good conformation: No. The two are not synonymous.

One also have to be careful not to view "conformation" as a four letter word just because of their opinion on dogs being showing in the conformation ring.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

john fallon said:


> When one judges_ for conformation_ are they not/should they not be using the _standard_ as the benchmark.
> The part of the standard that describes the physical attributes is, as far as I know, the definitive word on structure and therefore good correct working conformation (?).
> 
> What an I missing????
> ...


"Classic good looks" refers to "type" which can be different from "structure".
"Type" are the attributes that make the dog appear to be a certain breed and nothing else if it has correct type (i.e. looks like a Lab and doesn't remind you of any other breed). Structure is the other stuff -how the dog is built such as angulation. You can have a dog with excellent breed "type" but horrible structure. A example would be a dog with a stunning head but is sway-backed, cow-hocked, and easty-westy in front.
Conformation is the the overall blend of type and structure.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> I hope this hasn't already been discussed, but I touched on it briefly before. Judges can only judge what's in front of them.
> [QUOTE/]
> 
> Very true and often over-looked.. BUT on the same token, most of the hard-core show breeders select in their breeding program for "what wins" so if judges are picking incorrect dogs -that is what will continue to be produced if that is what is winning in the ring. After all, the judges are supposed to be the authority in that sport.
> ...


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Some of you guys out there with good looking field dogs:

Have you ever had your dog assessed for the bench? I had so many people saying my dog had such "classic looks" , why don't you show him? (He is mainly of field lines with two bench champions 4 or 5 generations back).

I finally broke down and had him assessed by a bench judge. She first said, "Not bad for a field bred dog. Good muscle structure, great coat. " Then she started to ding little things about his structure like shoulder angulation and such. He does have a tail that is a bit on the stiff side, and is not nicely continuing with his top line. Upshot was he'd probably would never see Round #2 on the bench.

One of the things that I have noticed that respondents on this site will look at a pix of a sitting dog on a website. While it shows off good head structure, it is hard to grasp what the rest of the dog look like. You get no sense of how he moves, or whether he is bold or timid. There are many things that go into defining what a dog is other that a fine looking noggin.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> Let's see if this example makes sense. You see a dog with classic good looks. What a fine looking animal, you say to yourself.  What you may not see is that his rear angulation is so poor that he is bound to blow a cruciate at any moment.
> 
> Classic good looks: Yes. Good conformation: No. The two are not synonymous.
> 
> One also have to be careful not to view "conformation" as a four letter word just because of their opinion on dogs being showing in the conformation ring.


I follow you to the point of where my two questions were different .
While Classic good looks and conformation are not synonymous.The difference was the jest of my question in the first place. 

When I asked the second time I used the word standard
Isn't the standard what conformation is all about. On that basis, was I mistaken to interchange the two, in comparing either or each of them to classic good looks?

john


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> Some of you guys out there with good looking field dogs:
> 
> Have you ever had your dog assessed for the bench? I had so many people saying my dog had such "classic looks" , why don't you show him? (He is mainly of field lines with two bench champions 4 or 5 generations back).
> 
> ...


As I said in another post. "Classic good looks" is refering to "type" and not structure. Your dog clearly by the judges assement had type, but not the structure to win. Hence the reason you got all the comments about his "classic good looks". To win on the bench you need BOTH type AND structure.
And yes, I have had my dogs evaluated.. And knew my dogs strengths and weakness before ever even showing them. The fact of the matter is, in my Lab's case he could have finnished in the 60's or 70's and just wasn't going to finnish in today's showring (or in that case, 9 years ago).. Would have had to have had a very old time judge who liked the older Ch. Shamrock Acres Light Brigade style of dog. He has nice structure, but his type is not what wins in today's shows.
And yeah, you'll get a lot of that "not bad for a field bred dog" comments.. It's a lot like a FT telling a conformation person their CH "isn't bad for a show dog". Nuff said there.

You're spot on about sitting pictures. And yeah that's why you can ooh and ahh about some good looking FC all you want in his sitting picture but until you see the rest of the dog, (standing and moving) you can't say "that dog could be a CH!" or "That dog could produce Dual Champions!"

Upshot is: The Conformation Game is way more complicated than it appears to be as is the FT game is far more challenging than the the Hunt Test game -and because a dog is a CH/MH doesn't mean he could be a Dual Champion nor does some pic of a FC looking pretty mean he could be finnished and become a Dual Champion.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> Some of you guys out there with good looking field dogs:
> 
> Have you ever had your dog assessed for the bench?


