# How Labradors are Supposed to Look? (pics)



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

A brief reminder. According to all records, Jay Carlisle was responsible for first popularizing the Labrador Retrievers to the U.S. As a matter of fact in the 1950s, the LRC itself recognized him as "singly the most important person responsible for the Labrador's popularity in America."

Jay Carlisle got his first Lab in 1933 and founded Wingan Kennels. To operate the kennel and train the dogs he imported a master dog trainer from Scotland named Dave Elliot. Dave was revered by his peers for his understanding of every element about dogs -- how they think, how they learn, how they work, how they should look. (Trivia: It was Elliot that introduced whistling and handling to retriever trials).

Three years later Elliot wrote and Carlisle published a book called _The Labrador Retriever._ The book contains four short chapters and is illustrated with photos of the champion Labradors of the time. The first chapter is the breed standard. The second chapter are some insights into training the breed. The third chapter is a presentation on why there should never be a split in the breed between dogs used for trials and dogs used just for hunting. The final chapter is advice to judges for finding the best dogs at trials.

So what can we extrapolate so far. The Labrador Retriever was, is, and always was intended to be a WORKING animal. That was their _function._ 

_Form follows function._ When the football coach needs someone to protect his quarterback, he looks for a very big, strong man. When he looks for a running back, he looks for someone with speed and quickness. Similarly when beauty contest judges are looking for a winner, they look for exaggerated beauty features like big toothy smiles, large breasts, slim waist and toned legs.

According to Richard Wolters in his book _Duck Dogs_ the split in the breed between field and show began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the guardianship of the conformation side of the breed was turned over to people who paid lip service to the working side but had no actual involvement, in particular Helen Warwick. Under her powerful tutelage as the breed columnist for twenty years of the _AKC Gazette_, the show side of the breed became anglophiled -- enamored with how British show Labs (the split had already occurred over there) looked, importing studs and dams from England, and importing judges from England to judge at Labrador specialties.

So what do we take from this? When the function of the Lab became winning conformation shows (read "beauty contests") those fanciers moved the form of the Lab to accommodate that function. _It was the show side that derivated from the original breed type, not the field side._

And so now I show you scans from Carlisle's and Elliot's book _The Labrador Retriever._


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I look at these pictures and I see where we breeders could improve on the structure of these animals, but should we have changed their type? This is from a time when the breed's form matched its function!!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)




----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

To me, these dogs, these conformation champion dogs of the 1930s look like our field dogs of today! It is the show side that changed the look and type of the breed, not the field side. It is the show side that changed the breeds function so they changed the form!

I hope those of you who have field Labs, can now hold your head a little higher about the way your dog looks.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

maybe its just me, but i see these dogs as in the middle, some from each side. i think the fields have gone thinner and more athletic that these examples and the show piggier. the difference is the show end did it deliberately, and the field line did it accidentally while focusing mostly on performance.

equal blame regards....


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

great thread! They look def. more 'field bred' than 'show bred'. Maybe thats b/c there not fat


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

I tend to agree with David. I think the second set of pictures reflects, the most, what the standard is supposed to look like.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> To me, these dogs, these conformation champion dogs of the 1930s look like our field dogs of today! It is the show side that changed the look and type of the breed, not the field side. It is the show side that changed the breeds function so they changed the form!
> 
> I hope those of you who have field Labs, can now hold your head a little higher about the way your dog looks.


Hi

I always hold my head up. I know how great my Field Labs look.I have a couple of show lab people who I consider friends ( I know of one on this site). They are great people, my dogs are just different then what they have.

Thanks for posting the pictures, it just confirmed to me what a lab use to look like. 

Regards
Jeff
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I think the show labs are bred the way they are because that's what the general public wants most of them just want a house dog so for the breeders it's all about selling puppies.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Interesting bit of history. I have *NEVER* thought the Lab "Breed Standard" found in today's show ring was an attractive dog. Much prefer an athletic dog which the show ring does not encourage or represent. AKC can take the current Breed Standard and stick it......er......on the dark side of the moon. And the history of how the show ring got away from athletic dogs to short tails, short legs, big heads and over weight animals is very interesting. I'll take a dog that looks like *Super Chief* everytime. Now that was a nice looking dog!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Kevin, thank you, that too was worth the read.

Those dogs in the pictures look a lot like working dogs I see.


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

reminds me that I had a grandson of Super Chief a long long time ago - great looking and good field work - held back by his handler of course.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Scott Parker said:


> I think the show labs are bred the way they are because that's what the general public wants most of them just want a house dog so for the breeders it's all about selling puppies.


:shock:

I think the reason we clean water making it clear is because that is the way people want it, to be able to open their eyes underwater and still be able to see.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Am

You have any photos of Super Chief or Super Tanker you could post?


----------



## LokiMeister (Jan 15, 2010)

I agree that these pictures show more of the field labs then the show dogs, but...I feel that "field breeders" are more concerned with the function then form. From the people I have talked to the dog has to look right but function is the key. After all, if the dog doesn't do what it was originally bred to do, in my mind, isn't a "dog," it is something else.

Breed to the standard (form and function) and you should have a good dog.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

LokiMeister said:


> I agree that these pictures show more of the field labs then the show dogs, but...I feel that "field breeders" are more concerned with the function then form.


I agree.



> Breed to the standard (form and function) and you should have a good dog.


Form and function were matched according to the standard back when that book was written and those pictures were taken.

If the function of the Lab is to work, who is currently breeding the correct form?


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

Those pics look a lot more like the field dogs I see today than the show dogs running around.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> If the function of the Lab is to work, who is currently breeding the correct form?


very good point. however, you do have to admit that little or no consideration is given to form by the field breeders. should the field line have no standard for conformation, and instead have an alternate "performance based" conformation?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I should have said one more thing --

These pictures are from an age when dual champions were not only a possibility, _they were a reality! _

-- Who went the wrong direction again?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

david gibson said:


> very good point. however, you do have to admit that little or no consideration is given to form by the field breeders.


If there was any advantage to paying attention to form, ie. to chase a dual championship, I think they would pay more attention to form.

But the only dual dogs nowadays work the other direction, they take dogs with show-form and prove they can do MH work. History says it should be the other way, we should take field-form, which is true to the function, and they should be competitive in conformation. 

But that would require a whole new paradigm of thinking in the breed's fancy.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> I should have said one more thing --
> 
> These pictures are from an age when dual champions were not only a possibility, _they were a reality! _
> 
> -- Who went the wrong direction again?


I doubt that any of the dogs pictured could be and FC *or* a CH today, much less both.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

I think a better question may be: Who went the wrong direction more? We can not sit here and say that field line breeders have not lost some of the conformation. In my opinion, they have......just not nearly as much as the show lines have. We can all see that today's show lines are no where near those pictured in your excellent post.

Did you post somewhere else that they since have also changed the breed standard, since that of 1930. I am not sure of the changes, but I thought they had, and based on that, it is my understanding that even those pictured from 1930 would not even meet today's standard....(then again, I may be completely wrong and very delirious).


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

AmiableLabs said:


> If there was any advantage to paying attention to form, ie. to chase a dual championship, I think they would pay more attention to form.
> 
> But the only dual dogs nowadays work the other direction, they take dogs with show-form and prove they can do MH work. History says it should be the other way, we should take field-form, which is true to the function, and they should be competitive in conformation.
> 
> But that would require a whole new paradigm of thinking in the breed's fancy.


I thought dual champions only applied to FC / CH! Way back when, there were many CH / MH and today there are many CH / MH. Does not make them dual dogs. It just shows that they can be trained to meet the standard of the hunt test, no matter how slow they may be to retrieve those birds.....


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

david gibson said:


> very good point. however, you do have to admit that little or no consideration is given to form by the field breeders. should the field line have no standard for conformation, and instead have an alternate "performance based" conformation?


That's the way it already is and it has been that way for a long time. And I have no problem with that. The differences in the Field and Show are so far removed from each other they are de facto different breeds. 

_[After all, if the dog doesn't do what it was originally bred to do, in my mind, isn't a "dog," it is something else.] An_d that something else in this case is called a Bench Dog. IMO- The the AKC show ring is doing an *injustice *to the Labrador breed.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I may be wrong (and have been many times), but AKC does NOT establish the breed standard...it is the Labrador club. Amnd who makes up the Labrador Club? When you have judges and people active in the breed club AND they produce dogs that do not look like the standard from 20 or even 30 years ago, what tyde lab is put up in the show? Bingo! Dogs that look like what the judges produce.

I agree with Kevin totally. Search for the great conformation stud dog named Dickendall Arnold and then you convince me which side made the biggest move from beautiful labs from the 70's. And Kevin can help me with the name of the great yellow stud dog that was the stud from the 70's - compare him to other conformation dogs and field dogs..._ remember now, Shamrock Acres Light Brigade!
_


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

SueLab said:


> . Search for the great conformation stud dog named Dickendall Arnold and then you convince me which side made the biggest move from beautiful labs from the 70's. And Kevin can help me with the name of the great yellow stud dog that wasw the stud from the 70's - compare him to opther conformation dogs and field dogs...


If that is the case, then wouldn't the question be, which side made the biggest move between the 30's (which is what the OP stated, based on Dual Champions), and the 70's, which you just mentioned? 

I think you can see that the move was made within that period, and it still fits in with the OP argument.....Just my opinion


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

I kind of like these dogs...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I'm sure everyone gets tired of my posting this picture but as long as there is debate over the breed std I will continue to remind everyone that our field dogs today look much more like the DCs of 50-60 yrs ago than the bench dogs of today.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Gee, the one on the far right looks a lot like Indy!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Zman1001 said:


> Did you post somewhere else that they since have also changed the breed standard, since that of 1930.


It was revised as recently as 1994. Most changes have been for explanation purposes, few have been substantive. The substantive change in 1994 was related to size.



> I am not sure of the changes, but I thought they had, and based on that, it is my understanding that even those pictured from 1930 would not even meet today's standard....(then again, I may be completely wrong and very delirious).


The problem with that argument is that the standard is open to interpretation. When the authors wrote "athletic," to conformation breeders today that says something completely different when they read it. If the authors envisioned the dogs pictured when they first wrote it, I believe they would be horrified by what wins in the conformation ring today.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

AmiableLabs said:


> It was revised as recently as 1994. Most changes have been for explanation purposes, few have been substantive. The substantive change in 1994 was related to size.
> 
> The problem with that argument is that the standard is open to interpretation. When the authors wrote "athletic," to conformation breeders today that says something completely different when they read it. If the authors envisioned the dogs pictured when they first wrote it, I believe they would be horrified by what wins in the conformation ring today.


Thank you for the clarification. Based on comments from the show side, I thought the changes were greater than that.

Also, thank you for posting this information. This way, I will now have some reference (and pictures) whenever I decide to antagonize the show breed nuts (not all of you, just some on another particular forum) that argue that the Westminster winner this year was all muscle.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> I'm sure everyone gets tired of my posting this picture but as long as there is debate over the breed std I will continue to remind everyone that our field dogs today look much more like the DCs of 50-60 yrs ago than the bench dogs of today.


