# show labs vs field labs



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Ok, so I just want to get some opinions. How many serious hunters and competitors would really buy a dog if they had some show lines in them? How important is it really to a field competitor to stay within the AKC guidelines for the breed standard? Do you care what your dog looks like if it is extemely talented? Thought it would be a good discussion topic.


----------



## duxbac (Apr 22, 2009)

My dog is from show lines on the bottom side of the pedigree. Not sure I would have bought him if I knew what I was doing, but I have no doubt he will be a grand dog. He went out on day 4 on points in our first attempt. Lots of drive from his sire and a nice square head from his mother's side. 
My first was from straight show lines, and while a nice pet, was a slug in the duck blind.
IMHO a dog from field lines is the way to go for hunt tests and field trials. The issue becomes channeling all that drive.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I want talent and good health.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

All though I am not looking for a dog that would win in a show ring, I do have a preference to how my dog should look. I have seen some talented labs that I would not necessarily care to own. Fortunately there are enough talented labs of a variety of looks to satisfy just about everyone. That said I put more emphasis on a performance pedigree and then look at the parents, then roll the dice.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

mccoylabradors said:


> How important is it really to a field competitor to stay within the AKC guidelines for the breed standard?


It is show people who have strayed from the AKC breed standard. This is empirically proveable by looking at the book on the breed's conformation written in the mid-1930s by Jay Carlisle and Dave Eliot, when the breed's form still matched its function.

I'll be posting pics tomorrow.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> I'll be posting pics tomorrow.


Can't wait!!


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

mccoylabradors said:


> Ok, so I just want to get some opinions. How many serious hunters and competitors would really buy a dog if they had some show lines in them?
> *Within 3 generations, I wouldn't even consider buying a puppy with show lines. I'm looking for as many field titles in a pedigree and a CH brings nothing to the table for field events.*
> 
> How important is it really to a field competitor to stay within the AKC guidelines for the breed standard?
> ...


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm torn. 

For myself, I almost exclusively care about performance. The pedigree needs to show driven, biddable, birdy labs on both sides. Then I take a gander at the pictures of sire and dam. If they are not butt-ugly, I'm probably putting down my deposit.

But:

I'm concerned for the HT/FT sport. Are we too off-putting to conformation people? Will their dogs EVER be anything but pigs if we don't encourage breeders to put value on what the dogs DO rather than how they look?

Should we be putting on more WC events and getting more of them to put JH's on their dogs? I'm assuming these folks are competitive. If we convinced them our "game" is important, wouldn't they want to win occasionally? 

Geese... wouldn't they at least drop their dogs' weights by about 15%?

I don't know. I'm just wondering if we are doing everything we can to facilitate some level of cooperation between the two communities... before it's too late.

Yeah, and magic unicorns will float down from the sky and sprinkle happy dust all over the AKC facility in Raleigh. 

But, I'm just saying...


----------



## waterdogutah (Jan 20, 2010)

You have a shot at whatever you like, if you look long enough. Talent and looks. But what looks good to me might not look good to others.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I like a good looking dog that can perform. They do exist, but they are getting hard to find. 

I look for mainly a performance dog, but hunting season lasts only a few months. I don't want to look at or feed an ugly dog the rest of the time.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

mccoylabradors said:


> Ok, so I just want to get some opinions. How many serious hunters and competitors would really buy a dog if they had some show lines in them? *How important is it really to a field competitor to stay within the AKC guidelines for the breed standard?* Do you care what your dog looks like if it is extemely talented? Thought it would be a good discussion topic.


Many show Labs are not within the conformation std, too short, too heavy and lack high level retrieving desire. Serious hunters want a tractable dog with high desire to retrieve in tough conditions. It takes a dog with a good coat which most show Labs have and lots of desire, which most show Labs lack. I've known some show Labs with adequate desire and who liked to hunt/retrieve but I believe they are the exceptions. I'd want a good dose of field breeding for a hunting dog - and I'd have no particular interest in the breed std if hunting was the primary objective.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I guess it's time to dredge up an old post of mine from back in 2007:



Buzz said:


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


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

1tulip said:


> I don't know. I'm just wondering if we are doing everything we can to facilitate some level of cooperation between the two communities... before it's too late.


My feeling the Lab field and the show crowd are today for most purposes, two separate communities. Between the HT and show folks their still is a little cross-over, mainly at the JH level. Between FT and show they are in separate solar systems. And the differences between them is like two runners running in opposite directions. Your average show person hasn't seen a FT and could care less. Your average FT person hasn't seen a show event and could care less. I just don't see the show and field people have anything in common anymore, esp. at the FT level. Is that good. I don't think so. Is that bad? I don't think so. Just the way it is. I see anyone trying to reconcile Lab show and field lines is swimming against the tide.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Thanks Buzz. Well worth the read.


----------



## hillsidegoldens (Mar 28, 2009)

I not big on labs but my golden from show\pet type line does fair to better than fair for hunting and he was limited by me. But it sure would be nice to have more go than I got. Would make training easier and hunting even better.


----------



## M&K's Retrievers (May 31, 2009)

Last December we were running several dogs at a AKC Hunt Test. In addition to 2 Senior and 1 Master dogs, we had 4 Junior dogs entered. We couldn't help but notice that there were several Junior dogs entered that were obviously show dogs - shorter and stockier build, show titled, not much drive, 3 years old and older. None passed. In fact, several would not even enter the water. I asked a couple of trainers there why -other than fun- these dogs were entered and was told that they were trying to get hunting and show titles on these dogs for breeding purposes. I hope that's not the case.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

M&K's Retrievers said:


> Last December we were running several dogs at a AKC Hunt Test. In addition to 2 Senior and 1 Master dogs, we had 4 Junior dogs entered. We couldn't help but notice that there were several Junior dogs entered that were obviously show dogs - shorter and stockier build, show titled, not much drive, *3 years old and older. None passed. In fact, several would not even enter the water. I asked a couple of trainers there why -other than fun- these dogs were entered and was told that they were trying to get hunting and show titles on these dogs for breeding purposes. I hope that's not the case*.


They were not BSing you. Unfortunately that is the case. As I have said many times before. The show lines and field lines are on divergent paths. And today they for the most part cross paths mostly at the lower levels in field events.


----------



## jen (Jun 2, 2005)

I have a friend who just purchased a Lab from a kennel in Canada (conformation kennel ) who paid $2500 for the puppy! I was shocked at the price when there are just so many Labs being bred. Is this typical for a conformation Labrador puppy??? I looked on here just to compare prices for a nice breeding of working Labs (mine is 5 years old so it's been a while since I bought him- he is out of a MH QAA bitch and Ford and to the best of my memory he was $900) and there were several nice litters listed for $900-1500. I guess I was just a bit surprised. Another friend asked if she intended on breeding her someday and how much she might sell the puppies for and she replied- "Oh, you don't even want to know- probably somewhere in the range of $2500-3000"! Seems kind of crazy to me! Guess it's none of my business though!


----------



## M&K's Retrievers (May 31, 2009)

Losthwy said:


> They were not BSing you. Unfortunately that is the case. As I have said many times before. The show lines and field lines are on divergent paths. And today they for the most part cross paths mostly at the lower levels in field events.


That blows


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

I guess the reason why I am asking is that I have been thinking about breeding about 3/4 field titled lines and the other 1/4 show champs to keep the nicer look to my dogs. Currently all of my dogs are strictly field bred (with the exception of one great great grandmother that is a CH in my chocolate girls pedigree). I don't want to make my dogs undesireable to a serious field competiter. I would rather raise dogs who can perform than ones who look like a lab/pitt cross thats over weight!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I'd have to ask everyone to explain what they call "Show Lines". Those dogs w/ "only" the CH in front of the names-- and rarely a working title behind? Or are you like my neighbor (big time Husky show breeder) who calls mine "field" dogs--only because they have some working titles too?  I'll fully admit, I love a blended line but it's tough sometimes to find the right dogs/lines to breed to. 

I do get a kick out of this topic, especially since I've met a few RTFers at hunt tests and they seem genuinely complimentary (either that or you are a bunch of sorry liars, lol!). There was not a ONE at the SSHRC test last fallr who would have dared say that my 9 mo youngster running lacked any drive or enthusiasm.  And I think she's quite nice looking too. Won't make it in the show ring probably but the fun we're having in obed and hrt work far makes up for that.  Anne


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

I think we are seeing a drifting out to the extremes for each the FT and Show. They each have impolite names for each other like mentioned here; pigs, lab/pit or curly tailed greyhounds. 

I personally enjoy the breed’s temperament, loyalty and hunting qualities.

