# POLL: Bring Back The Dual Champion Lab: Move the Show-Bred Labs to NonSporting Group



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> A triple champion is a dual champion plus either a MACH,OTCH, or CT.


The creation of the MACH, OTCH, and CT came AFTER the breed split between show and field.

There will be no triple champion, as you define it, until there is first a realistic hope again for dual champions.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, we must all acknowledge what we all know is already true -- the breed is split. Then move the show-bred Labs (read "English Labs" as Wolters and others have documented as their origin during the late-'50s and early-'60s) to the NonSporting Group with that other retriever breed rarely used for sport, the Poodle. Give the spot in the Sporting Group to athletic working Labs, and dual and triple champions will be a real possibility again.

Will the show-bred Labs be excluded from field events? Like the Poodle, of course not. If they can do the work, they should be included. But let's be realistic, just like the Poodle, the show-bred Lab no longer belongs in the Sporting Group. Their only argument is tradition. But that argument doesn't hold water with the existence of the field-bred Lab which rightly does belong in the Sporting Group.

Acknowledge what we already know is true -- the breed is split. And then the Dual Champion and Triple Champion Labrador can be a reality once again.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

lol. Are you currently showing your "working lab"??


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Nicole said:


> lol. Are you currently showing your "working lab"??


1. How is that relevant?
2. Would that make any kind of sense as the conditions currently are?

FYI, I showed my working Lab back in the late-'70s and early-'80s, until my wife and I switched to Basenjis, where we enjoyed tremendous success during the '80s. Finishing many dogs, campaigning specials, and even doing some pro-handling on the side. At our pinnacle we were attending a hundred shows a year, and staying on site in our travel trailer. We finished the first all-champion, all-tri-color litter in the history of the breed, five bitches. My point is, I am VERY well versed on conformation. Been there, done that.

Sir Francis Drake Kennel Club, Spring 1980, my wife and our working Lab "Rima" --










-- Look at the length of the muzzle, the earset, the bone, the tuck-up. Could possibly be excused for lack of merit in the ring today.

You were saying what, Nicole?


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Beautiful!


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Wouldn't the split in the breed have to be formalized by the creation of a new breed to do what has been proposed? Maybe call the English style Lab the "Labrador Retriever" (since they invented the breed) and the Field Trial style the "American Retriever" or something (since we've invented that one)? 
What would be the criteria to split be? Weight? Drive for Retrieving? Number of CH vs FC in a 5-gen pedigree? 
Where would all the tweener dogs end up?

Instead of creating a new breed, or at minimum figuring out how to reclassify a significant portion of the Labrador breed, it might be easier if both the Field and Show devoted breeders admitted they are each breeding dogs outside of the Labrador standard and focus on moving back to the middle....nah, splitting the breed will probably be easier than that one.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Well you certainly got your point across -- but a ridiculous proposition.
Who says which are show bred and which are working bred. You? A judge? The breeder? AKC? 
Breed and bring good dogs for the judges to judge.


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

There are those in the show ring who show our "working" dogs. My girl doesn't have a hunt title yet; just a WC, but she is owner hindered. Two weeks ago at a show the judge told my handler that my dog moves too well to be a lab. Her movement is too clean and effortless. The judge told her the lab is not supposed to be an upland hunting dog but strictly a water dog. You can see her at the show here http://pets.webshots.com/album/575926574AtSkrE I think the problem with the dogs in the ring is that the breed club is not educating the judges properly. I'm sick of seeing short legged, huge bodied labs waddling around the ring. If the judges continue to be educated the show labs are proper it will be very hard to have a dual champion lab.

Sandy


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Ironman said:


> Instead of creating a new breed, or at minimum figuring out how to reclassify a significant portion of the Labrador breed, it might be easier if both the Field and Show devoted breeders admitted they are each breeding dogs outside of the Labrador standard and focus on moving back to the middle....nah, splitting the breed will probably be easier than that one.