I agree. I love their looks, and they all have snouts, unlike some of the ring winners today.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I do not believe that substantial change was made in the 30's...no where have I seen the 
Rottie head on any labs from earlier times nor do _ want to see it now...
_. 

I own a male out of Blackwater Rudy on one side and Watermarks the Boss on the other. He so reminds me of Light Brigade (I think that it is the old lines showing through) and inevidiably someone comes up to ask about his pedigree. He also reminds me of the labs that we bought in the 60's...I still favor that old look.

(PS...please ignor my misspellings and typos...I am under the influence from TKR surgery last week)


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Scott Parker said:


> I think the show labs are bred the way they are because that's what the general public wants most of them just want a house dog so for the breeders it's all about selling puppies.


Scott, 

That is NOT the impression I get from the folks contacting me. Some are 2000 miles away who contact me because they can't seem to find the look they want in a PET. Because of some of these boards, I can often refer them to breeders closer, thankfully! Anne


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Tank and Lottie. that is a WHOLE LOT of dog in that picture


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

I hope the OP doesn't mind, I have a collection of English Dual Ch photos that I can add to this conversation, as well as a couple of American firsts. Give me a moment, there will have to be several posts due to the number of photos. 

DC Banchory Bolo









DC Banchory Sunspeck









DC Titus of Whitmore









DC Bramshaw Bob









DC Banchory Painter









DC Lochar Nessie


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

3 more Dual Champions from England:

DC Staindrop Saighdear









DC Rockstead Footspark









DC Knaith Banjo


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

American Firsts:

The First American CH Labrador (artist rendering)









The First American DC Labrador









The First American "Best in Show" Labrador


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Anyway, there they are. A great line up of who's who from the early history of the Labrador retriever. I can't help but notice that none of these dogs look much like what is winning in the Show ring today. I do see a closer similarity to the Field labs in type and structure, though not as exaggerated like some of today's field labs. Nice moderate dogs IMHO, I just wish there were more emphasis on producing this kind of Lab instead of the divergent movement we see that only seems to be widening the gap between field and show. 
Great topic!


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

This has been a great thread. Thank you to all who have posted many pictures of all wonderful looking Labs.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I wonder if the FT people are to blame in part because as the FT's became progressively harder over the years the show dogs could no longer compete unless they changed there standard and thus gave up and went there own way.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

Sean H said:


> I doubt that any of the dogs pictured could be and FC *or* a CH today, much less both.


I agree on the CH but I wouldn't doubt that they could be competitive today.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ironman, 

According to Wolters in his book I quoted above we have to differentiate somewhat between British field-breds (which included DCs at the time) and American of the same. Back then, while our trials were similar to over the pond, our hunting was different. The British emphasis was on upland, the American on waterfowl. This is also why Carlisle felt a need, even back in 1936, to argue that there should not be any difference between trial and hunting dogs. It was becoming a concern.

That Ch. Earlsmoor Moor of Arden is a handsome, HANDSOME dog! I am old enough to remember some show Labs from the 1960s that still looked like that.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Scott Parker said:


> I wonder if the FT people are to blame in part because as the FT's became progressively harder over the years the show dogs could no longer compete unless they changed there standard and thus gave up and went there own way.


Did you even read my first post? Why do you think Wolters was mistaken in his reasoning?



Bud said:


> I agree on the CH but I wouldn't doubt that they could be competitive today.


I was thinking the same thing.

That is another debate we have around here frequently, and the consensus is, while we never will know for sure, it is quite likely to the great dogs back then would likely be great dogs now.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I don't mean to pick a fight here, but, is my perception that the West Coast seems to have better conformation in their performance dogs, as a whole, then elsewhere in the country off base? I have in mind Barracuda Blue and Cuda's Blue Ryder. Then there are the Merganser dogs, for instance.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> I don't mean to pick a fight here, but, is my perception that the West Coast seems to have better conformation in their performance dogs, as a whole, then elsewhere in the country off base? I have in Barracuda Blue and Cuda's Blue Ryder. Then there are the Merganser dogs, for instance.


That sounds like a good idea for a new thread!


----------



## Kevin Eskam (Mar 2, 2007)

Losthwy said:


> Interesting bit of history. I have *NEVER* thought the Lab "Breed Standard" found in today's show ring was an attractive dog. Much prefer an athletic dog which the show ring does not encourage or represent. AKC can take the current Breed Standard and stick it......er......on the dark side of the moon. And the history of how the show ring got away from athletic dogs to short tails, short legs, big heads and over weight animals is very interesting. I'll take a dog that looks like *Super Chief* everytime. Now that was a nice looking dog!




Here is a couple pics of Super Chief I found on the net (hope its ok)!


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

I agree on the assessment of Moor of Arden, looks to actually fit the Labrador Retriever Breed Standard quite well IMO, not over done, not snipey, just moderate! 
I recognize the 9 DC's are UK, not US, however most of these UK dogs are close, if not directly behind the first US show and field champions. So the difference was not so much in type, but rather the emphasis of the trial they competed in as was pointed out.

Someone mentioned field trials getting harder possibly playing into this split. I think there may be some truth behind that. Here is an excerpt from Sprake 1933.


> A few years ago the suggestion that retrievers must be specially trained to win at a Field Trial may have contained a grain of truth, but nowadays the majority of judges esteem a competitor's worth entirely from a shooting man's point of view, and it is quite usual for a dog which has not competed previously to win a Stake at a Field Trial; and those of us who are interested in Field Trials can only wish that the ordinary shooting man would realize this fact, and be encouraged to enter his dog-which has proved his competence in the shooting field-at a Field Trial.


This is again from the English perspective, but it was generally this kind of level that all the DC's posted won their Filed Championship. A first time, minimally trained dog that shows up and can finish the event, is what we see with Junior Hunters at hunt tests in the US today. Maybe it is apple to oranges with the US and the UK, but in the 1930's when the Lab started to get a foot hold here in the US, the dogs themselves and level of events they ran seem to have been similar.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> That Ch. Earlsmoor Moor of Arden is a handsome, HANDSOME dog! I am old enough to remember some show Labs from the 1960s that still looked like that.


That's what I thought too. He looks like I think labs should look like. Then, I got to thinking, he's pictured here with a bunch of DC's. I'm wondering if he wasn't all beauty and no brains. Guess I'll never know.


----------



## Beerman (May 16, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> Tank and Lottie. that is a WHOLE LOT of dog in that picture



Tank had to be one of the best looking labs ever.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Scott Parker said:


> I wonder if the FT people are to blame in part because as the FT's became progressively harder over the years the show dogs could no longer compete unless they changed there standard and thus gave up and went there own way.


There are still plenty of great looking labs (by 30's to 70's standards) running trials today. You are hard pressed to find show labs that have the structure to work, despite everyone's claims to the contrary. The show people haven't convinced me they understand form and function yet despite all the lines and angles that draw on pictures.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> You are hard pressed to find show labs that have the structure to work, despite everyone's claims to the contrary. The show people haven't convinced me they understand form and function yet despite all the lines and angles that draw on pictures.


Ya think?


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

pretty much all (lab) show people understand is that they need a dog which follows the type of what is popular and what wins in the ring......In the end, it is the judges who put up the overweight, short legged labrador. I'd love to see a show overrun with a bunch of field bred labs, whose conformation is more true to the type of 'yesteryear'....

One thing the show folks DO have going for them is a 'truly' proper coat...something which I have noticed a LOT of field bred labs are missing. 
Juli


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Juli H said:


> One thing the show folks DO have going for them is a 'truly' proper coat...something which I have noticed a LOT of field bred labs are missing.
> Juli


I agree. My field bred dog totally lacks undercoat. His coat is beautifully glossy and shiny, and I live on the we(s)t side of the state so it doesn't get too cold, but he wouldn't hold up in a really cold climate. My halfer does have a nice coat, and he seems neither too hot or too cold ever.

I have seen a decent number of field dogs with coat, but they tend to be of the same lines so someone is doing it right.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

My field bred dog has a nice coat, but I'd sure like to get that tail back in the breed. Tank is back there in his pedigree. 4 generations back.

Gay tail regards,


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Juli H said:


> ...In the end, it is the judges who put up the overweight, short legged labrador. I'd love to see a show overrun with a bunch of field bred labs, whose conformation is more true to the type of 'yesteryear'....


I think that is truly the only way to bridge the gap. Get a whole bunch of moderate dogs and enter in shows. The judges can only put up what they have to judge and if all they have waddles, then that's what we get. Were we to actually try this it would have to be more than a flash in the pan, but week after week at the shows, realizing that it is like throwing money away as the chances are not high of winning. But under the right non-breeder judge I think they would put up a true moderate lab that fit the standard if there were enough entering and not going away. Could very well save our breed from the chasm of type that seem to continue to widen year in and year out.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

david gibson said:


> maybe its just me, but i see these dogs as in the middle, some from each side. i think the fields have gone thinner and more athletic that these examples and the show piggier. the difference is the show end did it deliberately, and the field line did it accidentally while focusing mostly on performance.
> 
> equal blame regards....


While I agree for the most part with the above perspective...I'm not so sure that the "blame" as it were, is equal.

When you soley breed based on physical appearance..You're cognitively manipultating the results as far as physical appearance is concerned irregardless of physical ability and known undesirable traits genetic and otherwise....When you breed for preformance traits you are also making a cognitive choice based on desired performace in both physical as well as mental ability. In both cases you're intention is to manipulate the outcome. However, I feel the more "risky" route in terms of "bettering the breed" Is the one where appearnce takes center stage.

Conversely, this could be argued with the recent emergence of EIC and other performance driven maladies


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

keskam said:


> Here is a couple pics of Super Chief I found on the net (hope its ok)!


Thanks for the photos. 
I do believe the current show standard is doing an injustice to the Labrador. It really is a tragedy what they have done. What will a CH look like in 20 years? A large PUG?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ironman said:


> I think that is truly the only way to bridge the gap. Get a whole bunch of moderate dogs and enter in shows. The judges can only put up what they have to judge and if all they have waddles, then that's what we get.


It wouldn't work. The judge is allowed to withhold placements and excuse dogs for "lack of merit." 

The judges need to be re-educated, and that isn't going to happen until there is a reasonable amount of unanimity between field and show people on proper type.

A more likely outcome would be for the LRC to petition the AKC to acknowledge the differences between the two such that they would not have to compete against each other in the show ring. Field-bred would compete against field-bred, and show-bred against show-bred. But there is no sign that will happen.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

from my limited research there are at least 3 dogs in the RHOF that are Dual CH...including this beautiful gal...a multi National Finalist, and double header winner..and may have been the last to capture the Dual titles











*Dual Ch.AFC Royal Oaks Jill of Burgundy*


owned and handled by Lanse Brown


----------



## whelchel (Jun 30, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> I don't mean to pick a fight here, but, is my perception that the West Coast seems to have better conformation in their performance dogs, as a whole, then elsewhere in the country off base? I have in Barracuda Blue and Cuda's Blue Ryder. Then there are the Merganser dogs, for instance.