Yes I did. I had a young QAA chocolate bitch that I took along when I went to a show with Howley and showed her to a very well known handler with Labs. For a field bitch she was very striking. She said sure but put 20 pounds on her. Maggie was in shape but in no way thin-she was 67# and I always watched her weight. Needless to say that was the end of that. Maggie lived to almost 15-at her same weight. I honestly can't get past padding the dogs to show them and that shows structure?


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Yes I did. I had a young QAA chocolate bitch that I took along when I went to a show with Howley and showed her to a very well known handler with Labs. For a field bitch she was very striking. She said sure but put 20 pounds on her. Maggie was in shape but in no way thin-she was 67# and I always watched her weight. Needless to say that was the end of that. Maggie lived to almost 15-at her same weight. I honestly can't get past padding the dogs to show them and that shows structure?



The excess pounds is used to hide a lot of "faults" and also increase mass and bulkiness of the dog.
Fat dogs:
Makes the dog look larger boned.
Appears to have more substance.
Makes a long bodied dog look shorter bodied.
Makes a rangey dog look more compact.
can disguise a straight front.

Sooo. That being said.. Think you can figure out what the most comon structure faults are on show dogs that they are trying to hide from the judges??
(and sadly even if your dog doesn't have those flaws he will look then too different next to the other heavy dogs if is thin)

By the way at a local Specialty around here recently my friend's IN SHAPE Lab won! How awsome is that? He's trimmed down for the field since he already was finnished in AKC. 
There may be hope yet!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Re: The question on having your dog evaluated..

The LRC does have the Conformation Certificate program. See this page for info: http://thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Conformation Certificate

You can have your dog evaluated by a judge. I think it is a good tool, which doesn't get used much.

As to calling a Champion a Champion, they should technically have a WC before being called a full champion (according to LRC), it is not policed, so to me, it doesn't mean anything. I think the European countries do it right by the Kennel Club not approving until they have a valid working certifite or equivalent.

Sue


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ironman said:


> My personal experience is limited, but I have seen enough from my dogs out of Ridge View, Kerrybrook, and Timberwood to believe it is very possible. I'm an optimist, what can I say.
> (Not claiming my dogs will be Duals, but the potential to become one is in their genetic make up...a few selective breedings to the right match might get there.)* My point is if I, a drop in the Lab world bucket, can have such dogs without looking too hard for them, someone with more expierience, time and $$$ can do even more.[/*quote]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Angie's right-before you get your hopes up that getting an FC or AFC is easier than a CH come back when a conformation dog is getting through the 1st series of the Open, through the water blind and standing at the end with a placing and then remember he has to get that 1st.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Angie B said:


> People want to be succesful with their dogs in their chosen venue. They don't have 5 lifetimes to do it. They don't have Warren Buffets income.
> 
> Call me a realist! ;-)
> 
> Angie


You are a realist! With 3 Labs at home, I've got a 4th one coming in late January. A 7wk old Field Trial bred male pup. I had to ask myself what goals and why do I want a 4th Lab. Well, I decided that my first expectations is that this would be the ideal duck hunting dog. One that got to do all the hunting, all season long. My experience has been most successful hunting my Labs as young dogs. Kind of a hunt and train method. Ths skills needed in a superior hunting retriver are best learned young. The experience with multiple 12ga blast at his side, hunting cripples, teaching the dog in the blind the down command etc. However, his weekday training would be more contomporary Field training with a Pro. Run some Q's a go from there. Hunting season the dog is home and hunting, rest of the time in training.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Melanie Foster said:


> I haven't been tracking this thread since Howard laughed at one of my posts. I can't believe he did that. He knows how sensitive I am.
> 
> I hope this hasn't already been discussed, but I touched on it briefly before. Judges can only judge what's in front of them. You all have to admit, there are a helluva lot more show bred Labs participating in field events than there are field bred labs making an attempt in the conformation ring.
> 
> ...


Melanie, you make complete sense here and it's something you're not alone in thinking. I do show my field girl (Ryder daughter) in AKC and IABCA (we plan to do UKC this next year), and, while we're never in any real competition for WB (and I think sometimes I'm probably lacking a few fries in my happy meal for doing so), we do it for the experience- and we go out and give it our best try. I really do feel showing has given me a little bit of a different perspective than the average field folk, an appreciation that one can only get by participating. It's for this reason I agree with you, more folks should show their dogs- even if it isn't in AKC. It really is the other side of the coin from FTs but the same "you pays your money and takes your chances" still applies.

Hey, I'll continue the dream with you...I wonder what the judges would do if, suddenly, the classes were filled with field and/or blended/dual dogs?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Classic conformation. BOB Westminster 1954 This pic is from 1959


----------



## justamere (Feb 19, 2008)

suepuff said:


> Re: The question on having your dog evaluated..
> 
> The LRC does have the Conformation Certificate program. See this page for info: http://thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Conformation Certificate
> 
> You can have your dog evaluated by a judge. I think it is a good tool, which doesn't get used much.