If the split were to be made official, you could call one the "Labrador" and the other the "Labrador Retriever".


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I don't know. I see more and more moderate labs at the all breed shows. The specials are another story.

I didn't vote by the way... I think it's a dead horse.

IMHO

Angie


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I'd vote split, because that's what's fair to today's breeders of beautiful working dogs that meet the standard, and it's what is realistic when it comes to the show and companion dogs out there (who are attractive in their own right, though not my cup of tea), 

BUT...

Human nature being what it is, don't you think that eventually the splits would split?

Then what?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

I voted to move the Show Lab to the non-Sporting Group.

However, I do think today's Field Trial Lab has also strayed far from The Standard and that a Dual Ch. is out of reach. 

In order to get the FC part of the Dual Ch, one would need a FT bred Lab and they are full of all types of physical faults. That is unless you also want to change The Standard.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

To each his own. I know the show group love there dogs. Comments have been made by the show people about my Field Labs, "Willie looks like a pony" or "Waylon is a Hillbilly dog". I would never trade my type of Lab for there type of lab.

However I do feel there is a need for all of us to work together and support each other. To many so called animal rights groups want to put an end to both our sports.If someone wants to have show labs, more power to um. 


Regards
Jeff
www.marshhawkretrievers.com


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As has been said in the past, perhaps the answer is not have the two titles at all. A step in the right direction would be to raise the bar for both sides .
No more coatless Greyhound looking dogs with FC's, by having *radical* deviation from the standard being grounds for elimination from the trial on the one side, and no more dogs without sufficient prey drive by having QAA as being the minimum requirement for a Ch.on the other

As far as splitting or consolidating the breed....In my estimation it will never happen and for my purposes it does not need too.

john


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

I didn't vote. I do agree the show lines in Labradors, are far removed from field dogs. And those people who are engaged in showing their dogs are far removed from those engaged in field events. And the rift grows with each passing year. Show and Field participants nothing in common except the name Labrador. And both groups will continue to go their separate ways. And as a buyer of a pup who would be running field events in the future, I would have great concerns about buying a pup that had bench dogs in it's 3-G pedigree. My :2c:


----------



## Elliott Labradors (May 19, 2009)

I voted to leave things the way they are, not that I like everything I see. IMO, the situation we are in didn't happen over night. It has been an evolving process that has crept in to the Labrador world.............. from both sides. I too feel that improvements will begin with an educational movement...........on both sides. It will also involve sacrifices...........from both sides. I have shown up at many a hunt test with my show dogs to see them make inferior runs to the non-conforming field dogs. Not that my dogs made sloppy runs, but they didn't hold a light to some of the "gazelle" speeds that birds were scooped up and returned by some of the field Labs. That makes my challenge of searching out sires and dams that conform to the standard and have that deep, truly burning, performance desire even greater. These dogs may be a little tough to find now, but if some of us remain persistant and continue to work and breed dogs of this description, just maybe we can slowly begin a reverse movement in this evolutionary process. 

Wally


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I voted to split the groups. While you are working at it could you throw in Goldens as well. I have not done research but it seems the Chessie may be moving away from the chance of a dual champion. Lets be realistic folks, the dead horse is in the room ignore or not.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> No more coatless Greyhound looking dogs with FC's, by having *radical* deviation from the standard being grounds for elimination from the trial on the one side, and no more dogs without sufficient prey drive by having QAA as being the minimum requirement for a Ch.on the other


John
Theres a great way to keep numbers down.
A 10 dog open,and 2 dog derby

Pete


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Just asking; could someone please post pictures of the last Dual Champion Retrievers along with a description/complexity of the field trials run at that time (length of marks and blinds; types of marks ((multiples, etc.)); including as much as possible difficulty of factors)....just askin....
________
Vermont medical marijuana dispensaries