I know that you are extremely well versed in labrador knowledge and history, but I think many people may not know that Mergansers has been successful in mixing bench and field lines. I really appreciate the beauty and structure of their dogs (yours is beautiful as well by the way). I think it's a testament that the attributes of both sides can be obtained in as little as 1 - 3 generations. To me, their approach is to use moderate working bench lines (going back to CH Franklins Golden Mandingo??), combined with field lines that have relatively nice structure and/or conformation. I've seen the same approach utilized by other breeders who have similar goals. I really think this approach helps to progress the breed OVERALL. Looking back at all of the pictures in this thread, they don't look entirely different from field lines, but there is some conformation and bone structure that is hardly found in field lines.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Sean H said:


> I doubt that any of the dogs pictured could be and FC *or* a CH today, much less both.


What background do you have in field trials to make that statement


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

whelchel said:


> I know that you are extremely well versed in labrador knowledge and history, but I think many people may not know that Mergansers has been successful in mixing bench and field lines. I really appreciate the beauty and structure of their dogs (yours is beautiful as well by the way). I think it's a testament that the attributes of both sides can be obtained in as little as 1 - 3 generations. To me, their approach is to use moderate working bench lines (going back to CH Franklins Golden Mandingo??), combined with field lines that have relatively nice structure and/or conformation. I've seen the same approach utilized by other breeders who have similar goals. I really think this approach helps to progress the breed OVERALL. Looking back at all of the pictures in this thread, they don't look entirely different from field lines, but there is some conformation and bone structure that is hardly found in field lines.


Thank you for the compliment, Ken. Since I last "spoke" Titan went to and passed the Master National. He also QAA'd. He is down in Georgia training along with his kid. 

Hope things are going well in Utah.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Steve said:


> What background do you have in field trials to make that statement


I've only run one minor stake, and the FT purists wouldn't even count the one I ran. My opinion is not based on my experience in FT. Perhaps I was giving FT breeders too much credit (I doubt it)? But I would hope that with 80 years of selective breeding that the breed might have improved????


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Sean H said:


> I've only run one minor stake, and the FT purists wouldn't even count the one I ran. My opinion is not based on my experience in FT. Perhaps I was giving FT breeders too much credit (I doubt it)? But I would hope that with 80 years of selective breeding that the breed might have improved????


What is a FT purist?
Why would or how could someone not count the only AA stake you ran?
What is your opinnon based on?
Are you saying the field Labrador has not improved in the last 80 years?


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Losthwy said:


> What is a FT purist?
> Why would or how could someone not count the only AA stake you ran?
> What is your opinnon based on?
> Are you saying the field Labrador has not improved in the last 80 years?


I have run one O/H Qualifier that was part of a hunt test. It's my experience that some don't think there should be O/H Qualifiers at hunt tests, and that if you want to QAA your dog, you should do it at a field trial. I don't agree with it, but none the less that opinion is out there. But none of this really matters for this conversation.

It is my opinion (based upon the practice of selective breeding/artificial selection), that the field Labrador has to have improved in the last 80 years. That's why I don't think that the dogs of 80 years ago could compete with the dogs of today.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

I do agree the dogs in 1930 would have a tough time competing today. And there are many who argue a O/H Qual at a HT is easier due, in large part, to less dogs running those events. Personally I would like to see more O/H Quals at FTs.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> And there are many who argue a O/H Qual at a HT is easier due, in large part, to less dogs running those events. Personally I would like to see more O/H Quals at FTs.


The ones I have worked and have seen are judged the same and can be just as tough because the judges are FT judges. In fact, usually a lot more people don't make it through the first series because it is their first stab at it, and the last series is just as tough.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Losthwy said:


> I do agree the dogs in 1930 would have a tough time competing today. And there are many who argue a O/H Qual at a HT is easier due, in large part, to less dogs running those events.* Personally I would like to see more O/H Quals at FTs.*


the only thing wrong with that is that you will cut your fields in Quals by half if not more, because the pros would have nowhere to run, except the Open and the derby


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Ironman said:


> I think that is truly the only way to bridge the gap. Get a whole bunch of moderate dogs and enter in shows. The judges can only put up what they have to judge and if all they have waddles, then that's what we get. Were we to actually try this it would have to be more than a flash in the pan, but week after week at the shows, realizing that it is like throwing money away as the chances are not high of winning. But under the right non-breeder judge I think they would put up a true moderate lab that fit the standard if there were enough entering and not going away. Could very well save our breed from the chasm of type that seem to continue to widen year in and year out.



Well let me know if that ever happens! I'm in!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Sean H said:


> It is my opinion (based upon the practice of selective breeding/artificial selection), that the field Labrador has to have improved in the last 80 years. That's why I don't think that the dogs of 80 years ago could compete with the dogs of today.


That is so wrong in so many ways.

First, no matter how hard humans try to improve on natural selection, in the long run we always make things worse.

Second, we have written accounts of what the dogs were like, not eighty years ago, but over a hundred years ago, and the descriptions match what we see today.

Third, as the games get harder, after eighty-years we still, STILL have not reached a level that the dogs cannot still amaze us. With the right training, it seems the sky is the limit when it comes to their capabilities. That is a statement about the dogs that was as true eighty years ago as it is today.

Finally, we have members on this Board who have been in the game since the 1960s (40-50 years) and to a person they are of the opinion that the great dogs back then could have been great dogs today, given the same training and tools the dogs of today have.

You give us humans too much credit. It is the dogs.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Losthwy said:


> I do agree the dogs in 1930 would have a tough time competing today. And there are many who argue a O/H Qual at a HT is easier due, in large part, to less dogs running those events. Personally I would like to see more O/H Quals at FTs.


I don't go back to the 30s but do to the late 50s & 60s in terms of memory of FTs. I am confident that dogs like Super Chief, who was known for his conformation (even though he wasn't show titled) as well as his field talent, would be a great dog today also. He had all the tools, great style, intelligence, tractability & most of all drive and intelligence. With today's training techniques he would still be a winner. The four dogs in the picture I posted previously were late 40s (in the case of the sire) and the 40s-early 50s in the case of the offspring. They were the legends I heard about when I was growing up along with King Buck. The reputation of King Buck was further enhanced by his duck hunting vists to the Beaver Dam Club where I had the priviledge to visit from time to time. From what I recall and heard about those dogs, any of them, training under our best trainers today, could excel today.

IMO, the major difference today is that top-level training is more widely available than back then so the competition is tougher from trial to trial rather than any major gains in the ability of dogs.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> That is so wrong in so many ways.


You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither one is provable. I know I'm not going to change your opinion, but I'll gladly state mine and the reasons for it.



AmiableLabs said:


> First, no matter how hard humans try to improve on natural selection, in the long run we always make things worse..


Yes, selective breeding often has unintended side effects (see health problems in labs & other breeds). But's it accepted that the traits being bred for are improved over generations.



AmiableLabs said:


> Second, we have written accounts of what the dogs were like, not eighty years ago, but over a hundred years ago, and the descriptions match what we see today..


Descriptions always have many interpretations. I would love to read what you have on this though.



AmiableLabs said:


> Third, as the games get harder, after eighty-years we still, STILL have not reached a level that the dogs cannot still amaze us. With the right training, it seems the sky is the limit when it comes to their capabilities. That is a statement about the dogs that was as true eighty years ago as it is today..


Maybe, just maybe, the dogs continue to amaze us because through selective breeding they are getting better as the games get harder??;-)



AmiableLabs said:


> Finally, we have members on this Board who have been in the game since the 1960s (40-50 years) and to a person they are of the opinion that the great dogs back then could have been great dogs today, given the same training and tools the dogs of today have.


Studies have proven that eyewitness accounts are unreliable after mere months, much less 50 years. But I must ask, what does this have to do with dogs from 80 years ago? But based upon my argument, dogs from 50 years ago would be better than dogs from 80 years ago anyway. ;-)



AmiableLabs said:


> You give us humans too much credit. It is the dogs.


Gee, that's funny. Didn't humans create the Labrador Retriever Breed? (through selective breeding;-))

Truely though, Kevin, your stance on this intrigues me. Do you not think that field labrador breeders are improving the breed? 

So based upon your argument, we'd have better FT dogs if the breedings were totally random? Based upon your handle, I'd guess that you are a breeder. Do you put your money where your mouth is and randomly select a sire? Or do you go through a selective process?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Sean H said:


> Gee, that's funny. Didn't humans create the Labrador Retriever Breed? (through selective breeding;-))


First off, the context was the innate and intrinsic abilities of the dogs. I fail to see the logic behind humans taking credit for what dogs can do _innately_ and _intrinsically_. I believe there is a different Creator that gets credit for that.

Second, you say "humans created the Labrador Retriever breed?" Perhaps you can tell me who were the humans that created them and what they used? Thank you.



> Truely though, Kevin, your stance on this intrigues me. Do you not think that field labrador breeders are improving the breed?


As I said before, _in the long run_ (across multiple decades), "no." We are not nature, we are not nature's God. They have reasons greater than our understanding. When we think we can do things better, when we interfere, we tend to do harm _in the long run_.



> So based upon your argument, we'd have better FT dogs if the breedings were totally random?


No, that is a straw man argument. I am saying _in the long run_ the dogs themselves would be better off if we let them and nature dictate breedings. See, unlike you I do not believe that nature's ways are "totally random." I think nature is systematic is ALL processes.



> Based upon your handle, I'd guess that you are a breeder.


We just bred our second litter in seven years. I supposed that makes us "breeders."



> Do you put your money where your mouth is and randomly select a sire? Or do you go through a selective process?


First off, as stated above, no where did I argue for a random breeding because I do not share your worldview about nature. 

Second I have used italics in this post when writing _"in the long run"_ since you apparently missed it in my previous post. Like any breeder, when I choose a stud I am thinking _short term_ -- the next generation, where I hope to make progress. I am not thinking across multiple decades into the future.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

We are dealing with a closed genetic system. There are no new genes being added. If we look at such a system in light of the law of entropy, we will be doing good if we can occasionally repeat the greats of the past. I'm not sure where the genes are going to come from to "improve" the breed. What I see all the effort doing is "to do no harm".


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Beerman said:


> Tank had to be one of the best looking labs ever.


Thanks for posting this.

Regards
JT
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Kevin Humans like dogs were created by nature so maybe nature is using Humans as a tool to improve the breed though selective breeding are do you think humans are only improving the breed though training and not breeding?


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> I don't go back to the 30s but do to the late 50s & 60s in terms of memory of FTs. I am confident that dogs like Super Chief, who was known for his conformation (even though he wasn't show titled) as well as his field talent, would be a great dog today also. He had all the tools, great style, intelligence, tractability & most of all drive and intelligence. With today's training techniques he would still be a winner. The four dogs in the picture I posted previously were late 40s (in the case of the sire) and the 40s-early 50s in the case of the offspring. They were the legends I heard about when I was growing up along with King Buck.
> [snip]


Just to make a connection, Super Chief's two grandsires are in the photo David posted; his dam's sire (Cherokee Buck) is second from left; his sire's sire (Freehaven Muscles) at the right.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Jo Ann Reynolds (Jul 2, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> If the function of the Lab is to work, who is currently breeding the correct form?