The CC is a great program for someone trying to learn about correct conformation and why it matters. I've run several dogs through the evaluation and have been pleased with the judges and their explanations. Unfortunately a high score does not always equate to competitiveness in the breed ring. There are so many factors involved - including politics - that many good dogs get dumped. On the flip side, I have heard it said that with a good handler and enough money any dog can finish.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

What are the chances of getting a big time FT pro to take a MH bench dog on his/her truck?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Sean H said:


> What are the chances of getting a big time FT pro to take a MH bench dog on his/her truck?


I think most would want any dog they thought could make thier truck.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

What about the politics in the breed ring? The common wisdom is that bench is frought with politics.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Sean H said:


> What are the chances of getting a big time FT pro to take a MH bench dog on his/her truck?


I've seen a few. They tend to judge a dog on its potential for performance rather than its good looks.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> I've seen a few. They tend to judge a dog on its potential for performance rather than its good looks.


Name that "big time" FT pro??? Cripes most won't take a "off breed",, ie chessie, flat coat...

That info I would like to know?

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> What about the politics in the breed ring? The common wisdom is that bench is frought with politics.


All competitve dog games are?? When it comes to points and titles that's the way it is... Doesn't matter if it's the breed ring or the FT game.. 

Be a student of the game.... ;-)

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> I think most would want any dog they thought could make thier truck.


It would be a very, very hard sell..... Since most breed dogs have not been condtitioned to the complexity and intenstiy of the FT game...

Angie


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Name that "big time" FT pro??? Cripes most won't take a "off breed",, ie chessie, flat coat...
> 
> That info I would like to know?
> 
> Angie


Rorem , Steve Yozamp, Dan Sayles , Rick Stawski, Scott Dewey. But if the dog doesn't cut the mustard, a reputable trainer will call you and level with you before you spend too much of your cash. 

I know what you're saying though about "off breeds". I had one trainer I spoke with who said, "I don't want no chocolates on my truck. I only deal in black dogs."


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> Rorem , Steve Yozamp, Dan Sayles , Rick Stawski, Scott Dewey. But if the dog doesn't cut the mustard, a reputable trainer will call you and level with you before you spend too much of your cash.
> 
> I know what you're saying though about "off breeds". I had one trainer I spoke with who said, "I don't want no chocolates on my truck. I only deal in black dogs."


I can't speak for them,,, but I can say in all honesty,,, NO,,,they would not take a show dog....

How well do you know the pro's you just mentioned??? How well do you know the field trial game???

Angie


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Classic conformation. BOB Westminster 1954 This pic is from 1959


Very nice!! Thanks for posting that one


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Classic conformation. BOB Westminster 1954 This pic is from 1959


I would have to conclude that we haven't made much progress in the past 54 years.....at least in the show ring. I certainly would not be ashamed to take a dog that looks like that to a trial today.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Angie B said:


> I can't speak for them,,, but I can say in all honesty,,, NO,,,they would not take a show dog....
> 
> How well do you know the pro's you just mentioned??? How well do you know the field trial game???
> 
> Angie



I know all of them. One of them I train with 8 months a year, 3-5 days a week. 

The operative term is "look at". Doesn't mean they'll keep many but at least they'll take a gander at them and take a few. Performance counts,not the looks.

I do both FT's and HT's.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

I know that Bobby George trained several of my breeder's bench dogs. But that was back somewhere in the late 80s mid 90s timeframe. He trained CH Topform Edward MH QAA. Maybe I could talk him into a blast from the past...


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> I know all of them. One of them I train with 8 months a year, 3-5 days a week.
> 
> The operative term is "look at". Doesn't mean they'll keep many but at least they'll take a gander at them and take a few. Performance counts,not the looks.
> 
> I do both FT's and HT's.


Well maybe in this economy... :razz:

Next time I talk to Dave I'll have to run the idea by him... I can hear the "You gotta be kidding me" now!!  I'm sure the pro that just one the national open would give a show dog a shot on his truck..

They don't just take any dog. And who's to say that show dog is any good? Jim VanEngen, Bruce Curtis?? Those 2 young dog pro's, (just for an example) won't take a show dog either. So a self trained show dog owner calls a AA truck and says' "give my dog a shot"??? Dollars to donuts the phone call won't be returned... Unless ofcourse the pro they called needed to pay some bills.

I don't know Dan Sayles or Rick Stawski. Maybe they have that kind of time and have open holes on their truck? The other 3 are turning away dogs....