I own and train one from each side of the fence and prefer the middle of the road lab

Also, we should put health in front of all other requirements.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

a good looking dog is a good looking dog....no matter what lines it comes from


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

I will not bite into this thread; I will not bite into this thread; I will not bite into this thread; opps, I guess I just did. I will not give an opinion, I will not give an opinion?opps, I guess I just did!
________
Chevrolet s-10 blazer


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

I really respect what some folks like Anne are doing with "blended" lines and I think there is a market for what I call "tweeners". If there wasn't, folks like Mary Howley wouldn't be breeding them. Of course the market isn't FT people or really even high-level hunt test people, but those folks who want family pet/gundog/hunt test dogs that look nice, are healthy and have enough getup and talent to do the job and pretty heads, good coats and lab tails.
I've considered breeding a nice looking field bred bitch to a CH/MH who is out of two CH/MH dogs, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to market them to the right kind of homes.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

We were fortunate to have CH Broad Reach Gripper UD MH. 
I can say without hesitation she had all of the drive needed for hunting and hunt tests.

There are still a few (very few) breeders who strive for correct conformation as well as high achievements in performance. Among the small number of CH MH dogs, there are some really good ones.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Hi

I Have Field Labs. I am thinking of showing my new pup in the show ring. In the winter it gets hard to train for field events here in MI. If She does well in the show ring, I would consider that a bonus to her field work.

I know she will look different than the show labs, but that may be ok with some judges.
Regards
Jeff
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## trippadoo (Sep 8, 2009)

I am always aggravated by this topic. How any legitimate breeder would breed dogs out of standard, which is against the charter of both the National Labrador Retriever Club and the AKC rules, is beyond my scope of comprehension. 

The Lab Club should be working on legitmizing the breed, instead of turning their heads at a real problem. People are breeding out of standard dogs for the sake of performance, rather than breeding dogs for performance and standard. It makes no sense..................................................

If the field folks want a seperate breed, they should call them labradoodles or something, and get the AKC to accept them as a breed, as by Standard, they aren't labs. 

I didn't create this mess, the breeders, National Club, and AKC helped create this mess. I'm just stating the obvious, which most "Lab People" seem to be in denial over.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

trippadoo said:


> I am always aggravated by this topic. How any legitimate breeder would breed dogs out of standard, which is against the charter of both the National Labrador Retriever Club and the AKC rules, is beyond my scope of comprehension.
> 
> The Lab Club should be working on legitmizing the breed, instead of turning their heads at a real problem. People are breeding out of standard dogs for the sake of performance, rather than breeding dogs for performance and standard. It makes no sense..................................................
> 
> ...


Um, have you read the standard and looked at a lot of pure show dogs lately? Or judged any that don't want to get wet? 

Cuts both ways regards!


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

ReedCreek said:


> I will not bite into this thread; I will not bite into this thread; I will not bite into this thread; opps, I guess I just did. I will not give an opinion, I will not give an opinion…opps, I guess I just did!


lol! there are quite a few very reputable breeders, several here in RTF including ReedCreek, that are dedicated to the dual purpose labs and they are doing a great job of it. 

keep up the good work! i am very pleased with my dual purpose.


----------



## Rosemary Westling (Jun 13, 2006)

It is so beautiful to watch a field dog take off for a mark. The initial momentum of hind legs pushing under body and then stretching full out in the run. I could watch that all day long.

On the other hand. Nothing is more tedious and excruciatingly painful to watch than a dog with no drive, desire or brains waddle out to a mark.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

From the AKC website accompanying the verbal breed standard...


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Rosemary Westling said:


> It is so beautiful to watch a field dog take off for a mark. The initial momentum of hind legs pushing under body and then stretching full out in the run. I could watch that all day long.
> 
> On the other hand. Nothing is more tedious and excruciatingly painful to watch than a dog with no drive, desire or brains waddle out to a mark.



I agree. I see dogs with HT titles who can't get out of their own way. Also many are not built for the job.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> How any legitimate breeder would breed dogs out of standard, which is against the charter of both the National Labrador Retriever Club and the AKC rules, is beyond my scope of comprehension.


The standard is ignored by the bench people just as much as the field. A beautiful Lab is one who exhibits desire and stamina in the field.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Sean H said:


> From the AKC website accompanying the verbal breed standard...


that low sloping hind end with short legs looks like what they do with some german shepherds....looks very unfunctional


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

There is a dog that is not too far from you that would do just that for you. Can. Ch. AFTCH Makaila's Telkwa Teit MH CD is in Vancouver BC. He is black and carries yellow and has all of his clearances. However, I would not suggest breeding a small bitch to him as he seems to throw some small pups. I have a 10-month-old pup over at Danny's place now that they seem to like. He has plenty of drive, wants to do the right thing and, when it comes to pressure, he is hard as nails. He has a water entry that is second to none. As a pup we couldn't keep him out of the water bucket. 

Teit is show-bred on the top side and field-bred on the bottom. Nolan Nelkenbrecher bought him as a pup for a hunting dog, his first Lab. He has his Canadian show championship, his amateur field trial championship, his master hunter and CD degree all amateur/owner trained and handled.



mccoylabradors said:


> I guess the reason why I am asking is that I have been thinking about breeding about 3/4 field titled lines and the other 1/4 show champs to keep the nicer look to my dogs. Currently all of my dogs are strictly field bred (with the exception of one great great grandmother that is a CH in my chocolate girls pedigree). I don't want to make my dogs undesireable to a serious field competiter. I would rather raise dogs who can perform than ones who look like a lab/pitt cross thats over weight!


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

trippadoo said:


> I am always aggravated by this topic. How any legitimate breeder would breed dogs out of standard, which is against the charter of both the National Labrador Retriever Club and the AKC rules, is beyond my scope of comprehension.
> 
> The Lab Club should be working on legitmizing the breed, instead of turning their heads at a real problem. People are breeding out of standard dogs for the sake of performance, rather than breeding dogs for performance and standard. It makes no sense..................................................
> 
> ...


Trippadoo,

I am confused. First, I compete more in field than show. But I have had two CHs, one CH/MH. Some of my dogs never competed. Have also had field bred labs. Both bring to the table different traits. Probably the most drive out of a dog I have had was a show bred lab (not the CH/MH.).

Re: Your statements. Both show and field people are at fault. Neither breeds for the true standard any more. Show want shorter stockier looking dogs and field what something very different. Take the ton of extra weight off a show dog and beneath all of that they don't look bad. Except for many overly large heads with short legs. Breeding to the correct show lines can give good to excellent field ability. I don't know how to fix the field dogs. It's not a slam but, many heads need a bit more width, many tails are not correct, many coats are not correct, and, opposite of the show people, please add some weight (many look anemic). Some place inbetween lies the true standard.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Personally, any CH title in a pedigree would disqualify it from consideration for me. I do not like the look of the show dogs. That is not to say that I don’t take looks into consideration because I do think that I will spend more time with and get more enjoyment out of a dog that I like to look at but what I like to look at is an athletic, moderately boned Labrador. Not all field bred dogs are attractive to me but none of the show dogs are.


----------



## trippadoo (Sep 8, 2009)

Last comment. Yes, there are legitimate dual purpose breeders, but the minority it seems. 

You can be in denial, and whine about the Standard, but it is what it is.

I commented to try to get "Lab people" thinking. Maybe it is time to do something about "your" breed and clean it up. Fortunately I have Flat-Coats, a breed in which dual purpose is stressed and thankfull we don't have the problems of a "split" breed. Contracts all state that FCR's must be Dual Titled to Breed. 

You can't argue the fact there is a problem, the breed has been split from a Standard that hasn't changed at all from the Original. The only thing that has changed is too many Field Breeders decided they don't agree with the Standard and started doing things their own way. If that is what you want, then like I said, do the right thing, go through the steps to introduce a "new breed". Fieldlabadoodles.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

trippadoo said:


> LFlat-Coats, a breed in which dual purpose is stressed and thankfull we don't have the problems of a "split" breed. Contracts all state that FCR's must be Dual Titled to Breed.
> 
> .


So I guess that explains why the Flatcoats, CurlyCoats, Goldens and Chessies, all look to be in working shape while being shown, compared to the Labs, who look to be 15 lbs overweight while being shown......But do not tell that to anyone who has touched the Westminster Champ. They will tell you that that "Fat" look is really all muscle.

In reality, I think this thread has answered (or confirmed) what everyone always thought. We buy a dog that suits our wants, and do not really care if it still conforms to the breed standard.

To the OP, I commend you doing what I believe is correct........breeding for the improvement of the breed (in my opinion, that is by trying as best as possible to get a Lab that meets the standard). I would highly recommend though, that if you do decide to mix lines, make sure you see the "show lab" in the field first. The reason I say this is because I was telling someone I know about a litter that has a CH/MH as the Sire. I saw some videos of the pups and I enjoyed watching the videos. I had no intention of buying one of the pups, but her first response was......Have you seen this dog run? It fought tooth and nail every bit of the way to get the MH on it, and in reality, this particular dog would not fit the "drive" requirement that we all want so badly.

Good luck. I really like your new website and I am glad that you are doing your research to try and produce the best litters that you can.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

trippadoo said:


> The only thing that has changed is too many Field Breeders decided they don't agree with the Standard and started doing things their own way.