A lot of us would like to know! I dream of having the resources to breed labs that look like those you posted - not too chunky, not too whippy, like Goldilocks, just right and not plagued with health issues. Probably won't happen in this lifetime, though.

My young male is reminiscent of them but he has elbow dysplasia with OCD.


----------



## Jo Ann Reynolds (Jul 2, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> That Ch. Earlsmoor Moor of Arden is a handsome, HANDSOME dog! I am old enough to remember some show Labs from the 1960s that still looked like that.


Ain't that the truth. I love the way that dog looks. I'd give my eyeteeth for a dog that looked like that and was a great hunting companion, biddable, and a joy to train.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

gsc said:


> We are dealing with a closed genetic system....I'm not sure where the genes are going to come from to "improve" the breed.


Yes it is a closed genetic system, but K-9s and mammals have a large capacity for mutation of DNA. The selective breeding and resulting diversity of K-9s is really remarkable. I don't know of another species that has such capacity for change. Humans have bred the wolf to become the Chihuahua, Great Dane, hairless, long hair, wrinkled, short, tall. 

http://www.canine-genetics.com/Mutation.htm


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

afdahl said:


> Just to make a connection, Super Chief's two grandsires are in the photo David posted; his dam's sire (Cherokee Buck) is second from left; his sire's sire (Freehaven Muscles) at the right.
> 
> Amy Dahl


I think that's the key. Super Chief had nice conformation and you look back in his pedigree and realize it wasn't an accident. The problem is that there is no connection to bench dogs today. They went their separate way with the intro of English bench stock, performance be damned. Now we have bench dogs that lack the conformation to perform in the field without even considering required desire, intelligence, style or size. In addition I hear that hip dysplasia is common among bench stock as well as other genetic conditions that would further disqualify them in the field.

I think the answer, in light of LRC inaction, is to set-up conformation competions among field dogs in some way so that there is a means to recognize excellent conformation among field dogs. At least in that way we can preserve the "look" of a Freehaven Muscles, his brothers and offspring like Super Chief. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with FTs at the club level.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Losthwy said:


> Yes it is a closed genetic system, but K-9s and mammals have a large capacity for mutation of DNA. The selective breeding and resulting diversity of K-9s is really remarkable. I don't know of another species that has such capacity for change. Humans have bred the wolf to become the Chihuahua, Great Dane, hairless, long hair, wrinkled, short, tall.
> 
> http://www.canine-genetics.com/Mutation.htm


That is true, but you don't/can't breed for mutation. As we move from the deep pool (read wolf) to the shallow pool (read individual breeds) the genes available deminish. With out going to outcrosses, it is not possible to go from the chihuahua back to the wolf. 

Part of the problem is the definition of "improvement". I will grant that you can breed to improve a line or group of dogs, to correct a fault, but does that improve the breed? The answer is difficult and has brought us where we are today. Are the number of great dogs increasing proportionally? Are we any better able to predict the out come of a litter?

Looking at the old photo's of the dogs of the 'day', it apprears as we continue to work on function, the 'forms' from these early dogs continue to appear. When we abandon function to chase form, we tend to loose both the form that worked and the function it served.

Yes, this is more of a rambling for thought than a definitive piece of fact. For what it is worth.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> I think that's the key. Super Chief had nice conformation and you look back in his pedigree and realize it wasn't an accident. The problem is that there is no connection to bench dogs today. They went their separate way with the intro of English bench stock, performance be damned. Now we have bench dogs that lack the conformation to perform in the field without even considering required desire, intelligence, style or size. In addition I hear that hip dysplasia is common among bench stock as well as other genetic conditions that would further disqualify them in the field.
> 
> I think the answer, in light of LRC inaction, is to set-up conformation competions among field dogs in some way so that there is a means to recognize excellent conformation among field dogs. At least in that way we can preserve the "look" of a Freehaven Muscles, his brothers and offspring like Super Chief. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with FTs at the club level.


Isn't that what the LRC Conformation Certificate program is all about?

JD


----------



## Desiree (Dec 27, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> I think the answer, in light of LRC inaction, is to set-up conformation competions among field dogs in some way so that there is a means to recognize excellent conformation among field dogs. At least in that way we can preserve the "look" of a Freehaven Muscles, his brothers and offspring like Super Chief. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with FTs at the club level.


Excellent idea!! Working retriever folks should get together and work to maintain the type (conformation) and character traits of their respective breeds. You cannot leave it to people who have no idea what a working dog has to do in the field/blind all day. Maybe you could include a written critique like IABCA and take a picture for future reference. Some German clubs actually take measurements (chest, height, length etc.) for future reference.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

gsc said:


> ...Looking at the old photo's of the dogs of the 'day', it appears as we continue to work on function, the 'forms' from these early dogs continue to appear. When we abandon function to chase form, we tend to loose both the form that worked and the function it served....


What a great statement, frames the issue very well......


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

Losthwy said:


> Yes it is a closed genetic system, but *K-9s and mammals have a large capacity for mutation of DNA.* The selective breeding and resulting diversity of K-9s is really remarkable. I don't know of another species that has such capacity for change. Humans have bred the wolf to become the Chihuahua, Great Dane, hairless, long hair, wrinkled, short, tall.
> 
> http://www.canine-genetics.com/Mutation.htm


I don't believe you can support this statement with actual examples. What you are claiming is that _*spontaneous introduction of new DNA*_ (which is the definition of a mutation) that is not harmful to the organism occurs relatively frequently. It is up to the one claiming such a thing it to provide examples of this spontaneous genetic mutation.

All of the differences in the breed can be attributed to DNA, *that is already present in the animal,* being expressed because of intelligent selection by man (or not so intelligent as the case may be).


----------



## muddin (Feb 14, 2010)

I totaly understand what you guys are talking about when it comes to all show and no go but and thats a big but. In the standards of a lab I have'nt found a speed limit a dog has to be able to run in any standard. everyone says well the the show dogs can be trained but are slower on the field. I never new it was a race ( though i like a dog with some go!) straight lines, form, handling, marks, blinds but no radar gun. This is a perfect example of why and how both ft dogs and show dogs have changed and evolved over the years. we've just bread them in a direction WE think they should be. fast is nice but not necessarily better. i dont like fat dogs i also dont like black greyhounds some of you call labs either. some people like yellows some like chocolate some like blacks. well some like skinny scrawny greyhounds (labs) others like fat over weight ones. I personally like a dog around 75-85lbs with a semi stocky build. you can see my 9month old in my avatar. just my .02cents and i know it dont mean much.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

JDogger said:


> Isn't that what the LRC Conformation Certificate program is all about?
> 
> JD


Not really, a conformation cert is not a competition. It has merit by saying a dog has reasonable conformation but today it is too heavily influenced by the bench type as meeting the std, I think we need a fresh dose of history, looking back at our last dual champs and say that's the conformation we want to preserve.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

muddin said:


> I totaly understand what you guys are talking about when it comes to all show and no go but and thats a big but. In the standards of a lab I have'nt found a speed limit a dog has to be able to run in any standard. everyone says well the the show dogs can be trained but are slower on the field. *I never new it was a race ( though i like a dog with some go!) straight lines, form, handling, marks, blinds but no radar gun. This is a perfect example of why and how both ft dogs and show dogs have changed and evolved over the years. we've just bread them in a direction WE think they should be. fast is nice but not necessarily better.* i dont like fat dogs i also dont like black greyhounds some of you call labs either. some people like yellows some like chocolate some like blacks. well some like skinny scrawny greyhounds (labs) others like fat over weight ones. I personally like a dog around 75-85lbs with a semi stocky build. you can see my 9month old in my avatar. just my .02cents and i know it dont mean much.


I don't think anyone referred to "fast" as THE desired criteria. I think we want dogs that can do the work as a first priority and then have correct form too. Today's bench stock could not possibly do the work, even if in field shape. They likely could not hold up under the stress of daily FT training and we have no idea if they have the desire, intelligence, tractability, and style would be a long shot for sure.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

muddin said:


> I totaly understand what you guys are talking about when it comes to all show and no go but and thats a big but. In the standards of a lab I have'nt found a speed limit a dog has to be able to run in any standard.


The lab was developed out of available DNA to serve a purpose. They didn't decide make a dog, and then create one and ask, okay, what can it do? The current show dogs, regardless of speed, are not working dogs by form. The form is opposed to function. Yes, they can function somewhat, but that is pushing the ability of the form that has been created.

Maybe to improve the breed, when the function is optimized, the form will reveal itself (or it already has, see photo's at the begining of the discussion).


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> I don't think anyone referred to "fast" as THE desired criteria. I think we want dogs that can do the work as a first priority and then have correct form too. Today's bench stock could not possibly do the work, even if in field shape. They likely could not hold up under the stress of daily FT training and we have no idea if they have the desire, intelligence, tractability, and style would be a long shot for sure.


As well is not a well trained retriever one the does his work efficiently so as to retrieve game and come back to the blind without disturbing game or negatively affecting the hunt? 

This doesn't mean the dog needs to be a speed demon but he does need to be able to get out to the bird and back without taking more time than is necessary to do his job.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Scott Parker said:


> Kevin Humans like dogs were created by nature so *maybe* nature is using Humans as a tool to improve the breed though selective breeding are do you think humans are only improving the breed though training and not breeding?


*Maybe* if I go to the post office tomorrow some lunatic postman will go postal on me and shoot me. Therefore I better not go to the post office tomorrow. :roll:

You can't reason with hypotheticals. ;-)


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

gsc said:


> The current show dogs, regardless of speed, are not working dogs by form. The form is opposed to function. Yes, they can function somewhat, but that is pushing the ability of the form that has been created.


Brilliant! I salute you sir!


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

afdahl said:


> Just to make a connection, Super Chief's two grandsires are in the photo David posted; his dam's sire (Cherokee Buck) is second from left; his sire's sire (Freehaven Muscles) at the right.


Per various sources, it is correct as labeled in the photo posted in this thread. Warwick had the picture mis-labeled (her book has numerous errors in pedigrees and photo captions).

BTW, who broke into my kennel and took a bunch of pictures?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Worth a bump.

BTTT.


----------



## tuckerdutch (Dec 8, 2012)

Hey...all I want is my dog to quarter, flush, and retrieve...which she does. I have an English lab which is stocky and creamy in color...but she hunts like a demon. There's a blind man at my fitness club whose guide dog is a lab that is easily twice as tall as my dog..almost looks like two different breeds. For me it's about energy level and hunting drive.


----------



## BigKahuna13 (Mar 6, 2009)

Ghost of Christmas Past!!!!!