You would have to be very well connected or have that conformation dog with a big name young dog pro if you even hope to get it on a AA truck.

If you think it could have been done, it would have been done. I'd betcha Mary Howley would have been the first.

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Sean H said:


> I know that Bobby George trained several of my breeder's bench dogs. But that was back somewhere in the late 80s mid 90s timeframe. He trained CH Topform Edward MH QAA. Maybe I could talk him into a blast from the past...


As a matter of fact,,, I think he did Arnold?

Sure what the heck. Give him a jing and take a walk down memory lane with him! :razz:

I think he likes it much better where he is right now....;-)

Angie


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Angie B said:


> As a matter of fact,,, I think he did Arnold?
> 
> Sure what the heck. Give him a jing and take a walk down memory lane with him! :razz:
> 
> ...


I doubt he did Arnold, he didn't even have a JH. His sire Ruffy was a SH though, so maybe he trained him. (Ruffy was Edward's sire as well)

I need to put the MH on my boy before I even consider making any calls...


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Sean H said:


> I doubt he did Arnold, he didn't even have a JH. His sire Ruffy was a SH though, so maybe he trained him. (Ruffy was Edward's sire as well)
> 
> I need to put the MH on my boy before I even consider making any calls...


That's it! My bad...

Angie


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Some of the pros have late cancellations due to the economy. I know one that would take a CH type. Now would be your chance to get your dog on an all age truck. Be prepared to spend about $14K a year for more than several years in training for 11 months a year and a lot of calls they didn't make it out of the 1st series.


----------



## Matt. H (Dec 19, 2008)

Hello,

This is my first post and I have to say I find this topic along with the site pretty awesome. There seems to be a lot of individuals here with a wealth of knowledge and are more than willing to help a guy out with training questions. I got my most recent yellow male from Kerrybrook kennels and can not be happier. After many conversations with the breeder (Chris Wincek ) my wife and I loaded two of our three young children up in the truck on thanksgiving (2007) evening and headed to Cleveland to pick up the pup. I was looking for a lab that would be great with the family, have an interest in hunting/training and have the looks of a classic Labrador. Sorry for the long post.

Matt


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Matt, 
Welcome to the forum. Not a long post at all! Glad you like your pup and good luck in the future. 

Kourtney


----------



## The Wojo's (Jan 28, 2006)

Angie B said:


> They don't just take any dog. And who's to say that show dog is any good? Jim VanEngen, Bruce Curtis?? Those 2 young dog pro's, (just for an example) won't take a show dog either.
> 
> Angie


I respect most of what you say but this isn't entirely true. We had a young dog with Bruce Curtis a few years ago that had about 1/2 bench in him. He never even asked to see the pedigree or asked what breeding he was from so I'm assuming he didn't really care if he could do the work. He was also a MHXSH offspring so nothing from the top FT lines either. Maybe things have changed since then.

Michele


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

The Wojo's said:


> I respect most of what you say but this isn't entirely true. We had a young dog with Bruce Curtis a few years ago that had about 1/2 bench in him. He never even asked to see the pedigree or asked what breeding he was from so I'm assuming he didn't really care if he could do the work. He was also a MHXSH offspring so nothing from the top FT lines either. Maybe things have changed since then.
> 
> Michele


That's cool... Where's your dog now?

Angie


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2008)

Angie B said:


> So a self trained show dog owner calls a AA truck and says' "give my dog a shot"???


Waita minute now. Most AA trainers would say no to any self trained dog unless they knew the owner or knew of him/her, no matter what the breeding.

If someone called with a pup that has some show breeding behind it and said I think this pup shows promise, I believe there are some that would say, "Tell me why" and if it sounded like a reasonable response would give it a shot.

Whether it would make the cut is a different story, but when we talk about an AA pro taking a "show dog," it doesn't necessarily have to be one that has already been shown. Right?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Some of the pros have late cancellations due to the economy. I know one that would take a CH type. Now would be your chance to get your dog on an all age truck. Be prepared to spend about $14K a year for more than several years in training for 11 months a year and a lot of calls they didn't make it out of the 1st series.


Nice edit Nanc....;-)

I friend who is a conformation competitor and breeder came out today to train. When we were done I asked her to look at a female of mine that I thought could go in the breed ring...

I asked her how long and for how much to get her title? Kim felt she was very nice and very, very finishable...

2 years and $3000. I guffawed. 2 years and $3000 for a title "in front" of a dogs name?

I'm in!!!