I don't think that is really the case. Though more emphasis may have been placed on performance than looks, just as some show breeders have placed more emphasis on looks than on performance, which also distorts the standard. And even some of the current show labs are being shown outside some aspects of the standard to which they are supposed to be judged. 

This just isn't a lab thing, look at cockers, springers (may be even a bigger difference here between show and field), etc the more popular the breed becomes the greater the possibility of the split. FCR are only a popularity contest away...


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Zman1001 said:


> So I guess that explains why the Flatcoats, CurlyCoats, Goldens and Chessies, all look to be in working shape while being shown, compared to the Labs, who look to be 15 lbs overweight while being shown......But do not tell that to anyone who has touched the Westminster Champ. They will tell you that that "Fat" look is really all muscle.
> 
> In reality, I think this thread has answered (or confirmed) what everyone always thought. We buy a dog that suits our wants, and do not really care if it still conforms to the breed standard.
> 
> ...


I appreciate that! Thank you. I have found a breeder that has a very nice yellow CH/MH. He comes from three generations of CH/MH's. I am seriously thinking about breeding my yellow bitch to him and keeping a female or two. I just wanted to know what the average field person thinks. I want my dogs to be attractive, but I want them to be able to perform in the field. I personally like the look of a field dog with just a dash of show lines. The idea is to get the drive and ability without being gangley.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

looking at the picture you posted, which is taken directly from the AKC page dealing with breed standard.

the standard says the topline should be level, while the picture obviously shows a sloping topline.

i guess i just don't "get it"........their shining example doesn't comply with the standard.-Paul


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

When I look at a field bred dog I see form, function, strength, intelligence behind a determined stare and the desire to go through a brick wall if need be just to get that bird. When I see 99% of the show dogs running tests the first thing that comes to mind is "da dump de dump da dump de dump."


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

zeus3925 said:


> I like a good looking dog that can perform. They do exist, but they are getting hard to find.
> 
> I look for mainly a performance dog, but hunting season lasts only a few months. I don't want to look at or feed an ugly dog the rest of the time.


+1 
They do exist and I am grateful for that.


----------



## Joe Kuczynski (Jul 10, 2008)

I tell people who comment on my dog's good looks, " The best looking dogs are the ones coming back to you with the last bird of the trial in their mouth."


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

david gibson said:


> that low sloping hind end with short legs looks like what they do with some german shepherds....looks very unfunctional


That's my thing. Labs fall in the "Sporting" group, yet they're the only dogs I've seen in that group that form doesn't follow function. The other dogs in the group *look* like they can spend a day in the field with no problems. The labs on the other hand *look* like they would roll over with a heart attack & or stroke.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

It is kind of like looking for the ideal human body but rather then look at the Olympics or professional sports we look to beauty pagents. I never really understood the whole "standard" thing. Isn't it some abritrary "look" that was defined by a bunch of ladies 50 years ago. FT labs are the best athletes, best markers, best retrievers. Isn't that what should define the breed? I mean aren't they called Labrador RETRIEVERS not Labrador WALK AROUND THE RINGS.

P.S. Sorry but a 4 year old dog finally finishing it's JH after it's 10 try is not a functional dog in the field. I really think they should put some limits on JH either on attemps or age.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

paul young said:


> looking at the picture you posted, which is taken directly from the AKC page dealing with breed standard.
> 
> the standard says the topline should be level, while the picture obviously shows a sloping topline.
> 
> i guess i just don't "get it"........their shining example doesn't comply with the standard.-Paul


dont feel alone, i agree that is far from "level" topline. you dont get any sense of power coming from a hind section like that pic shows.


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> It is show people who have strayed from the AKC breed standard. This is empirically proveable by looking at the book on the breed's conformation written in the mid-1930s by Jay Carlisle and Dave Eliot, when the breed's form still matched its function.
> 
> I'll be posting pics tomorrow.


Is the conformation standards from the 1930's different than the one currently written by the AKC?


----------



## Maxs Mom (Sep 17, 2009)

I just went through a puppy (lab) search. I wanted a dog that looked like a LAB and had drive and performance ability. I am not sure I like either direction the show or (less issue) field dogs are going. 

In my area, there is a breeder who breeds good performance dogs. They do well in the field, dock jumping, agility etc. However the dogs do not look like labs. They are very slender, very short coat, almost GSP looking, they have LONG thin tails, bigger ears, and a slender head. To me they look "houndy". Their feet are TINY too. Not a look I wanted. However I did not want a "show" line either. 

I found one breeder later in my search whose dogs I LOVED the look of. Both my husband and I saw a pup from them run a water test and our mouths dropped open. The 'only' reason we went with another breeder was we were worried it could end up being "too" much dog for our interests. 

The breeder we chose breeds "tweeners". They take good conformation working dogs, and cross with field labs who are well structured. The sire has a ton of drive, does some hunt test stuff and has his UKC conformation championship. The mother is a working hunter, I don't know if she hunt tests or not she was not titled but as a result the price of the pups was lower. All I can say our pup has people turning their heads. She is 4 months now. She is not a typical field line dog, she has a ton of drive, very birdy, great work ethic, an off switch, and is the sweetest, cutest thing ever. Aren't they all. She is a little tank. I don't think she will be a "fat" dog, or have a ton of structure like the conformation dogs can have, but she is SOLID, even at this young age. I think she will have muscle galore. I am pleasantly pleased with the prospect we have. Time will tell how she turns out. I will post more pictures here when I have them. We are joining a couple hunt clubs so we can play with birds and see what we can do. Our primary interest is agility but we want to play with this when we can. 

Ann


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

In that AKC picture is it not possible the dog is quartering towards the camera, giving the allusion of a sloped back? Camara's can do strange things, as witnessed with David's awesome pictures! Also those hind legs are streached back a bit...


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

I'm like Patty and have been biting my tongue on this topic...it always comes around about once or twice a year.

Here is the introduction from the standard:

The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion. 
Physical features and mental characteristics should denote a dog bred to perform as an efficient Retriever of game with a stable temperament suitable for a variety of pursuits beyond the hunting environment. The most distinguishing characteristics of the Labrador Retriever are its short, dense, weather resistant coat; an "otter" tail; a clean-cut head with broad back skull and moderate stop; powerful jaws; and its "kind" friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament. 

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


All highlighting mine, but nowhere in there does it say anything about anything other than a retrieving gun dog. BOTH sides have problems, whether it is the show side with their big cloddy dogs or the field side with their weedy, greyhound looking dogs. What should a working gun dog be able to do? Is it realistic to expect your average working gun dog to be able to do the marks expected in Field Trials? Is it realistic to have a short legged/long legged out of proportion dog? No. 

I beleive in the middle of the road dog. I don't care for what either side has produced and prefer the moderate dogs. I want a dog that can retrieve game and one that fits to the standard. Otter tail IS in the standard, so is working ability. I'm an idealist and to me neither side is the ideal. We can go on an on about this and get nowhere.

The lab club needs to uphold some of the requirements it has. At least a WC or equivalent to call a dog a champion. I also think that on the other end of it, a field dog should pass a CC (conformation certificate) in order to be called a FC. What's good for the goose... There are plenty of field dogs that can pass a CC.

We have to remember that there are tons of generalizations out there...such as, all field dogs are hyper or all show dogs can't work. Until you work with either one personally, most don't have a clue. I work with lots of show dogs that make great gun dogs. I train with a trainer who has field dogs that aren't hyper and are easy to live with. There is a growing list of CH/MH out there and a lot of those earned their MH with only 4 or 5 passes, not the gobs that seems to be thought it took. Take a look here for dual or multiple titled dogs and there are some new CH/MH that are currently missing from that list: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/multi_titled_dogs.php

For reference: I do participate in hunt tests, currently at the Senior level, and conformation and obedience. I have been to field trials. I have moderate working dogs that have plenty of drive. Can you tell I don't have field dogs?  Though I was TRYING to be impartial!

The neverending argument....field vs. show..
Sue Puff


----------



## theeaterofshades (May 19, 2008)

Hookset said:


> I really respect what some folks like Anne are doing with "blended" lines and I think there is a market for what I call "tweeners". If there wasn't, folks like Mary Howley wouldn't be breeding them. Of course the market isn't FT people or really even high-level hunt test people, but those folks who want family pet/gundog/hunt test dogs that look nice, are healthy and have enough getup and talent to do the job and pretty heads, good coats and lab tails.


I agree. Some of us are looking for hunting partners/ family companions. My current Candlewoods puppy has CHs, AFC/FCs, NAFC/NFC, hunt test titles, and some assorted other titles. This has made for a very nice you pup that never wants to stop retrieving goose wings and bumpers for me. I been around dogs that were loaded with FT and were a little too "hot". 

I have had many misconceptions in the past such as: I have always had black labs, and I'd never want a yellow (Which is what I have now, and I love that yellow fuzzball), that if there are a bunch FT titles in the pedigree, he will be the perfect hunting dog, etc.