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks for bumping this thread. We have field labs from field labs -- a mother and daughter. They looked like they just stepped out of the pages of The Labrador Retriever of the 1930s, 1940s. See the head study of Banchory Night Light on page 1 of this thread. That's the head I look at every day. It's the head that seems to appear in our Carbon daughter's litters. Not all of the puppies, but a lot of them. I have been attributing that "look" to Carbon.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Just look @ Ali. He's perfect.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

I just did a Google search on NFC Banchory Night Light of Wingan who was born Jan 1, 1932. It was a male which surprised me as the head study looks feminine to me. Probably because I have bitches who seem to me to have a striking resemblance. See my avatar. That's Ruby.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Brilliant! I salute you sir!


Sorry Kevin,,, The more moderate show labs work just fine.. I can provide examples...

What dog have you competed or bred that fits the breed standard and is "working"? Lately,,,  Don't open that can of worms...

Angie


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Sorry Kevin,,, The more moderate show labs work just fine.. I can provide examples...


That does not contradict the comment gsc made that I replied to with a salute.

Go back and show where he was wrong.


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

AmiableLabs said:


> 'I think that is truly the only way to bridge the gap. Get a whole bunch of moderate dogs and enter in shows. The judges can only put up what they have to judge and if all they have waddles, then that's what we get. Were we to actually try this it would have to be more than a flash in the pan, but week after week at the shows, realizing that it is like throwing money away as the chances are not high of winning. But under the right non-breeder judge I think they would put up a true moderate lab that fit the standard if there were enough entering and not going away. Could very well save our breed from the chasm of type that seem to continue to widen year in and year out.'
> 
> It wouldn't work. The judge is allowed to withhold placements and excuse dogs for "lack of merit."
> 
> ...


Dogs don't get excused for lack of merit just because they are moderate in build. There are moderately built show labs, and sometimes they even win! Not that it wouldn't be nice if there were more of them to make the few look less out of place. Here's mine;


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Now that's a nice looking Lab!


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I've said it before, it's hilarious to me that field bred dogs don't do well at dog shows because "they don't have the correct form to be able to do things they excell at doing their whole lives." Can't swim without that otter tail, can't run very far without that deep chest and extra "muscle."

The show bred dogs are built perfectly to do things they don't want to do.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Al McKean had a young dog he sold to Blair Down that I thought to be very representative of what a dog should look like, never saw him perform but Rorem had him as a performer. Roy McFall also had a dog that was representative - I believe it was Jaguar, Howard would know that one.

Looking at the pictures they resemble Carbon & Chopper to some extent, I always (personal preference) preferred a dog more on the line of Watergator Sam, more agile, slightly smaller & tend to hold up better over the long haul. Though I only saw Super Chief once at the McCall National Am I always felt him to be a little too chesty, but many of the Paha Sapa Chief (his sire) line , were very nice looking dogs. But definitely in the in the longer muzzle class rather than the hound style muzzle. 

There aren't many really good otter tails any more & usually on a poor performer, but that's about the last thing most are looking for in a performance dog. As for coats, they seem to be an area thing, hot weather does not contribute to a luxurious coat. 

I have always considered smooth gaited frame & agility under 80 lbs, preferably 70ish as the ideal lab. The other stuff is a bonus , Martens Black Powder Kate comes to mind!!!!


----------



## Alain (Dec 9, 2005)

Thanks Amiablelabs for sharing those pictures and creating this post.
Very interesting!


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

I kind of like this look in a Lab........


----------



## Troy Fields (Dec 10, 2012)

I clicked on this thread thinking I was going to see a bunch of labs with ducks in their mouths, Anyway, This is what I think a lab should look like


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

I will certainly agree with you Troy........


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Troy, you have put up some very good pictures of labs out in the field. What camera lens combination do you use?


----------



## Troy Fields (Dec 10, 2012)

Thanks Howard, I shoot a Nikon D5100 body with a 55-300mm Nikon lens. It was a christmas present to myself last year. I bought both items through Best Buy. The camera is much smarter than I am, LOL, I have been using it in the basic action setting which gives 3 pictures per second. I have been fortunate to capture some nice photo's of Pearl and also of my daughter's sporting events which was the real reason for me getting it. It also takes nice video too. Has been a real treat and a great addition to all I do outdoors and for family.

I wasn't sure whether to post more pictures or not, I have been a hunter for years, a trainer for months and I know through reading the posts that many here are heavy into training, hence my joining so that I can learn more on that end. Hopefully I can contribute some with my photos and bring some enjoyment and pleasure that way.

Thanks again, Have a great Holiday Season.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Nice pics Troy!!


----------



## thelast2 (Dec 7, 2012)

Troy,
Your idea of what a lab should like is spot on. Great Pics by the way especially like the one with the dog in the water and the duck laying over the eyes. While looks are important, the trainability and function of the dog are just as important in my world.


----------



## Major Pain (Feb 11, 2010)

Troy Fields said:


> Have a great Holiday Season.


Same to you! Great looking lab. Love how their eyes light up when they get to do what they love.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I always liked the looks of FC AFC Cuda's Blue Ryder and his pa, Barracuda Blue. Here is Ryder's pix:








I also like the dogs that came out of FC AFC Dotty's Cruisen Mach Three (Razor) and FC AFC Machthree's Edge (Edge). This breeding produced very nice looking pups with some field ability. This is a pix of Ollie at one year:


----------



## Gun Dawg (Dec 18, 2010)

The most beautiful Lab is a Bitch with a cock in her mouth.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

nice...................


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

Ironman said:


> I think that is truly the only way to bridge the gap. Get a whole bunch of moderate dogs and enter in shows. The judges can only put up what they have to judge and if all they have waddles, then that's what we get. Were we to actually try this it would have to be more than a flash in the pan, but week after week at the shows, realizing that it is like throwing money away as the chances are not high of winning. But under the right non-breeder judge I think they would put up a true moderate lab that fit the standard if there were enough entering and not going away. Could very well save our breed from the chasm of type that seem to continue to widen year in and year out.


I think it would work. With correct moderate labs. Judges get used to what they see, and the more people do nothing the more heavy the breed will get. I have a nice correct male almost 6 months, but I don't keep him fat, and won't. He has some show and some field in him, but he doesn't really care about his pedigree... I would LOVE to gather some folks with dogs with good form and go "Storm" some shows. I enjoy showing, and it would be fun to see what would happen at a small show with some nice labs and just a few fat labs. The only sad part is that if the fat ones still get chosen the rest of use would just bump up the points for them  But I think if true muscle showed up into the ring the fat would show for what it was. I was at a show once and there were 5 brittanies, but 1 was white enough to make the others look a bit yellow. Guess who won (edited here and can not believe I just made that error... *blush*). white looked white until it stood next to real white.... The same could happen with fat and muscle.


----------



## Rick Vaughan (Sep 4, 2012)

_*This is my idea of a good looking Lab...Sire is a CH and probably never had a bumper in his mouth, bitch is show pointed and 4 master passes...Grandpa is a CH/MH...*_


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

End Of Thread.


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Rick Vaughan said:


> _*This is my idea of a good looking Lab...Sire is a CH and probably never had a bumper in his mouth, bitch is show pointed and 4 master passes...Grandpa is a CH/MH...*_
> 
> View attachment 10146


Diggs puppies and grandpuppies are gorgeous. I'm sad he's gone.


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

LOL....

Really Jacob?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Gee,,, I bred this one. A MH as a 2.5 year old and she needs one Major for her CH.. She's only 3 and a yellow bitch.. Do you know how hard it is for yellow bitches to get a CH?? Especially when owner handled??










It does happen and enough said... 

Angie


----------



## TNDUCKHUNTER (Jul 6, 2005)

Very interesting thread!!!


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

KNorman said:


> LOL....
> 
> Really Jacob?


You better believe it. He's pretty much perfect. He even wants to be yellow.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

There is a reason dogs aren't judged for conformation sitting down. I'm not saying that the dog in the photo isn't nice but to truely evaluate how a Lab compares to the physical definition as defined in the Breed Standard, one has to look at them standing and able to place a hand over them. Sitting hides too many faults.


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

Angie, now that is a lab that is correct and not fat. You are right and the more that is what judges see the more the will notice the fat for what it is. I truly hope at least.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Franco said:


> There is a reason dogs aren't judged for conformation sitting down. I'm not saying that the dog in the photo isn't nice but to truely evaluate how a Lab compares to the physical definition as defined in the Breed Standard, one has to look at them standing and able to place a hand over them. Sitting hides too many faults.


That dog doesn't have flaws. He's even better looking standing up.


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

AllAroundLab said:


> Diggs puppies and grandpuppies are gorgeous. I'm sad he's gone.


I agree with you. I have a Digs son that I adore. He just finished a day at the dump looking for a body. Good looking and smart!


----------



## Rick Vaughan (Sep 4, 2012)

AllAroundLab said:


> Diggs puppies and grandpuppies are gorgeous. I'm sad he's gone.



_*Now how do you know that Pearl is a Diggs granddaughter? He really sired some great dogs, my yellow bitch Mercy is a Diggs daughter and a MH with look's!!!! Gotta love the Diggs Kids!*_


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> End Of Thread.


Whats the breeding on that dog? He is gorgeous.


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Rick Vaughan said:


> _*Now how do you know that Pearl is a Diggs granddaughter? He really sired some great dogs, my yellow bitch Mercy is a Diggs daughter and a MH with look's!!!! Gotta love the Diggs Kids!*_


I guessed, and then looked her up. I've seen a litter of his puppies in person, and of course many photos online as well.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Rick Vaughan said:


> _*Now how do you know that Pearl is a Diggs granddaughter? He really sired some great dogs, my yellow bitch Mercy is a Diggs daughter and a MH with look's!!!! Gotta love the Diggs Kids!*_


Most likely from your signature line!!!


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Billie said:


> Whats the breeding on that dog? He is gorgeous.


Isn't that Ali ??


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

Yes, it is.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Billie said:


> Whats the breeding on that dog? He is gorgeous.


http://www.findretrievers.com/search/resultsdog.php?Registration_Number=SR38750808


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

KNorman said:


> Yes, it is.


He's got a pedigree to match his looks!! But unfortunately for me he's an EIC carrier. I would have loved to have used him. I love his pedigree..

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

mountaindogs said:


> Angie, now that is a lab that is correct and not fat. You are right and the more that is what judges see the more the will notice the fat for what it is. I truly hope at least.


I'm putting a chessie in the ring,, handled by myself,, (I love new experiences), that has darn near no fat and is in top notch condition. We shall see?

Angie


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

I hope you post a win pic


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Angie B said:


> He's got a pedigree to match his looks!! But unfortunately for me he's an EIC carrier. I would have loved to have used him. I love his pedigree..
> 
> Angie


Do you only breed to dogs that are EIC/CNM clear?


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

jeff evans said:


> Do you only breed to dogs that are EIC/CNM clear?


I'm sure Angie probably just meant her bitch is a carrier so she can't breed to another carrier in good faith. 

BTW, Go Cougs, indeed!  
2X WAZZU grad regards, Julie


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

I've always wondered why folks on these threads (any forum) only go back to the 1930's-1950's for photos when the origins of the breed were so much farther back than that? 