Gettin a CH ain't nothin compared to getting a FC....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> Waita minute now. Most AA trainers would say no to any self trained dog unless they knew the owner or knew of him/her, no matter what the breeding.
> 
> If someone called with a pup that has some show breeding behind it and said I think this pup shows promise, I believe there are some that would say, "Tell me why" and if it sounded like a reasonable response would give it a shot.
> 
> Whether it would make the cut is a different story, but when we talk about an AA pro taking a "show dog," it doesn't necessarily have to be one that has already been shown. Right?


Mel,,, put down the martini and read my previous posts....

As I said,,, one would have to have some *major pull* to get a "show dog" trained by "average joe", considered much less looked at by a *Top Shelf AA Pro....*

Angie


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Most AA trainers would say no to any self trained dog unless they knew the owner or knew of him/her, no matter what the breeding.


Yeah, that would sure make a difference-who and how the basics were done. You often hear they wanted to do it themselves and there are a ton of holes, especially when programs are blended.


----------



## The Wojo's (Jan 28, 2006)

Angie B said:


> That's cool... Where's your dog now?
> 
> Angie


Bruce noticed he would always cock his head to one side while doing long marks so he brought him to the opthamologist to be evaluated. Turns out he had a weird kind of cross-eyed condition that couldn't be corrected by surgery. He went to live with a good hunting family but decided to chase a rabbit and got hit by a car and died.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I have dog from a "dual purpose" kennel (Kerrybrook) and I've said it a ton of times, he's been a perfect dog to get me into this. He looks like a Lab, he loves his birds, and though I've had some fantastic training partners and early lessons from a pro I think it's fair to say he's amateur trained to MH by someone who didn't have a clue--and I still lose that clue on a fairly regular basis.

AND he's a first-rate pet. When he's your dog, sleeping on your feet and begging to lick the ice-cream bowl, that's pretty darn important, too. 

I hope there's a dual champion Lab in the future--but if my guy is any indication of what "dual purpose Labs" are at this point in time I think there's a heck of a lot to say for supporting show/field crosses and other breedings that strive for balance and keeping the temperament, looks and field instincts of a moderate Lab a reality--even if that Holy Grail of dual purpose never comes.

Of course, my opinion is TOTALLY impartial and has nothing to do with the fact that he's got his chin on my knee as I'm typing this...


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Angie B said:


> I friend who is a conformation competitor and breeder came out today to train. When we were done I asked her to look at a female of mine that I thought could go in the breed ring...
> 
> I asked her how long and for how much to get her title? Kim felt she was very nice and very, very finishable...
> 
> ...


Don't waste your money....your drinking your friend’s Kool-Aid....there is no chance you're ever going to finish that dog! :roll: 
Your dog + 2 years and 3K = a CH title








Quit Dreaming...you're starting to sound like an optimist....get real!


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ironman said:


> Don't waste your money....your drinking your friend’s Kool-Aid....there is no chance you're ever going to finish that dog! :roll:
> Your dog + 2 years and 3K = a CH title
> 
> 
> ...


Well considering she's totally show bred and is out 2 CH's I don't know why that would be a stretch? She had a few minor points before I bought her.

She's the mother of the puppy in my avatar whom I bred.

So I don't think it will be an issue.... It's not like I'm looking to put a CH on one of my field bred bitches? That would be foolish....

Angie


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

You know, last night I was thinking about this thread. Over the years of reading and posting here, I have really enjoyed all of the knowledge and experiences shared. One common theme has been how Field Trials have progressively gotten march more difficult, ie, much longer distances, more difficult marks, etc. I am wondering if the old Dual Champion dogs wouldn't be more similar to Champion/Master Hunter dogs of today than we first realize. I love the pic's of those old dogs, what wonderful animals. Much better looking than most of todays show dogs, I am tired of looking at labs that look like rottie's. 
Angie, good luck on that Champion, that would be outstanding! I love that pic in your avatar, that is one cute pup. Who is the pups dad, could it be Rio?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

GoodDog said:


> You know, last night I was thinking about this thread. Over the years of reading and posting here, I have really enjoyed all of the knowledge and experiences shared. One common theme has been how Field Trials have progressively gotten march more difficult, ie, much longer distances, more difficult marks, etc. I am wondering if the old Dual Champion dogs wouldn't be more similar to Champion/Master Hunter dogs of today than we first realize. I love the pic's of those old dogs, what wonderful animals. Much better looking than most of todays show dogs, I am tired of looking at labs that look like rottie's.
> Angie, good luck on that Champion, that would be outstanding! I love that pic in your avatar, that is one cute pup. Who is the pups dad, could it be Rio?


Thanks!! I'm excited. This is a whole new thing for me. I'm learning more everyday about it. I've got some wonderful, open minded, show folks in my area that have really been a big help.

Yes the puppy is out of Rio.