Ultimately when breeders do their homework like Mary Howley does with her breedings, a moderate lab can still be produced from a combination of lines. She has the resources to produce all sides of the spectrum from bench to field and in between. 

If you are considering doing a part show mostly field breeding I recommend speaking with someone that has been doing so successfully for tips to avoid potential pitfalls. just 2 cents from a consumer's point of view.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Byron Musick said:


> In that AKC picture is it not possible the dog is quartering towards the camera, giving the allusion of a sloped back? Camara's can do strange things, as witnessed with David's awesome pictures! Also those hind legs are streached back a bit...


here's an almost identical pose. brady isnt really "stacked" here, he is waiting for release on a mark. big difference in hind structure, here you can see a lot more muscle development and the topline is certainly more level. if you set the right rear back a bit it might drop the line down a tad, but to get the exact pose you would also pull the left rear up and in, so i think it would not change much. forelimbs not as stubby either, although my vet - a FT guy, calls them stubby... ;-(


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Losthwy said:


> My feeling the Lab field and the show crowd are today for most purposes, two separate communities. Between the HT and show folks their still is a little cross-over, mainly at the JH level. Between FT and show they are in separate solar systems. And the differences between them is like two runners running in opposite directions. Your average show person hasn't seen a FT and could care less. Your average FT person hasn't seen a show event and could less. I just don't see the show and field people have anything in common anymore, esp. at the FT level. Is that good. I don't think so. Is that bad? I don't think so. Just the way it is. I see anyone trying to reconcile Lab show and field lines is swimming against the tide.


This is doubly true for Goldens. My wife and I thought our first Golden was a very handsome dog. He only had three months of basics for hunting, which was all I needed to swim out and retrieve any ducks I shot. The next spring there was a local clinic on show dogs, so we went. 

Most of the folks kindly tried to convince us show wasn't for us, tactfully saying things like "you know, Golden Retrievers are the most competitive breed, it'll be very hard for you", but the one show Golden guy was brutaly honest, telling us our dog was horrible, this is wrong, that is wrong, and on and on. That's when we said screw it, there must be some actual performance based venue we can train our dog for. That's when we discovered hunt test and the rest is history.

We get the Golden Ret Club of America magazine. It is mostly dedicated to the show end of things, believe me those dogs look like they are from another planet. You would literally laugh out loud if you saw sombody walk up to the line with one of these show Goldens.

Sorry to hijack, just wanted to say you're not alone here.

John


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

trippadoo said:


> You can't argue the fact there is a problem, the breed has been split from a Standard that hasn't changed at all from the Original. The only thing that has changed is too many Field Breeders decided they don't agree with the Standard and started doing things their own way. If that is what you want, then like I said, do the right thing, go through the steps to introduce a "new breed". Fieldlabadoodles.


I want whatever it is your smoking.


----------



## gman0046 (May 7, 2009)

Chalk up my vote for the Field Bred Lab. like the dog in my avatar. She was long legged, slim, trim and an amazing athlete with tremendous retrieving drive. I never saw a Lab who could run as fast as her. A Dock Diving Champion who won first place the first time in competition. She could jump 22-23 feet all day long and never missed making the Final Four in any event she participated in. Our current yellow female's grandfather was a CH & MH and her parents were from hunting stock. She is what I call a stubby Lab. shorter, stockier but with a strong desire to retrieve but no where's near the athleticism of my Field Bred black female.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

david gibson said:


>


David, Brady is beautiful (and still -- great reg. name . I love his headpiece. Congrats on such a nice dog.

I would hope people don't laugh at my show champion golden when we show up at a hunt test based on looks alone.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Furball said:


> David, Brady is beautiful (and still -- great reg. name . I love his headpiece. Congrats on such a nice dog.
> 
> I would hope people don't laugh at my show champion golden when we show up at a hunt test based on looks alone.


Annie: There is nothing wrong with Fisher's looks or testing ability!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Hookset said:


> I really respect what some folks like Anne are doing with "blended" lines and I think there is a market for what I call "tweeners".


Windycanyons dogs are athletic and do fit The Standard unlike today's Show or Field lines. I wouldn't call them "tweeners" as much as they look "traditional".

Labrador Retrievers were developed as gun dogs/working retrievers and not Show or Field Trial dogs. It is the specialty folks both in Show and Field that have bred away from The Standard. The breed was never intended to do multiplae marks at 300 plus yards nor to ignore scent on marks and blinds for the sake of control. That's all a speciality thing just like the big overdone Show Labs.

How often do we read here on RTF about folks wanting to improve the breed. Its that attitude that takes the breed further from The Standard. I regard breeders that have a goal of maintaining the integrity of the breed in much higher esteem than those breeding for thier individual speaciality.


----------



## Jason Anderson (Nov 10, 2009)

Nate_C said:


> It is kind of like looking for the ideal human body but rather then look at the Olympics or professional sports we look to beauty pagents. I never really understood the whole "standard" thing. Isn't it some abritrary "look" that was defined by a bunch of ladies 50 years ago. FT labs are the best athletes, best markers, best retrievers. Isn't that what should define the breed? I mean aren't they called Labrador RETRIEVERS not Labrador WALK AROUND THE RINGS.
> 
> P.S. Sorry but a 4 year old dog finally finishing it's JH after it's 10 try is not a functional dog in the field. I really think they should put some limits on JH either on attemps or age.


I think you and the post from Jacob before you nailed it! Give me your best conditioned show dog and field dog and we will do some endurance exercise where 99% of the time humpty dumpty will keel over while Mr./Mrs. FT still wants more. Show labs are the fat kid in school who couldn't even "run" the super long 1 mile fitness test.

I am not being mean and just stating my experience, which is certainly not as extensive as many on here. Just as a side thought I think it would be interesting to see lifestyle/activity levels of field owners vs show owners. Maybe there would be no significant outcome but there might be some pattern. 

Labrador RETRIEVERS are SPORTING dogs.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Franco said:


> Labrador Retrievers were developed as gun dogs/working retrievers and not Show or Field Trial dogs.


Is this true? I know they were imported to these shores as part of importing the British field trial sport; I always thought that even back in the old country field trials and the development of the Labrador went hand in hand.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Riverdog SC (Oct 28, 2008)

Purpose vs Standard.......???

Like others have said, the original purpose of a Labrador Retriever was/is to be a working dog with a strong desire to retrieve.

My question for the group.......In general, is there a higher percentage of "field bred" Labs or "standard bred" Labs(show Labs) that can admirably demonstrate the purpose for which the Labrador Retriever was originally bred to be?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

trippadoo said:


> You can't argue the fact there is a problem, the breed has been split from a Standard that hasn't changed at all from the Original. The only thing that has changed is too many Field Breeders decided they don't agree with the Standard and started doing things their own way.


Suggestion: get a clue what you are talking about. The standard has been changed, AND it was the show people who split from the original, not the field people.

Click here and read the history -- http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51658


----------



## Beerman (May 16, 2006)

Just one person's opinion:

When I think Dual Champions, I look at the first. Dual CH Banchory Bolo http://www.lorkenfarms.com/banchory_bolo.htm

His head does not look like a Rott, and his comformation looks athletic. 
Compare that to show lines. (I hope this is not a RTN member. I don't mean to disrespect, I am just stating my opinion.)
http://www.riorocklabs.com/hunter.htm

This does not look like what I think of in a lab. If I saw this dog on the street, I would think it was a cross.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

afdahl said:


> Is this true? I know they were imported to these shores as part of importing the British field trial sport; I always thought that even back in the old country field trials and the development of the Labrador went hand in hand.
> 
> Amy Dahl


Obviously when they were first imported to the USA 125 years ago, they came from British Field stock. What I was refering to is U S Field Trails. Labs were not originally bred for U S Field Trials or Show. Though U S FT's are a wonderful sport, the change in the appearence of the Lab was suited to that speciality. Smaller, narrower and more athletic along with marking and trainability. The physical abilites that exceed a normal day in the field. Most of the Show breeders have gone to big over-boned behemouths and probably why one hardly ever sees one win BIS.


----------



## Alain (Dec 9, 2005)

Hello averyone,

Here is my story, 7 years ago i bought a dark choc lab from a great breeder here in Québec.
On his pedegree half is show and half is field (cash on the line). I was very fortunate that my dog got the lab standard great looking with a great working drive. 
He is now NMH and GMH, he is recognize here has a fantastique hunting dog with a classic great looking dog. All health has been done and clear of CNM and EIC. 

Alain Jetté
AJ TOP RETRIEVER


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

trippadoo said:


> Last comment. Yes, there are legitimate dual purpose breeders, but the minority it seems.
> 
> You can be in denial, and whine about the Standard, but it is what it is.
> 
> ...


You are quite infantic about something of which you apparently have little historical knowledge. Bench Labs have evolved over the last 40 yrs into something that neither resembles the std nor meets the functionality of the breed. A good place for you to start would be to observe the photo below of two DC Labs and their field titled family members. The amazing thing is that all are extremely similar in appearance and all look very much like my field-bred Labs of today. If any group has left the std it is surely the bench breeders.