Since one can't really get a good feeling of a dog's working ability by looking at a photograph (it isn't that hard to get a photo with a duck in a dog's mouth, even if s/he isn't a good dog in the field), this is of course with regard to conformation only. I know these dogs are laying down, which is even worse for assessing structure than sitting and facing a camera, but look at those heads and coats! I *LOVE* a beautiful head and a good well-wrapped double coat. 





BTW, these photos are from 1856 and 1889 respectively.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> Do you only breed to dogs that are EIC/CNM clear?


Only when my bitch is a carrier for the same disease... If she was clear I would use Alley all day long..

An awesome dog!!

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

mountaindogs said:


> I hope you post a win pic


Me Too!!! Thanks...

Angie


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Montview, 

This is a pic of CH* Sandyland's Tweed of Blaircourt*. 

A grandson of *Bucceleuch Avon*, The second dog in your in your post.

P.S. Avon was Chocolate and yellow factored. Said to be the source of the chocolate gene in the USA. Sirca 1885 ish.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Montview said:


> I've always wondered why folks on these threads (any forum) only go back to the 1930's-1950's for photos when the origins of the breed were so much farther back than that?
> 
> Since one can't really get a good feeling of a dog's working ability by looking at a photograph (it isn't that hard to get a photo with a duck in a dog's mouth, even if s/he isn't a good dog in the field), this is of course with regard to conformation only. I know these dogs are laying down, which is even worse for assessing structure than sitting and facing a camera, but look at those heads and coats! I *LOVE* a beautiful head and a good well-wrapped double coat.
> 
> ...


Montview,

Great Point! I love the looks of these dogs too. Nell and Avon show how much things have changed from the Lab's beginnings as the St. John's waterdog. It didn't just occur in the 1950's and 1960's either. The 1920's and 30's photos shown earlier in this thread don't show dogs with the same dense coat, substance, or quality of head that is shown in these early pictures. Interbreeding during the late 19th and early 20th century brought outside blood into the waterdog genepool diluting the true type which had been developed on Newfoundland since the English began fishing with dogs in the late 1490's.

It's a shame we don't have a strain of Lab that retains these early traits. I'd love to have a kennel filled with Avon and his contemporaries!

Swack


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Rnd said:


> Montview,
> 
> This is a pic of CH* Sandyland's Tweed of Blaircourt*.
> 
> ...


Rnd,

Sandyland Tweed of Blaircourt WAS NOT a grandson of Avon! In Helen Warwick's _The NEW Complete Labrador Retriever_ the pedigree for him is shown on page 73. Avon doesn't show up in four generations. In fact, on page 72 under his picture the author states that Sandyland's Tweed of Blaircourt is an "outstanding contemporary sire". The book's first printing was in 1964. The dog you show is from the 1960's while Avon was from the 1880's. They are a *bunch* of generations removed from one another!

As to Avon being a chocolate Lab, I have never read such a thing and I have read all that I can find concerning the origins and early history of the breed. He looks like a black to me in every way. If you can find any credible published reference saying he was a chocolate I'd be very interested in seeing it. 

Swack


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Swack said:


> Rnd,
> 
> Sandyland Tweed of Blaircourt WAS NOT a grandson of Avon! In Helen Warwick's _The NEW Complete Labrador Retriever_ the pedigree for him is shown on page 73. Avon doesn't show up in four generations. In fact, on page 72 under his picture the author states that Sandyland's Tweed of Blaircourt is an "outstanding contemporary sire". The book's first printing was in 1964. The dog you show is from the 1960's while Avon was from the 1880's. They are a *bunch* of generations removed from one another!
> 
> ...


*


Slow down Swack*

: Reading comprehension skills.

I said he was Chocolate and yellow factored. Not Chocolate.


Edit: You are correct that he is not a grandson but, can be traced back to Avon. The pic is indeed a 1958 photo. *AVON *was circa 1885


Thank god it's almost the end of the year... I only make one mistake a year


----------



## MountainAir (Dec 16, 2012)

Very interesting thread. My wife and I just got done looking at a few pics on google. She says they look more like a cross between a pitbull, bulldog, with a little bit of lab thrown into them.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Rnd,

Sorry if I misread your post. I thought you said he was *Chocolate* and yellow factored. I now understand that you meant he was chocolate factored and yellow factored. He may have been. I'm not sure of this.

I'm not sure whether to fault my reading comprehension or your writing clairity. Maybe both! That's one mistake apiece for us this year. 

It can be tough when writing a post to make a statement clearly. You can't write as if you're speaking because with no vocal inflections the meaning can be misread.

I think there is a world of difference in type between Tweed and Avon. I'd like to find a good stud dog with talent, brains, and Avon's type. Anybody know of one?

Swack


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

MountainAir said:


> Very interesting thread. My wife and I just got done looking at a few pics on google. She says they look more like a cross between a pitbull, bulldog, with a little bit of lab thrown into them.


Mountain Air,

What type of dog pic's were you viewing? Show Labs, field Labs, old time Labs? 

Swack


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Swack said:


> Rnd,
> 
> Sorry if I misread your post. I thought you said he was *Chocolate* and yellow factored. I now understand that you meant he was chocolate factored and yellow factored. He may have been. I'm not sure of this.
> 
> ...



X2................ Sometimes very hard to "communicate" via the net

History buff regards.....


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Since we're looking at older representations of the breed, isn't this what the original supposedly looked like before the Britts and Scotts had their way with them?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

There are plenty of us out there, including Angie, that are breeding middle of the road labs that don't look like Greyhounds or Rotties and have the physical structure to be successful hunting and doing hunt tests and competitive in the show ring....though it does take us longer to succeed there. 

If you'd like to see some, I would be happy to list sights. You cannot blanket judge based on a picture or two, regardless of breed.

Sue Puff


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

Back in the teen's and 20's there was a dog that was heavily used named Peter of Faskally. He was used extensively in GB and has a lot (possibly 1/2) Flatcoat Retriever.









The flat coat was the premier retriever at the turn of the last century and I am sure there was a lot more Flatcoat crosses in the breeding pool prior to the Stud book closing. Looking at him, I wonder if that is where the leaness was brought into the gene pool.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Ironman said:


> Since we're looking at older representations of the breed, isn't this what the original supposedly looked like before the Britts and Scotts had their way with them?


Ironman,

Not according to my sources. On my desk beside me is a book entitled _Instructions to Young Sportsmen in all that pertains to Guns and Shooting_ by Lt. Col. Peter Hawker. It was first published in 1814. My copy is of the 9th edition published in 1844. It contains what I believe to be the first published use of the term "Labrador" in reference to the Lesser Newfoundland or St. John's waterdog. The first edition of this book was written shortly after the St. John's waterdogs were first recorded to have been acquired by the 2nd Earl of Malmesbury near Poole Harbour, England. Therefore, I believe that Col. Hawker's written description is of the dogs as they appeared off the boats from Newfoundland before they had been tampered with by the Brit's. Here is some of what he said under the heading NEWFOUNDLAND DOGS.

"_Here we are a little in the dark. Every canine brute, that is nearly as big as a jackass, and as hairy as a bear, is denominated a fine Newfoundland dog. Very different, however, are both the proper Labrador and St. John's breed of these animals; at least, many characteristic points are required, in order to distinguish them.

The one is very large; strong in the limbs; rough haired; small in the head; and carries his tail very high. He is kept in that country for drawing sledges full of wood, from inland to the sea shore, where he is also very useful, by his immense strength and sagacity, among wrecks, and other disasters in boisterous weather.

The other, by far the best for every kind of shooting, is oftener black than any other colour, and scarcely bigger than a pointer. He is made rather long in the head and nose; pretty deep in the chest; very fine in the legs; *has short or smooth hair; does not carry his tail so much curled as the other*; and is extremely quick and active in running, swimming, or fighting."

_Another description from the earliest beginnings of the breed is in a letter the 3rd Earl of Malmesbury wrote to the 6th Duke of Buccleuch in Scotland in about 1887. In that letter the Earl states:

_"We always called mine Labrador dogs and I have kept the breed as pure as I could from the first had from Poole, at that time carrying on a brisk trade with Newfoundland. *The real breed may be known by their having a close coat which turns the water off like oil, above all a tail like an otter."*

_In both descriptions they mention that the Labrador (or lesser Newfoundland or St. John's waterdog) has a short coat or smooth hair. The dog in the picture you posted does not meet that description. Nor does he have a tail like an otter which the 3rd Earl of Malmesbury said was a trait "above all" that distinguished the "real breed".

As Col. Hawker hinted when he started the section on Newfoundland Dogs with the sentence, "_Here we are a little in the dark."_, there was some confussion in the early years about what a proper St. John's water dog was like. They were only kept pure in the hands of a very few people like the Earl's of Malmesbury, the Duke's of Buccleugh, and a circle of their close friends and relatives. There was lots of interbreeding that took place in the early years before the breed was offically recognized by the Kennel Club (UK) in 1903. In fact, there are records of "Interbreds" earning awards in the early years of British retriever field trials. This confusion and/or the common practice of interbreeding is why you may find pictures labeled as being of an early Labrador or St. John's Dog which do not accurately represent the proper type. I believe the written accounts like those I've quoted above and a few early (pre-1900) photographs like those of Nell and Avon provide the best account of what the Original Labrador really looked like.

Swack


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

My old man Al is close to looking like the dogs of the late 1800's. I am currently trying to find an FC and or AFC stud that matches his conformation. He has a thick double coat, thick otter tail that is also the correct length, his angles were/are really nice (currently stands on three legs due to accident), and his head is broad, chiseled, squared muzzle, and correct ears in thickness and length, positioned well and his eyes and expression meet the standard as written as well. Well sprung ribs, deep broad chest, short coupled loin/back, and correct height for a male. His temperament is good and health wise I couldn't ask for a better dog. I wish I had bought him as a pup instead of as a 2 1/2 yr old, and had sent him off for training instead of making him my go to gun dog, he would have had more "prestigious" titles instead of the HRC Started title that he holds which we did when he was 5 yrs old. Al is going to be 10 yrs old in Feb.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Do you think that even back in the age of founding the breed, that opinions differed on what a proper retriever should look like?


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

No doubt there was confusions in there early years between the breeds and varieties of the Newfoundland dogs. Fortunately, here is the "Larger Newfoundland," from the same text for comparison, 1859. 







The Labrador today can carry the "long hair gene" which you can even have DNA tested to see if it there. The Flat-coat originally was likely nothing more than a longer haired lesser St. John's dog (later crossed with setters etc..). The tail...we have all seen much worse curls in some of the finest field bred Labradors. 