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

So if theoretically you did split the breed. Labrador Lapdogs in the non-sporting group and Labrador Retrievers in the sporting group.
The labs in the sporting group look like your average field trial lab.
But they really aren't keen on birds, like the water until you really push them in it, and to them, fetching is a recreational passtime with tennis balls. Feel better?
How are you supposed to judge what's in their HEADS at a conformation show?
You can have the world's most awesome looking Best In Show dog, but if he don't wanna do it, you might as well go find a three legged mutt in the pound that wants to do it instead.
This idea of officially splitting the breed is nothing more than an attempt to make the show people feel bad. Well since the chance of an official breed split is slim to none, why not be INclusive instead of EXclusive, help people get involved with field work, help educate judges, breed and then show up at conformation shows with dogs of proper type and structure, even if they aren't the current fad. Your persistence might pay off. You might learn something. YOUR dogs might be improved. 

I do not have labradors, but we see the same thing in goldens. Probably not as extreme, at least our show dogs are physically in fit condition. I am no more happy about the wimpy, no drive show goldens as the next guy, but I look at it as an opportunity. There ARE dogs out there capable of doing both, so go be active and show them off and help other people who are interested get involved in field events. Show them the light! Be happy that your breed is so diverse that it can encompass a wide audience of admirers! Would you rather have Sealyham terriers, or Sussex spaniels, or any other dying breed, that not only can you not find people who share an interest in your breed, but if you have a problem or something you want to change in your breeding program, you're totally screwed because the gene pool is so small. But by god they all look alike. Is that better?


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Why change? There are some breeders and/or owners of "show bred labs" that are working the field at Master and Qual levels. Things have changed in both venues. The CH/MH dogs now are the old Dual Champions. They are doing the same work in the field. In the field things have progressed. As have things changed in the show ring. However, if show people took the weight off the dogs, other than the heads, they would be much more slender but still more stocky than the "field labs". And the differences would be much less discernable and not be causing the rift. The problem lies with the judges judging to the standard. "Working condition".
This is an AKC and LRC problem. Enforcement of judging to the standard.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> You were saying what, Nicole?


Thank you for posting the pic! She certainly had her faults (they all do) but she certainly wouldn't be excused from a ring. Do you have anything of her type in your kennel today?



> 1. How is that relevant?


I feel it's relevant because when these posts come up (on this forum) the opinion of those actually showing their LABRADOR RETRIEVERS get shoved to the side. There are plenty of dogs in the show ring who can do a days work that the breed was created for, what the standard calls for...it might not be field trials, but todays field trials aren't what the breed was developed for. 

So if you're going to split the breed, I agree with an earlier poster who said youre looking at creating an "American Retriever" breed. What would the standard be for that? Runs fast? Where is the consistency of type of those dogs running trials? Look at all the "pick a stud" threads...do you see anything about what the bitch needs structurally and what a stud can bring to a table? That "breed" would never even make it to AKC's foundation stock!


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

My avatar is a CH/MH. Longer leg, narrower head, and longer muzzle. Yes, overweight to get the CH title. And he did beat the #1 show dog multiple times that year at all breed shows. But take the weight off and he would probably look like what the standard was 20 to 30 yrs ago when there were dual champions. 

I think John is right on.
"No more coatless Greyhound looking dogs with FC's, by having radical deviation from the standard being grounds for elimination from the trial on the one side, and no more dogs without sufficient prey drive by having QAA as being the minimum requirement for a Ch.on the other"

Perhaps not QAA but atleast MH.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Nicole,

I disagree. There are not plenty of (and I am adding a word here) "competitive" labs in the show ring that can do a days work in the field. At least not at the weight shown.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

I don't have a dog in this fight, since I own Flat-Coats, but that's one of the many things that attracted me to the breed. The breed hasn't split like Labs and Goldens have. I have great admiration for working Labs and Goldens (and actually prefer them to their show ring counterparts) but they are defined by their working ability as opposed to looks.