----------



## Eric Fryer (May 23, 2006)

audiski86 said:


> Just as a side thought I think it would be interesting to see lifestyle/activity levels of field owners vs show owners.


You know they say that a dog looks like his owner...


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

When the standard was revised (and thus resulted in the lawsuit filed by some of the show fancy), the changes that were made were relative to size. The LRC, which at the time consisted of more field folks than show, decided it was time to put in a height disqualification as they felt some show lines were getting too short (and I believe they did feel some field dogs were getting too big too). So, the ranges of 21.5-23.5" at the withers for bitches and 22.5-24.5" at the withers for males was set forth. They give us a 1/2" under and over. 

They also suggested a weight range of 55-70# for bitches, 65-80# for dogs. From my UNDERSTANDING of history, the size of English show champions tends to be smaller than our height ranges by a little, but weight ranges they state are ~5# less as well (someone can correct me if I'm incorrect there). 

I think the sticking point for most of us here is that the weight ranges of winning dogs aren't even CLOSE to what is reality. My sources indicate most winning show males are 95# *PLUS*.  I know of SHORT show CHs that are 100# (they'd be no more than 80# ever if in my house) so yes, this is reality. And yes, I think it's a huge shame that my 58-60#, 21-21.5" girls look like fine boned, undernourished refugees if I'm so silly to enter them in the AKC ring. I choose instead to play the Intl (IABCA) game where the FCI rules prevail that say you will be penalized for excessive weight and overdone dogs.

For those of us who are LRC members, somehow I'd like to figure out a way to convey to the club that the weights being rewarded in the ring need to be addressed at the judges' education seminars or something. Any ideas? Anne


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> For those of us who are LRC members, somehow I'd like to figure out a way to convey to the club that the weights being rewarded in the ring need to be addressed at the judges' education seminars or something. Any ideas? Anne


I have said it before, very simple. The LRC introduced a wicket (read "height scale") to measure a dog's height, we need to introduce a weight scale to measure a dog's weight.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

windycanyon said:


> When the standard was revised (and thus resulted in the lawsuit filed by some of the show fancy), the changes that were made were relative to size. The LRC, which at the time consisted of more field folks than show, decided it was time to put in a height disqualification as they felt some show lines were getting too short (and I believe they did feel some field dogs were getting too big too). So, the ranges of 21.5-23.5" at the withers for bitches and 22.5-24.5" at the withers for males was set forth. They give us a 1/2" under and over.
> 
> They also suggested a weight range of 55-70# for bitches, 65-80# for dogs. From my UNDERSTANDING of history, the size of English show champions tends to be smaller than our height ranges by a little, but weight ranges they state are ~5# less as well (someone can correct me if I'm incorrect there).
> 
> ...


You know, interesting, Anne, wouldnt it be a good idea for dogs to "weigh in" at the entrance to the ring-and a DQ for over (or under which is not likely with a conformation event) weight entrants. A dog is DQ if the wicket measures them under or over standard- the scale would tell too. May help to maintain the true standard. Jockeys weigh in prior to a horse race- why not a dog with a weight standard,too?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> I have said it before, very simple. The LRC introduced a wicket (read "height scale") to measure a dog's height, we need to introduce a weight scale to measure a dog's weight.


Prolly have to herd most of them fatboys over to the feed store to weigh 'em.

Don't ask me how I know about feed store scales regards

Bubba


----------



## a3754 (Oct 7, 2009)

If you are a true Lab enthusiest, the dog needs to be able to do what t was created to do. Stricktly show people are catering to money and not the true intention of the breed.Although strick health selection needs to be adheard to


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Billie said:


> You know, interesting, Anne, wouldnt it be a good idea for dogs to "weigh in" at the entrance to the ring-and a DQ for over (or under which is not likely with a conformation event) weight entrants. A dog is DQ if the wicket measures them under or over standard- the scale would tell too. May help to maintain the true standard. Jockeys weigh in prior to a horse race- why not a dog with a weight standard,too?


The problem is that Weight is not a DQ by Standard. But surely the judges could take that piece of information into account on that day. 

I have chatted w/ numerous show people and I have to admit, I don't thinks it's ALL FAT (at least not on the surface) that we are talking about there. Some of these dogs, imo, have so much spring of rib and such DEEP bodies (iow, it's a different body structure, and possibly a different bone density?) that they just carry more weight than most of our dogs or the duals of the past posted up here, could ever have carried. I grew up w/ a St Bernard, and honestly, I think that the show labs of today are just more massive like the working dogs. I do not think that is correct, however, and that is my point.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

a3754 said:


> Stricktly show people are catering to money and not the true intention of the breed.


This is no more fair than the slights against working Labs. Dog showing is a sport. People get involved for various reasons, one of which is love of competition. They compete to win; so they're going to try to get dogs of the type that are winning. The dynamic of competition leads to extreme types, not some character flaw in the participants.

In dog shows or field trials (or any other sport), people are free to go in a direction other than the mainstream, but usually they won't win doing that.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Well, even if its not FAT on them, if a male lab weighs 90 lbs in the ring fat or no fat- that dog is oversized, period. 
I havent been to a dog show in awhile,but all of my show friends, their dogs are actively about 10-15 lbs overweight. And, I dont keep my working dogs skinny either- can feel but never see ribs-


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> I think that the show labs of today are just more massive like the working dogs. I do not think that is correct, however, and that is my point.


Part of the reason is they are selectively breeding against a tuck-up. This is going to move the type away from the athletic, sporting dog look, and give them that working dog look.

The conformation people need to know there is a happy medium between the huge tuck-up on hounds and no tuck-up on working dogs. :?


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

afdahl said:


> Dog showing is a sport. People get involved for various reasons, one of which is love of competition. They compete to win; so they're going to try to get dogs of the type that are winning. The dynamic of competition leads to extreme types, not some character flaw in the participants.
> 
> Amy Dahl


Amy,

I always enjoy your point of view on this forum and until this post agreed w/ you, but "a Sport"??? Seriously?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Bahhhhhaaaaaaa--not that's funny!! 

The labby's I saw at the Indy classic-with the exception of one yellow were not pretty. Fat, short and just un-attractive. I was completely underwhelmed.......


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Dave Flint said:


> Amy,
> 
> I always enjoy your point of view on this forum and until this post agreed w/ you, but "a Sport"??? Seriously?


It's not my cup of tea, but my daughter likes it, and I have a friend who is a pro handler. It involves competition, discipline, figuring out what's important and not getting distracted, selecting a good dog, and preparing the dog, including training. And then, knowing how to show off a dog's strengths and cover up its weaknesses. Politics, too, like every other sport.

My friend won her breed at Westminster and I watched the clip on the WKC website. It is really clear what a difference good handling makes. You can aspire, you can get good at it, and you can win. It's a sport.

Besides, AKC says so "...the sport of purebred dogs."

Amy Dahl


----------



## Joe&Knox (Feb 6, 2010)

I am new around here but I recently purchased a pup and looked at both sides. I feel that both sides have gone too far. I am ignorant in the world of Show dogs or FT but still have opinion.

When I think of a lab I think mostly of temperament and trainability more so then any physical trait. That could be weight, build, or athleticism. 

I was afraid to get a FT dog because I did not want to have to walk him 6 miles day to keep him satisfied but also did not want show dog that may lack the drive I was looking for. 

I think one kennels slogan says it best a Gentalmens Gundog is what I personally want & think both side should keep that in mind. NO I did not buy my pup from that kennel.

Joe


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

afdahl said:


> It's not my cup of tea, but my daughter likes it, and I have a friend who is a pro handler. It involves competition, discipline, figuring out what's important and not getting distracted, selecting a good dog, and preparing the dog, including training. And then, knowing how to show off a dog's strengths and cover up its weaknesses. Politics, too, like every other sport.
> 
> My friend won her breed at Westminster and I watched the clip on the WKC website. It is really clear what a difference good handling makes. You can aspire, you can get good at it, and you can win. It's a sport.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I was mostly kidding but as I re-read your response I decided I really would like to understand this point of view.

I must admit that it isn’t clear at all to me what a difference good handling makes. What am I missing? How does a handler “show off a dog's strengths and cover up its weaknesses”?


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> How does a handler “show off a dog's strengths and cover up its weaknesses”?


Harleigh's 4-H club works at an AKC show every year. The Collie booth next to us had clear totes to haul all their "stuff" in. In one tote was a hair coloring kit. It took them longer to get one dog ready for a 15 minute jaunt around the ring, than it takes me to get ready for work in the morning. I've never seen so much product used on a person, let alone a dog.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Dave Flint said:


> Honestly, I was mostly kidding but as I re-read your response I decided I really would like to understand this point of view.
> 
> I must admit that it isn’t clear at all to me what a difference good handling makes. What am I missing? How does a handler “show off a dog's strengths and cover up its weaknesses”?