I think a CH/MH is the new dual champion. It's the middle ground between the 2 extremes.

Angie


----------



## AnnaL (Aug 21, 2008)

I've just finished reading this entire thread from beginning to end. I own a field bred female, a show field cross female & a show bred male. I know AngieB and can tell you she is RIGHT ON when she discussed "talent" vs. trained abilities. If you've owned or trained these dogs from all different backgrounds as she & I both have, you would all agree with her assesment towards getting a DC dog in the future. IMHO you would be better off starting with a quaility & nice looking field bred dog & breed to a working "show" dog to achieve the elusive DC title. Looks are going to be easier to bring into the line than "talent" & superior marking ability any day!


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Who actually was the last Lab Dual CH? I know that Warpath Macho was, and that would have been in the late 70s maybe?

Macho was out of bench lines, as I recall. He was originally owned by a couple with the husband doing the training himself. I saw Macho first at a sanc. Qual in NJ. There was a divorce, and the dog ended up with someone else, went to a field pro, & eventually ended up owned by Carol Lilenfeld ... but I think both his titles were finished by the time Carol acquired him. 

Perhaps John Fallon knows more of Macho's bio? I recall him being a pretty decent FT dog as even back then an FC was not an easy title to get. Those were the days of Trumarc's Raider, for example.

I don't think either field or conformation people used Macho much. I have no idea what he produced. I do remember Carol was thinking of showing him in BOB class at a Lab National at one point. The pro handler who looked him over thought he was pretty nice. As far as I can recall he had a great temperament when I met him.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

*Legendary American Labradors* Featured Dog:
Dual CH & AFC Warpath Macho 

Dual CH. & AFC Warpath Macho was purchased by Carol Lilenfeld to become her field trial dog. Between purchase and Delivery Macho finished his bench championship to become a Dual. A few years ago, Carol and I discussed the dog. Carol was quite interested that Pete was a descendant of Macho's. 

 According to Carol, Macho was not frequently used as a stud dog. She explained the field people considered the pedigree "weak" and the bench people feared breeding to Macho would set their breeding programs back light years. To think that Dual Champions would be penalized for their tremendous achievement in such a way. What a world! Dual CH. & AFC Warpath Macho was purchased by Carol Lilenfeld to become her field trial dog. Between purchase and Delivery Macho finished his bench championship to become a Dual. A few years ago, Carol and I discussed the dog. Carol was quite interested that Pete was a descendant of Macho's. 


Here is another interesting legendary Lab from Kerrybrooks website.
*Legendary American Labradors* Featured Dog:
Eng & Am. CH Banchory Trump of Wingan

Eng. & Am. CH. Banchory Trump of Wingan was owned by Jay Carlisle and trained by his legendary gamekeeper and kennel manager, Dave Elliot. The photograph is courtesy of Mr. Elliot's book, The Labrador Retriever, published in 1936. 

What is most interesting is to compare the early representative dogs in this country to the representative dogs of today. Trump had obviously received his Championship both here and in England, and no doubt was considered a proper Labrador during his lifetime -- in both countries. Notably, comparing his overall type to dogs of today, Trump could certainly be mistaken for a good looking modern field trial dog, but Trump would hardly be the type of dog you would see today in the ring. 

We can learn from this. _*Those of us who have faulted field trialers for creating a "distinctly American type" better take a hard look at this photograph. If any area of the fancy has preserved the original Labrador, it is today's trialers! Likewise, Trump resembles the English field trial dogs of today far more than he does today's English bench dogs. 

All the more reason for a detailed, thorough and comprehensive standard. Unfortunately present breeders of the extreme "English style" show dog today have substantially modified the Labrador, into a rather cumbersome, non-athletic and certainly non-sporting dog. There is not a scintilla of evidence that this "English style" somehow possesses "original breed type." It is nothing more than a modern, passing fad. Yet it remains memorialized by many of us, wrongly, as the true Labrador. *_ 

I agree that overall breed type has vastly improved since Trump's era. I prefer a dog with more substance than he as well. But we have taken our obsession with substance to the point where it could rightly be considered "substance abuse." We have long forgotten that Labradors are retrievers first and foremost. 

Yes -- retrievers. Dogs that make for a pretty picture at a Specialty should not be our sole criterion. If you have to pursue a single purpose, then maintain the breed's purpose, nothing else. Thankfully many of us are captivated with doing much much more than that.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Great post Nancy.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Nancy, wonderful pictures and history of Warpath Macho. Thank you for sharing. Can you believe the short sighted view of the people who didn't want to breed to a wonderful dog like that!

You mentioned Pete, would that be Franklins Pickpocket for Kerrybrook CH/MH, Pete?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Very nice post Nancy...