The biggest problem with looking at and talking about the original stock from whence came the Labrador is that from all accounts, it is a very diverse population of dogs with a wide range of varying characteristics. There was not one consistent "type" but rather two broad general categories, Big ("Larger") and Small ("Lesser"), which were later separated into "Breeds." Within each of those two categories there was a lot of variation in coat, tail, weight, height, temperament, intelligence, strength, head, color, etc... What we have today are standardized breeds based on what those that developed the breed liked for their own purposes. In the case of the Labrador, the Britts and Scotts utilized the traits they liked from the Lesser St. John's Dogs and then bred in and out traits they wanted or disliked, respectively, to meet their ideals. The idea that the "original Labrador" from the shores of Newfoundland is the same as the Labrador today, or even of the early 1900's is foolhardy. So, to answer the OP question, a Labrador is supposed to look like a Labrador. As easy as that sounds, it is overly simplistic. We have a breed standard (now loosely based on the original one from the UK (that is being generous)), but we have just as wide...if not a wider variance in Labradors today than was present in the early 1900's and possibly even greater than what the St. John's Dog itself had before imported and turned into the Labrador breed. If anyone wants to claim that the Lab is the same as the St. John's dog, then they ought to embrace any and all variable characteristics that present themselves in the genepool...as long as the animal is not too "Large." ;-)


----------



## RJW (Jan 8, 2012)

Angie B said:


> Only when my bitch is a carrier for the same disease... If she was clear I would use Alley all day long..
> 
> An awesome dog!!
> 
> Angie


People that know me give me fits for being one of Ali's biggest stalkers. But anyway, if you could indeed breed to Ali, is that the little black girl you have that we have talked about in the past? IF so, that would/should be an awesome litter if it could have happened. I also agree, Ali is really something on all levels. Has he been able to pass his great looks on in his offspring?


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

Great posts Ironman and Swack, very interesting.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Ironman said:


> No doubt there was confusions in there early years between the breeds and varieties of the Newfoundland dogs. Fortunately, here is the "Larger Newfoundland," from the same text for comparison, 1859.
> View attachment 10164
> 
> The Labrador today can carry the "long hair gene" which you can even have DNA tested to see if it there. The Flat-coat originally was likely nothing more than a longer haired lesser St. John's dog (later crossed with setters etc..). The tail...we have all seen much worse curls in some of the finest field bred Labradors.
> ...



Ironman,

To suggest that the only significant difference between "Lesser Newfoundlands" and "Greater Newfoundlands" was the matter of size is a gross misunderstanding of the canine situation in Newfoundland IMHO.They were not variations of the same dog. They had very different roles that required a different animal. In the book _The Labrador Retriever, the History . . . the People . . . Revisited_ Richard Wolters makes a very good argument that the smaller waterdog version would have been needed earlier and that the larger version would have been developed latter as a draught animal as the population of settlers grew and resources (mainly wood for fuel and construction) needed to be hauled from farther inland.

I also disagree with your assertion that there was a lot of diversity in the population of waterdogs on Newfoundland. They were bred for a specific job in an isolated region over a period of about 300 years. The best type of animal for the job wasn't left for dog show or field trial judges to decide. The proof was in the pudding. The watermen relied on their dogs for their livelihood. The dog's worth was based on fish in the dory and game on the table. Resources were scarce, inferior dogs didn't hang around long. The best were bred to the best for 100 dog generations. Form followed function. A type would have been established just as it has been for countless breeds of working dogs in similar circumstances. IMO that type is exemplified in the photographs of Nell and Avon and described in the quotes I shared with you earlier from Col. Hawker and the 3rd Earl of Malmesbury.

The greatest degree of diversity in the early Labrador genepool came once the dog was returned to Great Britain which in the 19th century was experiencing a great enthusiasm for dog breeding. There was an influx of different breeds of dogs from across the British Empire and much diversity to muddle the waterdog's genepool. A retriever in that day and age was a dog that would retrieve. There was little effort to keep bloodlines distinct until much later. So, as you have stated, it is foolhardy to believe that today's Lab is the same as the "original Labrador" that was developed on the shores of Newfoundland. And I believe it is just as foolhardy to suggest that if a trait such as long hair or curled tails or a tall lanky dog occur in today's Lab it is just a variation of the original Lab. It is more likely that those variations are due to the muddling of those who have introduced genes from other bloodlines into the now very diverse Labrador genepool.

Swack


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Take your pick:

“Almost everybody has heard of the Newfoundland Dogs. I myself was desired to procure some of them and when I set out, for the country firmly believed that I should meet with a sort of dogs different from any I had seen, whose particular excellence was taking the water freely. I was therefore the more surprised when told that there was no distinct breed. Those I met were mostly curs with a cross of the mastiff in them some took to water well; others not at all."
_The Niger Diary of Joseph Banks 1766_

“In Newfoundland the dogs are commonly their own caretakers.”
_Aaron Thomas Journal 1795_

Description of "Sailor," shipwrecked St' John's dog, believed to be in part the foundation of the Chesapeake breed (1807).
"he was of fine size and figure— lofty in his carriage, and built for strength and activity; remarkably muscular and broad across the hips and breast; head large, but not out of proportion; muzzle rather longer than is common with that race of dogs; his colour a dingy red, with some white on the face and breast; his coat short and smooth, but uncommonly thick, and more like a coarse fur than hair; tail full, with long hair, and always carried very high."

Cormack's 1822 description of a short-haired dog being preferred over the long-haired kind is a good example of how inference leads to error. In this case there is no mention of size or purpose other than both the short and long-haired varieties can retrieve from water. It would be just as correct to say that one was a long haired St Johns Dog and one was a short haired St John's Dog as it would be to say one was a Lesser Newfoundland (Lab) and one was a Greater Newfoundland (Newf).

"There are several varieties of the Newfoundland Dog which differ in size, character of fur, and marking."
_History of the British Quadrupeds 1837 _

"Newfoundland is one of the worst places in the world for getting a good, or at least good-looking Newfoundland dog. In St.John’s and its neighborhood they are the most ill-looking set of mongrels that can be conceived. In the more distant ports however, the breed is better preserved. A thin, short-haired black dog belonging to George Harvey came off to us today. This animal was of a breed different from what we understand by the term Newfoundland in England. He had a thin tapering snout, a long thin tail, and a rather thin but powerful legs, with a lank body, the hair short and smooth. These are the most abundant dogs of the country, the long-haired curly dogs being comparatively rare. They are by no means handsome, but are generally more intelligent and useful that the others.
_Excursions in and about Newfoundland 1839_

"During winter, for want of horses, dogs are used for the purpose of conveying all sorts of produce to and from the bays, as well as for pleasure. Some are trained as retrievers, watch, house, and water dogs. Still they are all of the same breed. The retriever is well known in England, but I fancy the duty of the Labrador watch-dog is little if at all understood…The dogs sent to England, with rough shaggy coats, are useless on the coast; the true-bred and serviceable dog having smooth, short hair, very close and compact to the body. I sent to England a fine specimen of these, but unfortunately the vessel which bore it had the misfortune to be wrecked on the north coast of Ireland, and all hands were lost."
_De Boilieu, Recollections of Labrador Life 1861_

"A nearly parallel case is offer by the Newfoundland dog, which was certainly brought into England from that country, but which has since been so much modified that, as several writers have observed, it does not now closely resemble any existing native dog in Newfoundland."
_The Variation of Animals and plants under Domestication Darwin 1868_

"There is the smooth-coated dog of the same family, and as useful an adept. The flat and shaggy, and the smooth-coated—I mean as short in the hair as a Mastiff—are sometimes found in one litter, and one of the best I ever saw was thus bred from Mr. Drax’s keeper’s old “Dinah” (imported), the father being also…”
_The Dog 1872_

"The usual teams of Shaggy and Mongrel dogs were lying about and set up a terrific howl. Every House had at least 7 or 8 dogs, some with well over 20 attached to them." 
_Ecclesiastical History Of Newfoundland 1888_

The pedigrees of the Dogs Malmesbury gifted to Buccleuch (1894) had only one ancestor even called “Labrador,” the others were called “Newfoundland,” “Smooth-coated,” Long-coated Newfoundland,” and “Straight-coated.” Malmsbury is the one that said he kept his as “pure” as he could from the first he had imported. If they were pure, they were certainly of a differing enough type that they each merited their own descriptive type name.

From Directory of Shooting (Thornhill 1804) to Book of the Dog (1881), “the writer finds no mention of a Labrador breed showing any resemblance of the present bearer of the name. The name Labrador is sometimes recorded as a synonym for the small Newfoundland or St. John’s Dog, but the accounts and illustrations of this dog show no trace of relationship to the Labrador as we now know him.”
_History of Retrievers Eley 1921_


Swack, I am not saying that there were not possibly some St. John’s Dogs that looked and acted somewhat similar to today’s Labrador, there apparently were a few that were close. However, the historic evidence indicates that there was dramatic variance in the gene pool of the Dogs of Newfoundland that we claim as progenitors to the the Lab. *So much so that for centuries there was not a consistent naming convention to describe the differing types and when the names were used, they often mixed them and reversed them.* Indicative of a breed(s) with great variations. No doubt the gene pool of the dogs on Newfoundland was regularly mixed, at least within locality. Unless one is to assume that one type would not breed with another out of race or ethnic distinctions, especially when, for at least part of the year, these dogs were left to care for themselves and were known to be kept in large groups.... 


It is too easy in Labrador history to say X was a fact and Z was not. We know too little of a breed that is now extinct and unavailable for study to speak with full conciseness. The histories we have act as a guide, but one should take care not to limit one’s perspective to fit only with their bias. Until time travel is invented, this debate will not end. Some will say the population was very diverse and dramatically different than today’s Labs, others will claim that Today’s Labs could be directly interchangeable with the St. John’s Dog, never missing a beat. Both are right…both are wrong, each has historical reference and accompanying dialog that can support one claim and refute another.

Following the Breed standards, there are four key features that are diagnostic of the breed. Head, Tail, Coat, and Temperament. Each Form is inseparably tied to a Function making this the greatest retriever the world has ever known. So, a Labrador is supposed to look like a Labrador...cover the 4 bases and you have it. The rest is icing on the cake and we all like our icing in our own way. That is part of the allure of the breed, it can take so many widely differing embodiments and still be a Labrador and look like a Labrador.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Ironman,

Thanks for the exhaustive research on the progenitors of the modern Labrador retriever. I appreciate your thoroughness and thoughtful commentary. The history of the development of the St. John’s waterdog on Newfoundland and the Labrador retriever in Great Britain are a passion of mine. It’s nice to converse with someone who shares this passion!

You started your last post by asking me to "Take my pick", so I will. Here goes!


_De Boilieu, Recollections of Labrador Life 1861__
"The dogs sent to England, with rough shaggy coats, are useless on the coast; *the true-bred and serviceable dog having smooth, short hair, very close and compact to the body."
*
_This quote seems to indicate that there is a marked difference between the two types. He even goes so far as to state *"*_*the true-bred and serviceable dog", *_as if to say there are those that ARE NOT true bred.


_"There is the smooth-coated dog of the same family, and as useful an adept. The flat and shaggy, and the smooth-coated—I mean as short in the hair as a Mastiff—are sometimes found in one litter, and one of the best I ever saw was thus bred from Mr. Drax’s keeper’s old “Dinah” (imported), the father being also…”__
The Dog 1872

_This is a later quote from Great Britain which only confirms the dilution of St. John's waterdog genes once they arrived in England, in my opinion.