This issue isn't so different from what the AKC has done to some other breeds. The plight of the Border Collie can serve as an example. For decades, the Border Collie was not an AKC registerable breed. Stud books were originally maintained in the UK and other parts of Europe. In this country, registries included the American Border Collie Association, the American International Border Collie registry or the North American Sheepdog Society. Each of these registries defined a Border Collie by the "work they performed and how they did it" as opposed to how they "looked". Therefore, BC's could come in many different shapes, sizes and colors. 

The AKC first recognized the Border Collie in 1995 and began registering them. A written standard was established that defined a BC by it's looks rather than by it's working ability and the war began. Most breeders of working BC's today vehemently oppose AKC registration and will not sell to owners that want to register with AKC or compete in AKC events like agility. They are working very hard to preserve the working nature of the BC and that means keeping them out of the show ring.

It seems that the AKC is partly at fault for encouraging the separation of several breeds, including Labs and Goldens. They offer Championship titles for accomplishments only in the show ring and Field Championships for accomplishments only in the field. It's too bad they don't encourage certain accomplishments in both areas to earn a title.

One breed that is trying to thwart a future split is the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. Although AKC doesn't recognize the title, the AKC parent club offers a Club Championship that requires any AKC Ch also pass a basic field test to earn the right to advertise as a NSDTRC CH. I realize that is far from a Dual CH, but it appears to be a step in the right direction.

Both sides are also at fault for the split. It all comes down to interpretation of the breed standard and each side stretching certain aspects to the limit and in some cases beyond. Show breeders strive to accentuate and reproduce the looks that win in the show ring with little or no regard for performance ability, drive, natural instinct or intelligence. Performance breeders focus on the aspects that will help them win in Field Trials and ignore looks and conformation in a quest to build a smarter, stronger more competitive field prospect.

Making a split in the Lab or Golden official by moving the show bred dogs to another group and bringing the field bred dogs in is, in my opinion, a mistake. Bringing field bred dogs into the show ring, writing a new breed standard for them and instructing conformation judges on what to look for will only lead to the same problem with the new breed in the future and another split. The real culprit is the written standard.

I believe the answer is to try to begin shifting things back toward the center from both sides. Proponents of both field and show bred dogs need to get together to critically analyze the written breed standard and reach a compromise. Coming in with all guns blazing and the attitude that one way or the other is the only way won't get it done. You will always have extremists on either end of the spectrum, but a move toward moderation in the show ring and encouragement of breeders to breed for hunting instinct and ability seems the most logical approach. 

Once a compromise is reached, conformation judges need to be educated and even encouraged to learn about what these dogs are expected to do in the field. 

I was involved in a show judges education event this past summer where judges went over dogs in the ring and then came over to watch representatives from each breed work in the field and on water. Many judges were astounded that these dogs could be trusted to heel off leash and recall to their handlers. Then they were utterly blown away at the concept of steadiness and advanced handling on blinds. We had a number of them come over and thank those of us that put on the demo and comment on how they had been judging in the show ring for years and had never seen these breeds work in the field. It's got to start somewhere.....

It's not an easy thing to accomplish and it will take some time, but I don't think that officially recognizing the split is the answer.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

After splitting the Labradors into two groups, followed by the other retriever breeds, are setters and spaniels next? (My FDSB -bred English Setter and English Springer Spaniel wouldn't have been allowed near a confirmation event).

Slippery slope, IMO.


ml


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

What I see proposed here is only a way to make it easier for a "field-bred" lab to attain a CH.

For this to go down it would have to be made easier for the "show-bred" lab to get an FC.

Then we'd have some watered down DC's from both sides. Great.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> Just asking; could someone please post pictures of the last Dual Champion Retrievers along with a description/complexity of the field trials run at that time (length of marks and blinds; types of marks ((multiples, etc.)); including as much as possible difficulty of factors)....just askin....


If you read the discription of the 1967 National in James Lamb Free's book, the work would be Qualifying level today.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Sean H said:


> What I see proposed here is only a way to make it easier for a "field-bred" lab to attain a CH.