I'll take two of those please.... ;-)

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

AnnaL said:


> I've just finished reading this entire thread from beginning to end. I own a field bred female, a show field cross female & a show bred male. I know AngieB and can tell you she is RIGHT ON when she discussed "talent" vs. trained abilities. If you've owned or trained these dogs from all different backgrounds as she & I both have, you would all agree with her assesment towards getting a DC dog in the future. IMHO you would be better off starting with a quaility & nice looking field bred dog & breed to a working "show" dog to achieve the elusive DC title. Looks are going to be easier to bring into the line than "talent" & superior marking ability any day!


Don't we know it!! 

Can't wait to see your boy this spring... Some fun we will have.

Angie


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> You mentioned Pete, would that be Franklins Pickpocket for Kerrybrook CH/MH, Pete?


Yes. I currently have Pete daughter pups sired by FC Candlewoods Meet Joe Black.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

GoodDog said:


> Nancy, wonderful pictures and history of Warpath Macho. Thank you for sharing. Can you believe the short sighted view of the people who didn't want to breed to a wonderful dog like that!
> 
> You mentioned Pete, would that be Franklins Pickpocket for Kerrybrook CH/MH, Pete?


In Goldens, as well, the Dual CHs have not often fared well with their breedings ... either side feeling that one side of the pedigree was "weak".

Indeed, I believe that Macho's pedigree was of a conformation bent, but how could you deny that a dog who could perform through three different owners had something going for him?

And Macho's body seems, to me, very utilitarian while still true to "type" for a Lab. Of course, take that with a grain of salt 'cause I have Goldens


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Old post but I stumbled on with great info. I do believe a dual could happen again but not without the right breeding, the right owner, the right trainer. That is a lot of right stuff. I had a 100% field trial dog who could have done both. I had him at an international show and a conformation labrador breeder (her moms show kennel is in all the books) who also had been a professional handler came up to me out of the blue and told me he could finish in the AKC ring. I laughed and said, "You do know he is completely field bred don't you?". 

His sire was FC AFC Yellowstone's TNT explosion and his mother was sired by FC AFC Crow River's Malarky's Cougar out of an MD Houston Bitch. I also had one that could have finished in the conformation ring sired by Cougar and out of that same MD Houston bitch. With today's field dogs I can see possibilities in FC AFC Gunstalks Top Shelf Snap Decision if bred to the right dog and FC AFC Suncrest Wild Oats. I think if you took an Oatie daughter with good substance and bred to Snapper you may get something you could work with - now throw a little Cougar in there and you may have something. I was told FC AFC Westwinds Bold Tiger was a very handsome dog and it is interesting that Tiger's full sister is Cougars mother. I heard someplace that a pup sired by Pachange Magnum force finished in the ring in Canada.

Most field dogs these days are too weedy without enough substance. The longer I am into breeding labs the fewer really nice looking field trial dogs I am seeing. It could happen with dedication and thoughtful breeding. You would have to have the right dogs. I have a little field girl here now who is beautiful to me but she is definitely not show. 

I am always going back and forth between looks and performance and trying to get both - not an easy thing but I have managed to produce a master hunter show champion. I would love to produce or even see another dual in my life time. The picture below it the pup who could have done both sired by Nitro and out of my Penny. He finished his senior title at 14 months old with no fails and only 3 months of training. He was running masters at 15 months. He had a hip injury as a puppy and I kept doing xrays but when it was marginal at 2 years I didn't want to take the chance and neutered him and sold him as a gundog. It can be done but you would have to pick a talented show dog and keep breeding back to nice looking field dogs - or - find the right field dogs.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I dabble in the show ring and have done ok. I was at an eye clinic recently with one of my field puppies. I told a show friend I was going to show her in breed ring. She laughed and asked if I was going to put her in hunters - I told her no - Bred By. Then she really laughed. She is beautiful to me and I will wait her out and see how she comes out but she is not anything like those 50lb 4 month old puppies I often see. No, I don't think she would do anything in the show ring but maybe if I took her to a show some of the dogs in the ring would look so ridiculously over done they may start looking at the moderate ones.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

PS - I was looking for info on Par - how I got here I don't know unless Par was mentioned. LOL


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

Julie, I wish more lab people would do this! Education of the judges is a critical part of getting a more moderate dog to be more successful in the show ring.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Pam Spears said:


> Julie, I wish more lab people would do this! Education of the judges is a critical part of getting a more moderate dog to be more successful in the show ring.