_"Newfoundland is one of the worst places in the world for getting a good, or at least good-looking Newfoundland dog. In St. John’s and its neighborhood they are the most ill-looking set of mongrels that can be conceived. _*In the more distant ports however, the breed is better preserved. *_A thin, short-haired black dog belonging to George Harvey came off to us today. _*This animal was of a breed different from what we understand by the term Newfoundland in England.*_ He had a thin tapering snout, a long thin tail, and a rather thin but powerful legs, with a lank body, the hair short and smooth. _*These are the most abundant dogs of the country, the long-haired curly dogs being comparatively rare. *_They are by no means handsome, but are generally more intelligent and useful than the others.__
Excursions in and about Newfoundland 1839

_This statement supports my contention that the true waterdog type was found in more isolated areas of Newfoundland and that those describing dogs in and around the population centers would not have been talking about the same animal. He also confirms that there is a difference between what most Englishmen called a Newfoundland and the waterdog which is a completely different type of dog, not a different size dog of the same type._

_

I think one of the greatest obstacles to learning the truth on this subject from historical writings is the inconsistent usage of the names attached to the variations of the dogs found on Newfoundland (Greater or Lesser Newfoundland, and Labrador). You have concluded that this is evidence of the great variation in the type of dog found on Newfoundland. I believe it is due to a lack of knowledge (ignorance) on the part of the authors and a lack of consistency in terminology to describe dogs of different type. Therefore, it is impossible for one to know whether the author is describing the waterdog or the draught animal. 

I also contend that quotes from authors speaking of dogs from Great Britain after the early 1800's may simply be commentary on the results from interbreeding with animals on the British isles, not an evaluation of the waterdog as he occurred on Newfoundland. In fact, commentary from Newfoundland after the early 1800's, especially around the urban area of St. John's, is likely misleading as well. The true variety of water dog would likely have been sequestered in isolated coastal areas where they served their masters. After the early 1800's the advent of the barbed fishing hook along with other changes in the fishing industry caused the St. John's dog to become much less useful to the fishermen and so I fear that the driving force for the continued development and preservation of the St. John’s waterdog was lost. Also, the increasing population on Newfoundland following the early 1800’s brought more canine diversity to dilute the type which had been so useful for the past 300+ years.

For clarification, the point which I have attempted to make is definitely NOT that the St. John's waterdog (as I prefer to call him) would look like most current day Labrador retrievers. However, I do believe that the original Labrador standard attempted to describe the best traits of the dog that was developed on Newfoundland from 1500 - 1800 to assist English fishermen.

I agree that there is no way to know for certain what the St. John's waterdog was really like in the years before he came back to England. There is no photographic record from that time and place and very little written record, which as we've seen can be confusing at times. If you get that time machine perfected let me know. I'd like to hitch a ride with you to the Avalon peninsula of Newfoundland in about 1800 to shop for a few good waterdogs!

Swack


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

You did a great job of demonstrating the point, by Cherry Picking.


> De Boilieu clearly stated that these diverse dogs were of the same breed. What he considered representative or "true" in his opinion was indeed the "dog having smooth, short hair, very close and compact to the body." That does not eliminate the clear statement about the long hair-variety being the same breed.
> 
> 
> _"There is the smooth-coated dog of the same family, and as useful an adept. The flat and shaggy, and the smooth-coated—I mean as short in the hair as a Mastiff—are sometimes found in one litter, and one of the best I ever saw was thus bred from Mr. Drax’s keeper’s old “Dinah” (imported), the father being also…”
> ...


I am not saying that there were not a few St.John's Dogs in obscure areas that were very similar to some of today's Labradors in Type. Considering the diverse population, there likely were...but there were apparently many many more of widely varying characteristics within the same "breed": lanky, stout, small, large, short-coated, long-coated, otter tail, feathered tail, curled tail, straight tail, broad head, narrow head, light eye, dark eye, whole colored, brindled, thick coated, thin coated, etc, etc, etc, etc...

I'll let you know on the time machine. Should be a wild ride.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Ironman,

The fact that the quote from _The Dog 1872_ refers to imports from Newfoundland doesn't disprove my contention at all. I've already discussed the issues of foreign dogs into Newfoundland after 1800. Also a factor was the changes in the fishing industry long before 1872 which reduced the need for a waterdog's services. Additionally, in 1780 Governor Edwards of Newfoundland passed a law limiting the ownership of dogs to one per household in an effort to encourage sheep raising. (I might have to change the date for our time travel to 1750!) These factors would have had a devastating effect on the waterdog population and its purity. The DeBoilieu quote is also from the late date of 1861, long after these factors have affected the waterdog population.

The problem seems to be that all written accounts come late in the game from the standpoint of the St. Johns waterdog's prime years and the terminology used to denote the dogs is unclear. Also, the waterdogs were likely never in abundance outside of the small groups of fishermen in remote areas.

I believe that the true St. John's waterdogs would not have been a diverse lot of dogs. By virtue of his task there would have been some consistency of type. This is true in many remote areas where a dog breed was developed to perform a task. The waterdog would have been a stocky dog rather than lean and lanky because a stocky dog has a lower ratio of surface area to volume, thus making him less prone to heat loss. Compare an Arctic Fox to a Desert Fox. Nature made those selections. The fishermen would have observed which dogs could withstand the frigid waters of the North Atlantic best and would have unwittingly made similar selections. The same goes for a close waterproof outer coat and a dense undercoat. Size would have been regulated by their task as well; big enough to do the job, but not too large to haul in the dory. If these selections are made for a period of 300 years (about 100 dog generations) there would be a trend toward a uniform type. 

I believe the diversity you find comes from influences outside of this closed system at a time when the system itself was likely in decline. No doubt some of this "diversity" came to England and had to be sorted out of the Labrador genepool over several decades of selective breeding, but I believe the St. John's waterdog genepool would have been purer at the source during the mid-1700's than it was in later years (after 1800) in other locations (anywhere outside of the small fishing village).

I think we may have to agree to disagree. There is no way for either of us to prove our point is the correct one (without your time machine). However, I have enjoyed our discussion. I have a picture in my mind's eye of what a proper Labrador retriever should look like and a good idea how I believe he should act. I can't put it all into a post. If I ever get my book written I might be able to give you an idea of my ideal. Each of us may have their own ideal depending on our goals. I'd like to produce Labs that are great companions and superb hunting dogs who are easy to train for the average person. I'd also like them to resemble my ideal in terms of conformation. It's way to late to "preserve" the St. John's waterdog. He's been gone almost before he got to England. However, if I can get a bit of Nell and Avon's type into my Labs I'd be happy!

Swack


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Damn these marathon retorts. Get each other's number or something.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Damn these marathon retorts. Get each other's number or something.


Jacob,

Sorry if we overloaded your circuits! I know you'd have to be interested in the topic to persevere. Please excuse our exuberance!

Swack


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Bump up, back to the top!


----------



## Mark Teahan (Apr 1, 2012)

Sad but true.
When alot of people see my trap, they ask if he is a purebred, or ask what he is mixed with.
They have only seen the short nosed, boxy head, short legged labs.
I have to explain to them about the difference between a show dog, and a real working field line dog.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

david gibson said:


> maybe its just me, but i see these dogs as in the middle, some from each side. i think the fields have gone thinner and more athletic that these examples and the show piggier. the difference is the show end did it deliberately, and the field line did it accidentally while focusing mostly on performance.
> 
> equal blame regards....


You have to consider that many of today's (& yesterday's) field champions are & were in top shape for field work. Those very dogs with a little more weight would look virtually the same as those shown in the OP's pictures. The structure really hasn't changed but the lean conditioning required for success in today's field trials gives a thinner look. But in contrast, today's bench champs are shorter (most don't even meet the height std) that can hardly run & they have a greatly exaggerated block head (almost Rottweiler-like). But the result of today's bench "look" is that the dual champs, even the bench champs through the early 50s, would NOT be given any consideration today.

For those focused with the stock from which our Labrador came, it's really not relevant. The American Labrador stock was really not stable until the early 1900s - and it uniformly focused first upon the work to be done, i.e., form follows function. Once stable the breeding stock of the American Lab looked and looks very much like many of today's field champions. When some enthusiasts began to focus solely on the "look" of the breed is when it became, gradually OK to eliminate the physical traits required for field success. The same progression & separation of the breed that had occurred independently in England/UK & preceded the American split just served to accelerate the American separation with the use & acceptance of the English "look" as the primary breeding stock of American bench enthusiasts beginning in the 50s. And most importantly, this split or "look" focus, and particularly the exaggerated English look that was becoming prevalent, precluded the American Lab as it existed in the field from competing on the bench. Hence, the split was confirmed.


----------



## JJaxon (Nov 1, 2009)

Great thread, and most impressed with the select specimen, a Black lab. By far the superior of all colors, that's why I joined the BLHC.


----------



## gaustin (Apr 7, 2013)

*"I clicked on this thread thinking I was going to see a bunch of labs with ducks in their mouths, Anyway, This is what I think a lab should look like" :smile:

*I thought the same thing .....Great Pictures by the way and I do agree with last part of the quote ........Here is one of my favorites for sure ;-)


----------



## blackasmollases (Mar 26, 2012)

gaustin said:


> *"I clicked on this thread thinking I was going to see a bunch of labs with ducks in their mouths, Anyway, This is what I think a lab should look like" :smile:
> 
> *I thought the same thing .....Great Pictures by the way and I do agree with last part of the quote ........Here is one of my favorites for sure ;-)
> 
> ...


Wow nice picture. I happen to have that same one on my camera  Then again I did share it online.


----------



## gaustin (Apr 7, 2013)

Got that picture emailed to me, the KVHRC Spring Hunt Test was my first test. Didn't run a dog but worked as a gunner for the Started Dogs. Had the best seat in the house for the day ......Great Job on that "Shot of the Day"

Gregg Austin


----------



## blackasmollases (Mar 26, 2012)

gaustin said:


> Got that picture emailed to me, the KVHRC Spring Hunt Test was my first test. Didn't run a dog but worked as a gunner for the Started Dogs. Had the best seat in the house for the day ......Great Job on that "Shot of the Day"
> 
> Gregg Austin





Great job shooting, you didn't miss all day. That was a lucky shot of Laila. Thanks for working the test. We got our SHR that weekend.


----------



## RJW (Jan 8, 2012)

gaustin said:


> *"I clicked on this thread thinking I was going to see a bunch of labs with ducks in their mouths, Anyway, This is what I think a lab should look like" :smile:
> 
> *I thought the same thing .....Great Pictures by the way and I do agree with last part of the quote ........Here is one of my favorites for sure ;-)





She was sure fun to watch and at only 4 months old!! I got that pic as well emailed to me. In my opinion she stole the show that weekend.

Great pic, blackasmollases as well as the other ones you got of my dog. Thanks for the pics and congrats on the SHR for you and Strap. You may have a future in photography.......lol.


----------