You're asking someone who doesn't know a lot, but I can give examples. One area is in gait or movement. Perhaps at one speed a dog moves "correctly," but at another speed, it turns out its elbows or its legs swing instead of tracking straight. The good handler goes at the pace that makes the dog look good. Another thing is to choose a position in the lineup that flatters the dog. If it looks markedly different from the dogs on either side, that's going to stand out and most likely seem negative. It makes a better impression if it's near similar dogs. My friend also showed me a trick she uses--pulling up the upper lip to show the judge the dog's teeth. This gives the judge a particular view that may hide a marginal bite. If the handler doesn't do this, the judge may carefully examine the bite and find those faults.

A dog may react to other dogs coming too close, or to things that people do. The handler needs to be alert for things of this kind and prevent them.

They can also trim and mousse and brush the coat to change the apparent shape of the dog, including the "topline" and the "overall proportion." And a better trained dog is going to show better. If it's wriggling or in the wrong position, the judge is not going to be able to see its good points.

Amy Dahl


----------



## kims (Jan 9, 2010)

Hi,
I have been very lucky with my Field and show mixes. Keeps some of the looks, with plenty of the drive. I have a small Choc. bitch now.. that is 3/4 show ( MH/CH dog)s and 1/4 Field. She has more Drive than many Field dogs we have met, is a pocket Rocket and currently the #2 Lab in AKC Agility.. regularly beating out those Border Collies. Folks look at me sideways when I say she is mostly show bred. When you look at the show dogs in her pedigree.. they were mostly working dogs, smaller, more athletic and might not win in the show ring today. Even in the last 5 years the show dogs have gotten heavier with shorter legs. The thing about her is she is so easy to train and smart too but sweet natured at the same time. 

Quite honestly, my issue with many of the Field Labradors is structure and soundness. With some show in the line.. you hope that proper shoulder angles and stifle angles have been preserved for what is needed for covering ground, turning and taking the pounding our dogs do. I see a great deal of terrible structure in some of the Field Labs doing Agility.. ramrod straight fronts and straight rears, too long legged... not good for jumping and turning.

So.. no I would not look to all show bred.. but might not want all Field either... depending on the lines. There are however some nice looking Field lines still out there.

I recall reading an article about the original purpose of the Labrador as a waterfowl dog.. not an upland hunter so no doubt what we have asked our dogs to do in the US and particularly the Midwest and West has created a dog that can cover more ground, flush, sometime point and run all day. And... form follows function.

And truely don't you think both groups.. the show and the Field folks have changed the breed? I like what was popular about 25-50 years ago. Tough to find. 

thanks all!
KS


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> I must admit that it isn’t clear at all to me what a difference good handling makes. What am I missing? How does a handler “show off a dog's strengths and cover up its weaknesses”?


I used to show dogs and can tell you. It simply is about knowing what the judge is looking for, what your own dog's strength and weaknesses are, as well as your competition's. Then you show off your dog's strengths, hide your dog's weaknesses, and try to show off your competition's weaknesses. There are dozens and dozens of ways to do this. You just got to think about what you are doing.

NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, I disagree in calling it a "sport." Way, way, way too much politics involved! When it comes to the important placements (BoB, Grp1-4, BiS, sometimes even Winners and BoW), more decisions on who wins are determined outside the ring than inside.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

kims said:


> And truely don't you think both groups.. the show and the Field folks have changed the breed?


Nope. It doesn't stand up to the historical facts -- http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51658


----------



## kims (Jan 9, 2010)

Hi,
I am wondering if the invention of Field Trials and the way the Tests are designed here in the US has influenced and changed what traits people are breeding for? Has that not changed the breed along a different path as well?? 
If not the structure and look of the dog.. what about the temperament? Unfortunately no way to tell what that was like in those dogs from years back. 

KimS


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

kims said:


> Hi, I am wondering if the invention of Field Trials and the way the Tests are designed here in the US has influenced and changed what traits people are breeding for? Has that not changed the breed along a different path as well??


No evidence that I know of. There are people who speculate the dogs of today have more drive, but that is not my experience, and that does not relate to type.

Did you read the thread I pointed you to above?



> If not the structure and look of the dog.. what about the temperament? Unfortunately no way to tell what that was like in those dogs from years back.


You disbelieve all the written records about the Lab's temperament? We have written records going back over a hundred years describing the Lab's temperament as being the same as today.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

afdahl said:


> Perhaps at one speed a dog moves "correctly," but at another speed, it turns out its elbows or its legs swing instead of tracking straight. The good handler goes at the pace that makes the dog look good.
> 
> My friend also showed me a trick she uses--pulling up the upper lip to show the judge the dog's teeth. This gives the judge a particular view that may hide a marginal bite. If the handler doesn't do this, the judge may carefully examine the bite and find those faults.
> 
> ...


This almost sounds like the skill of handling a show dog is really about deceiving a judge into thinking your dog is better than he is. I'm not sure that's my definition of a "sport".


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> This almost sounds like the skill of handling a show dog is really about deceiving a judge into thinking your dog is better than he is. I'm not sure that's my definition of a "sport".


you are right Dave - show stuff is really a hoax deep down. all you do is run around a ring in fancy clothes. i really scratch my head over it but hey, some folks live by it. and we hear politics are an issue in the FT/HT circuits? from what i hear it pales in comparison to what happens in show...have you ever been to a show? they have their top handlers etc that command top handling fees - but what do they really do compared to a FT/HT handler? not even close.

show is not even 1/1000th of what it takes to take a dog into the FT or HT circuit. it is really amazing the amount of money put into it. but it is a factor in some areas....


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

To a man, the trainers with whom I have discussed the "look" and performance of our last DC champions believe there is every expectation that dogs such as DC Cherokee Buck were great dogs then and would likely be great dogs today - at least in the field. It is a common belief that with today's training methods these champions of old would likely be champions today simply because they were great dogs. Unfortunately DC Buck would never get close in the ring with it's current preferences.

There lies the real difference in the breed today and the problem lies at the feet of the bench enthusiasts allowed by the LRC to have their way.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> To a man, the trainers with whom I have discussed the "look" and performance of our last DC champions believe there is every expectation that dogs such as DC Cherokee Buck were great dogs then and would likely be great dogs today - at least in the field. It is a common belief that with today's training methods these champions of old would likely be champions today simply because they were great dogs. Unfortunately DC Buck would never get close in the ring with it's current preferences.
> 
> There lies the real difference in the breed today and the problem lies at the feet of the bench enthusiasts allowed by the LRC to have their way.


i think maybe the extreme popularity of labs - after all they are the perfect dog with temperment and intelligence - hence they would not be No. 1 for so many years - is the ultimate downfall. the dog is so lovable and so popular that so many people want them, people that dont care one iota about hunting, therefore so many labs never get their deserved time in the field doing what they were ultimately designed/bred to do.

talk about a catch-22.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

I have not read all the replies, as nearly every time I start to discuss TRAIT differences between bench and show, I remind myself of the tame fox experiment - Dmitri Belyaev study. He SELECTED for ONE TRAIT - tameness - and look how the foxes changed!!!

In our case "retrieving" and the other requirements memory, marking, water attitude etc and the inheritability of such traits!


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Dave Flint said:


> This almost sounds like the skill of handling a show dog is really about deceiving a judge into thinking your dog is better than he is. I'm not sure that's my definition of a "sport".


Seems to me it's a lot like what we do at trials. On a blind, if we know a dog is likely to go out of control if we let him take some hazard with full momentum, we stop him and give an insurance cast. We maintain the illusion of control by knowing well when/where he is likely to go out of control, and trying to get him close, but not over that line. We help him on marks, lining him to the memory bird and not sending until he shows recognition. We're trying to make him look his best, not just setting him up on his own for some supposedly "objective" judgment.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

It is hard to refute that picture when discussing which side changed the breed. Field Labs of today show a greater variety in appearance because no one is trying to breed for a consistent look. 

What most worries me about conformation is the rise of torn ACLs. I'd love to know what studies have been or are being done on this subject.



Granddaddy said:


> You are quite infantic about something you apparently have little historical knowledge. Bench Labs have evolved over the last 40 yrs into something that neither resembles the std nor meets the functionality of the breed. A good place for you to start would be to observe the photo below of two DC Labs and their field titled family members. The amazing thing is that all are extremely similar in appearance and all look very much like my field-bred Labs of today. If any group has left the std it is surely the bench breeders.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Steve said:


> It is hard to refute that picture when discussing which side changed the breed. Field Labs of today show a greater variety in appearance because no one is trying to breed for a consistent look.
> 
> *What most worries me about conformation is the rise of torn ACLs. I'd love to know what studies have been or are being done on this subject*.


There have been some small studies with prelimenary results that suggest there is an inherited component with some ACL injuries. At least one such study involved another large breed. That study and at least one other have been referenced on this forum. You may be able to use the RTF search function and find the reference and link. Not sure I've seen any study that points to a certain conformation (which logically may be inherited) but there are certainly those experts who seem to think the angle (or lack thereof) of the leg could also have a direct influence on ACL injuries.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

ACLs not withstanding, why is it the LRC not be held accountable for their unhealthy standard of over weight Labradors?