I took my conformation bred boy who has a senior title to a weekend show for the first time this past summer. He is not the big overdone dogs you see but he is handsome. His brother is a CH MH - both bred by me - so proud. A third brother was an MH HRCH by 2 and youngest dogs to make it to the 2nd series of the espn super dog trials. Again... all show bred. I don't know if they would be able to compete at a competitive level in field trials but they would be a good start to get looks back in the field dogs without losing ability.

Back to what I was writing - I get off track... anybody who knows me knows that... lol . Well, Ted took the points two days and he was a wildman in the ring and I was hanging on for dear life. I asked a friend who does the show thing what she thought of him conformation wise and she likes those giant flat faced show dog - she said he looked like something in-between field and show. To me, that is what they should look like - not extreme in either way. Apparently the judges liked him. I have showed conformation field crosses that beat show dogs also.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Another dog that is producing nice coat, nice heads, dark eye, decent bone, with nice tails is Land Ahoy. A bit long in the body for me but over all a good start.


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

Interesting comparison - Ted in field condition - also taken the fall before - Ted the days I showed him. You can see he is heavier in the show picture but I did not pack the pounds on like some do. The weight was an accident... lol. I don't like fat dogs.














The following is a conformation bred girl. She is not that different than some of the field dogs you see. She is from a long line of specialty show winners. She is put together nice - she looked more conformation when she was smaller but as she matures things can change again. She and the boy above both have decent length of leg. I compared Ted to the Labrador picture standard and his legs could be about an inch longer yet. And I though he had good length of leg for a show dog.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

SPEED said:


> I took my conformation bred boy who has a senior title to a weekend show for the first time this past summer. He is not the big overdone dogs you see but he is handsome. His brother is a CH MH - both bred by me - so proud. A third brother was an MH HRCH by 2 and youngest dogs to make it to the 2nd series of the espn super dog trials. Again... all show bred. I don't know if they would be able to compete at a competitive level in field trials but they would be a good start to get looks back in the field dogs without losing ability.
> 
> Back to what I was writing - I get off track... anybody who knows me knows that... lol . Well, Ted took the points two days and he was a wildman in the ring and I was hanging on for dear life. I asked a friend who does the show thing what she thought of him conformation wise and she likes those giant flat faced show dog - she said he looked like something in-between field and show. *To me, that is what they should look like - not extreme in either way.* Apparently the judges liked him. I have showed conformation field crosses that beat show dogs also.


Julie,

I agree with you and applaud your attention to conformation and breed traits in addition to ability.

Swack


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Pam Spears said:


> Education of the judges is a critical part of getting a more moderate dog to be more successful in the show ring.


The Golden Retriever Club of America turns cartwheels to educate judges, but it changes nothing. I don't think they should give up trying, but it's not had much impact so far.

Each year at the GRCA Natl Specialty they have a Judges' Ed seminar. Most attending are breeder/judges since those are the ones who are already attending the Specialty. They go to substantial lengths to include some dogs in that seminar who are currently running field trials ... to try to impart to the judges that there are different interpretations of the Standard, and BOTH can be correct even when they appear different on the cosmetic surface.

GRCA also has a "certificate of Conformation Assessment" (CCA) which has a dog assessed by 3 different judges. Passing score is 75%. Many of our field trial dogs have participated in the program. The dog must be given a passing score by 3 judges. If only 2 give a passing score (or only 1), they may try under another set of 3 judges one more time. They cannot go "shopping" for judges repeatedly. The judges evaluate facets of the dog's conformation on the basis of scores of 1-10. It is more detailed than the Labrador assessment.

It really can have two purposes ... to better educate the dog's owner; and also to make the evaluator think more precisely about what the Standard describes. This could be a tool to educate judges. 

A licensed conformation judge qualifies to judge one of these events ... even if Goldens are not their chosen breed. In fact, it might be a lot of fun to see some GSP breeders (a breed known for having its fair share of Dual CHs), or breeders of other sporting dogs that favor working functionality to be evaluators. If any are interested, you can go to www.GRCA.org and find out how to do so by contacting the Committee Chairperson.

No scores are "posted" ... but dog owners can share their evaluations with whomever they choose. Photos are also taken of each dog for the GRCA records.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Gerry you'll be happy to know that at the Golden judge's education seminar held at Eukanuba in December there will be a CH/MH BITCH and a CH/SH DOG for them to peruse both VERY MODERATE, ATHLETIC dogs with superb movement, breed type and if they care to set up some marks in the OCC hallway are FAST, STYLISH, ACCURATE markers! Both owner handled to their titles with multiple breeder-judge specialty majors and you'll see both in a field trial near you in the future. 
GOLDENS ROCK and more people are getting on board with having a true dual purpose or should I say CORRECT dog!!!!


----------



## jburn34 (May 12, 2006)

bump for updates


----------