----------



## Bailey and Cappy's Mom (Aug 17, 2009)

As someone with a field lab and a show lab all I can say is wow!


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Losthwy said:


> ACLs not withstanding, why is it the LRC not be held accountable for their unhealthy standard of over weight Labradors?


I keep thinking about the Emperor and that suit of new clothes he wears. I am sure the LRC can seen those fine duds even as we speak.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Dave Flint said:


> This almost sounds like the skill of handling a show dog is really about deceiving a judge into thinking your dog is better than he is. I'm not sure that's my definition of a "sport".


Any type of show is full of "tricks" I showed cattle, if the steer I had was a little under finished, as the judge approached to feel its ribs, you pushed the front leg back, if over finished, you pull it forward. It is alll gamesman ship and trying to show the animals or in beauty pagents the persons "best" traits and deemphasizing the bad.

There are handler tricks that people use to make there dog focus better, or a sticky dog to release etc. Maybe not a sport, but gamesmenship is involved anytime there is judging and scoring....


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Little did I know what a can of worms I would open when posting this thread! Its good to get input from both sides of the fence. My biggest question still is this... Would you, as a serious hunter, FT, or HT person buy a lab puppy with a few show titles in it to improve the overall look of the dog (adding a bit bigger bone to the sometimes gangly field dogs)? Obviously all health clearances would be done and both parents would be proven hunting dogs. I am sick to dealth of people asking if my well bred field lab is a mix! Grrrrr!


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

mccoylabradors said:


> Little did I know what a can of worms I would open when posting this thread! Its good to get input from both sides of the fence. My biggest question still is this... Would you, as a serious hunter, FT, or HT person buy a lab puppy with a few show titles in it to improve the overall look of the dog (adding a bit bigger bone to the sometimes gangly field dogs)? Obviously all health clearances would be done and both parents would be proven hunting dogs. I am sick to dealth of people asking if my well bred field lab is a mix! Grrrrr!


You should post an anonymous poll.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

mccoylabradors said:


> My biggest question still is this... Would you, as a serious hunter, FT, or HT person buy a lab puppy with a few show titles in it to improve the overall look of the dog (adding a bit bigger bone to the sometimes gangly field dogs)?


If I was going to breed for conformation to the breed standard, my opinion is that breeding to ANYTHING show-bred would ruin the look I was trying to obtain! So the answer is "no." 



> I am sick to dealth of people asking if my well bred field lab is a mix! Grrrrr!


I learned a long time ago it is those people's opinions that don't matter to me. There is no value in ignorance.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

I just can't find anything appealing in a lab that can win a CH. 

However, like Kevin, I do enjoy the classic lab look that represents the breed standard. Which is not to be confused with the CH of today.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Frenchy said:


> I just can't find anything appealing in a lab that can win a CH.
> 
> However, like Kevin, *I do enjoy the classic lab look that represents the breed standard.* Which is not to be confused with the CH of today.


If this means you like the dogs presented in the picture examples, I agree. If this means the stocky "moderate" dogs with shortened snout, I disagree. Even most of the moderate dogs of today are really of the type from show lines which are heavily influenced by the more current English show lines - which are extreme.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

mccoylabradors said:


> Little did I know what a can of worms I would open when posting this thread! Its good to get input from both sides of the fence. My biggest question still is this... Would you, as a serious hunter, FT, or HT person buy a lab puppy with a few show titles in it to improve the overall look of the dog (adding a bit bigger bone to the sometimes gangly field dogs)? Obviously all health clearances would be done and both parents would be proven hunting dogs. I am sick to dealth of people asking if my well bred field lab is a mix! Grrrrr!


Christa, The simple answer is YES, I would. But it would depend on the show lineage in the pedigree. Since I know pedigrees better than the average joe hunter, I'd have to see the hunting titles as well. Some show CH/MH dogs, Ive seen run and if they themselves were in that pedigree I'd step far away from it.
I like pretty too- I kept a pup from a recent breeding of my own, Cosmo and lean mac dam, bred to a CH/JH, from "Old " lines that I knew were good solid working stuff prior to watering down with the squatlies with no desire. I run all levels of AKC hunt tests- My little "Jack" is only 12 weeks old now but so far impressing me with what hes shown. For a hunter Im sure he (and his littermates I sold to hunters) will be a great little gundog- for adv. hunt tests, a lot remains to happen in years to come. But he sure is handsome.-and not overdone.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

mccoylabradors said:


> My biggest question still is this... Would you, as a serious hunter, FT, or HT person buy a lab puppy with a few show titles in it to improve the overall look of the dog (adding a bit bigger bone to the sometimes gangly field dogs)?


No. IMO the show look is not an improvement of the breed but a subtraction.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

No, the short snout presented in the show ring today is the feature that discourages me the most! 

I do however like the otter tail, and shorter ears. The lab I have now has the gay tail and big floopy ears. But also has a nice strong athletic build.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

mccoylabradors said:


> My biggest question still is this... Would you, as a serious hunter, FT, or HT person buy a lab puppy with a few show titles in it to improve the overall look of the dog (adding a bit bigger bone to the sometimes gangly field dogs)?


No. I cringe when I hear someone say of a show lab "well at least he's pretty" (as he fails a JH test). I don't find them the least bit attractive. If you want a good looking lab, there are plenty of beautiful FCs and AFCs around. "Greyhound" looking labs aren't predominant in the field so just avoid them in your breeding.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I agree- todays CH is not something I could feed or look at every day- not attractive.
BUT.... a not so overdone show bred dog, combined with a field bred dog, can produce a very nice "traditional " style dog to look at.
There are a lot of fantastic FC titled dogs out there that I would also not be able to feed or look at every day- again, not attractive at all TO ME. 
Pretty to me is not pretty to someone else, etc. I have friends who show and I know that I dont have anything on my property that THEY would look at and feed every day either! 
I breed for what I like to look at and work with- and thats what everyone should be able to do,provided they are looking out for the best interest of the breed in terms of health, etc.


----------



## Bailey and Cappy's Mom (Aug 17, 2009)

So those of you breeding field dogs do you still keep the standard in mind?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Bailey and Cappy's Mom said:


> So those of you breeding field dogs do you still keep the standard in mind?


Literally "the standard?" Not really. That seems akin to show people thinking about hunting which I am pretty sure they don't do.

Do we consider type? Sure. But not as much as structure and performance traits.

It goes back to the same root question, what is the _function_? To retrieve game or to win dog shows? To work or win beauty contests? How you answer that question will dictate your _form._


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Bailey and Cappy's Mom said:


> So those of you breeding field dogs do you still keep the standard in mind?


No, breed for performance. I want a good looking dog, but that isn't the current breed standard.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Bailey and Cappy's Mom said:


> So those of you breeding field dogs do you still keep the standard in mind?


 
In mind, yes & much more so in practice than bench breeders over the last 25 yrs....


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> No, breed for performance. I want a good looking dog, but that isn't the current breed standard.


Don't be too hard on the standard for what the show dogs look like. The standard is extremely susceptible to interpretation.


----------



## Bailey and Cappy's Mom (Aug 17, 2009)

Losthwy said:


> No, breed for performance. I want a good looking dog, but that isn't the current breed standard.


So what's the point of the standard? 

Any of you interested in having a Dual CH?


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

From a satirical website: http://ultimateshowbreeder.com/standards.html

Standards are drawn up by visionaries. By Ultimate Show Breeders whose love for their breeds has been written into words. These people looked at what they had in dogs, and they saw what could be. They followed the path of beauty and, inspired, described their ideal dog.

Standards change because the Ultimate Show Breeders get smarter all the time. The more time we spend in the show ring, the more we understand how correct conformation enhances a dog's ability to fulfill it's original purpose. 

In some cases, the rather poor specimens seen at the time the standards were written were not even capable of inducing the vision of all the improvements a hundred years could bring. By today's champions those old dogs were of very poor style indeed. 

As our knowledge of correct structure and conformation improve, so must the standards so that the Ideal Dog is always the Perfect Dog and not an old fashioned, poorly structured specimen. 

In many cases, these improvements to the standard have changed the breed either structurally or emotionally to be all but completely unrecognizable to the old timers who had only a pet or a working dog.

As you can see from the dramatic changes we have made, in many cases these old timers trying to standardize their working dogs really knew very little about what elements give a dog superior working structure. That has only been defined by years of study of thousands of dogs in the show ring, and carefully selective breeding to capture and perpetuate the most beautiful features of those dogs. 

Remember, the perfect dog has never been bred!.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> From a satirical website: http://ultimateshowbreeder.com/standards.html
> 
> Standards are drawn up by visionaries. By Ultimate Show Breeders whose love for their breeds has been written into words. These people looked at what they had in dogs, and they saw what could be. They followed the path of beauty and, inspired, described their ideal dog.
> 
> ...


This is going to start some trouble

Regards
JT
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Bailey and Cappy's Mom said:


> So what's the point of the standard?


I think it boils down the performance folks want a Lean Mac or Lottie, and they won't find them in the current CH body.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

I said it was "satire" but the truth is I don't assign any value to the "standards" that are used in the show ring for the breeds that I prefer. (Labs, Goldens & Springers)


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

Bailey and Cappy's Mom said:


> So those of you breeding field dogs do you still keep the standard in mind?


Not that I am breeding but when I do buy I do look at the looks of the sire and dam as well as the pedigree. If I were to breed looks would be part of the equation, in terms of the standard, if by standard you mean the looks of some of the early labs posted in Amiable's post "yes", if you mean huge head, no snout, and overly stocky body then "no".


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> I said it was "satire" but the truth is I don't assign any value to the "standards" that are used in the show ring for the breeds that I prefer. (Labs, Goldens & Springers)


Hi

True enough, I know it is satire. I have Field Labs and Field Springers.

Regards
JT
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Do a search on Dual Champion, especially after the Westminster. It has been beaten to death and it's about to be again.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Hi
> 
> True enough, I know it is satire. I have Field Labs and Field Springers.
> 
> ...


They're a great combo aren't they? Have you ever watched bench bred spaniels at a hunt test? It's agonizing!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Dave, the scary thing is I know people who _really_ believe what that satire says! :shock:

:barf:


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> They're a great combo aren't they? Have you ever watched bench bred spaniels at a hunt test? It's agonizing!


Hi
Yes, it is agonizing.What is strange about the show Springers to me is, they have the size to do the job. The show Springers just don't seem to smell the birds.My Springer Hank (Field) has a very good nose and will retrieve all day long. It's a tie between the show Springers and the Clumbers, I hate having a Hyped up Springer (Field) waiting on the S. Springer or the Clumber at a Spaniel Hunt Test.

The seperation between Show and Field Springers is greater than the split between the Field and show Labs, IMO.

Regards
JT
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

The problem with our breed is not the standard , its how the show breeders interpret the dumb thing.
Lots of field dogs have gotten the CC (conformation certificate) with how they relate to the standard. I dont think the bulk of the show dogs conform to our standard any better than the field dogs do.
In answer to someones question, I do breed to conform to the standard per sey, but have no aspirations of showing anybody here in this lifetime, unless the trend changes, which is unlikely.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

i cant believe this thread is still going on...been out training all day with a total mix of 3 labs - field/show whatever - -- exactly - whatever! we still had fun... ;-)

partly cloudy, air 55 deg F, water probably 50 deg F.......


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

I forgot to mention, I probably have the closest thing to a dual champion in the breed right now. My boy Chef needs 1 pt for his FC and he won the field class at a Specialty Show in St. Louis. I was the only one entered, but at least I got the ribbon.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I'd like to see a picture of him,(if you wnt to pm me thats cool too.) !


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Billie said:


> I'd like to see a picture of him,(if you wnt to pm me thats cool too.) !


me too....


----------



## Tstreg (Dec 28, 2005)

The Labrador retriever has been the #1 registered dog with the AKC for 18 years running and argueably the most popular dog in the US. Labradors have dominated the FT'S, and HT'S. The show side/standard has been competing at westminster since 1924. The show record is 0 group wins and 0 best in show. A few 2nd places way back before the split. Other sporting breeds that judge/remain closer to originar standards have faired much better. My first dog has titles in both arena's under the IABCA/AKC/NAHRA. To answer the question, no. As founder of team meat dog and a avid hunter bring me the chickens. Lets get back to the origins and dominate BOTH!


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

I don't have any photos of him standing up. I can tell you he is an extremely well muscled and athletic boy.

Here is a shot before he started turning grey










This was taken by Susan "Justice Dog" this fall


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Attractive boy- whats his pedigree?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ReedCreek said:


> I will not bite into this thread; I will not bite into this thread; I will not bite into this thread; opps, I guess I just did. I will not give an opinion, I will not give an opinion…opps, I guess I just did!


LOL....I was thinking the exact same thing!


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Steve said:


> I don't have any photos of him standing up. I can tell you he is an extremely well muscled and athletic boy.
> 
> Here is a shot before he started turning grey
> 
> ...


Beautiful boy!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Steve said:


> I don't have any photos of him standing up. I can tell you he is an extremely well muscled and athletic boy.
> 
> Here is a shot before he started turning grey
> 
> ...



Very handsome dog!


----------



## MBH (Jul 28, 2005)

This discussion is always the same...us versus them...I got sick of reading after two pages so forgive me for commenting without reading everything, but...I am the owner of an all show bred female. She has an SH a few generations back and her grandmother is a JH and real honest to god Vermont hunting dog. Her mother's side also has a few obedience titles. Her father's pedigree has zero performance titles. Her pedigree reads like a who's who of big name show dogs though. I wanted a buddy when I bought her so I didn't care about titles either way. I had never participated in the dog games before I bought her.

My girl now has an SH and a UD and she isn't quitting with either of those titles--we are training for more in both obedience and the field. She is also now training for agility and learning very quickly. She also loves to duck and pheasant hunt. Yes, she is shorter and thicker than a field dog, no she isn't as fast as a field dog, no she won't run field trials.

What drives me nuts is the attitude I have encountered from so many field people that my dog can't do what their dogs can do. I know many show people who are totally afraid to start training for field work because they have been told their dogs can't do the work. There is nothing like coming out to a new group and being laughed at when you get your dog off the truck--I have a pretty thick skin now...Maybe if there was a more welcoming and encouraging attitude from some field folks we could get more show dogs out to train. There are a lot of show dogs who have drive and desire, but have never been given the chance to pursue the birds. Show type dogs may not have been built for speed and performance, but it doesn't mean they can't work. They may work differently and they may take a different training style, but they are not worthless. 

I am so thankful I met a wonderful pro in MA who encouraged me to train my girl for hunt tests when she was a puppy. He also introduced me to some great guys who helped me train and taught me tons every weekend. I don't mean to lump all field dog owners in one category, but I have not found most of them to be as encouraging about training a show dog to hunt and run hunt tests.

Instead of ripping show dogs for what they can't do, let's show them some respect for what they CAN do.

Off my soap box now...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Mighty broad generalizations. "doing the work" is relative. And there are a number of show line dogs with enough drive to be adequate to outstanding hunting dogs. This discussion, however it might have degenerated, was really more about *serious hunters and competitors considering *show lines for hunting or performance competition, and about the importance of conformation to these "serious" folks. The problem is that there is a wide and widening gulf between what form meets the conformation std in the eyes of the bench and performance enthusiasts. We have posted a number of photos as proof positive of the detour that bench breeders have taken over the last 50 yrs from what was (& still is by performance enthusiasts) the true interpretation of the conformation std. That detour, unfortunately, has led to diminishing ability by show lines to perform in the field. It doesn't mean that a minority of dogs from show lines don't retain some retrieving desire or ability to work but it does mean that the extreme form and neglect of performance, as part of the bench stock testing, is working against the required performance traits.

Here is the most concise statement (by GSC in a similar thread) on the whole subject, IMO,

" 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).

And, btw, if you want to see laughing and ridicule, go to a bench show and have a field bred dog, even of good conformation show up.......


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

MBH said:


> What drives me nuts is the attitude I have encountered from so many field people that my dog can't do what their dogs can do.


GENERALLY SPEAKING, show-bred dogs cannot do what field-bred can, they lack the form needed for top-level performance competitions;

GENERALLY SPEAKING, field-bred dogs cannot do what show-bred can, they lack the form needed for top-level beauty contests.


----------



## Dwayne Padgett (Apr 12, 2009)

I don't have a problem with the thicker, blockey labs but to see how much extra weight they pack on these dogs to meet "the standard" is just wrong and unhealthy.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Billie said:


> Attractive boy- whats his pedigree?


I can't find a pedigree. His sire is FC A Shot of Ezra who I think was out of Hammerin Hawk. The damn is Black Horse's Cancun Condo. She is out of Lean Mac and Redlines Limited Edition if I remember correctly.


----------



## cycler (Feb 26, 2010)

This is the thread that made me want to register for this forum. Let me start by stating that my lab is a show lab. His lines are firmly rooted in CH bloodlines. That said, I have no intention of showing him, but, I am currently trying to train him to be a gundog. My sole consideration in bringing this fellow home were the health certifications. When I first saw this thread, I thought to myself, well, here goes another biased opinionated viewpoint, coming from the pro hunters/trainers. I was wrong. I feel that the argument made about confirmations/standards is well presented, and explained, further proof would be the thread showing pictures of the labs brought here from England. While I do not know how Muddy, my pup, is going to work out, he is a part of our family now and that's all there is to it. If he becomes a house pet, I may just get another pup, but, if that's the case, I am pretty sure my wife will make me retire, and the pup will come from field lines.


----------