That is cynical.

All I am proposing is we acknowledge what is already true -- the breed is split, and the show-bred Lab has gone the way of another retriever breed the Poodle. Treat them the same as Poodles. Move them to NonSporting and keep their rights to work and earn field titles if they can do it! Give the spot in the Sporting group to working, athletic Labs, which still belong there.

It makes perfect, logical sense.

Are there details that would need to be worked out? Hundreds! But that is not the point. The question at hand is the over-riding principle do we finally acknowledge what we all already know to be true? The breed is split!


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Franco said:


> If you read the discription of the 1967 National in James Lamb Free's book, the work would be Qualifying level today.


Ok, so the field-bred dogs get to only compete against each other to get a CH, and show-bred dogs get an FC by winning a Q. How does that work for everybody?

The problem would be distinction. What about the dogs that have both field and show in their pedigree? 

My solution to this problem would be that you wouldn't classify as "field-bred" vs. "show-bred". Instead there would be a group at a dog show that only FCs and AFCs could compete in for points. Also, any dog that has achieved a CH vs. open competition would get an FC by winning a Q.

Thoughts?


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Sean H said:


> What I see proposed here is only a way to make it easier for a "field-bred" lab to attain a CH.
> 
> For this to go down it would have to be made easier for the "show-bred" lab to get an FC.
> 
> Then we'd have some watered down DC's from both sides. Great.


Dont take this as insulting but they do have watered down titles WC WCX and JH. I have judged a Golden WC/WCX evenet and quite frankly it was painfull to watch. They did not want to pick up birds. Retrievers should not have to be made to retrieve. I asked why the do it and they said so they can show the dog is dual purpose.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Franco said:


> If you read the discription of the 1967 National in James Lamb Free's book, the work would be Qualifying level today.


Most Q dogs could never hold up to a week long 10 series event .


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Steve Amrein said:


> Dont take this as insulting but they do have watered down titles WC WCX and JH. I have judged a Golden WC/WCX evenet and quite frankly it was painfull to watch. They did not want to pick up birds. Retrievers should not have to be made to retrieve. I asked why the do it and they said so they can show the dog is dual purpose.


If you think that is painful, you should see a lab WC.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Steve Amrein said:


> Dont take this as insulting but they do have watered down titles WC WCX and JH. I have judged a Golden WC/WCX evenet and quite frankly it was painfull to watch. They did not want to pick up birds. Retrievers should not have to be made to retrieve. I asked why the do it and they said so they can show the dog is dual purpose.


We're talking about a Dual Champion here, not a certificate. Besides, there's already a comparable certificate for the field dogs to get. It's the conformation certificate.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve Amrein said:


> Dont take this as insulting but they do have watered down titles WC WCX and JH. I have judged a Golden WC/WCX evenet and quite frankly it was painfull to watch. They did not want to pick up birds. Retrievers should not have to be made to retrieve. I asked why the do it and they said so they can show the dog is dual purpose.


Finally someone said it!! Thank you Steve.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If you are going to split the labs why not do it to the Goldens too? The only retriever breed with any living DCs in the Chesapeake Bay Retriever.


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

I almost stayed out of this...
Have the Lab people tried? Honestly tried!!! The golden people have-
In large part to people like Glenda Brown, Mertens, Anney, and a few others who are both breeding their dogs to field or show, and in Anney's case training her dog to a higher level. In addition, others have gotten involved in the CCA-which rewards dogs that might not make it in a show ring but are conformationally correct.
Also kudos to the breeders who are working at getting HT titles on their show dogs-more power to them! They are capable and with increased emphasis on the "working" part of the golden, more and more breeders are breeding with that in mind.
Not all goldens are meant to be FT dogs, (not many in fact) and there are few golden owners who are willing to do what it takes, it is very hard. That is and has been a subject for another thread
Most goldens SHOULD be able to do the work for a JH, and while you guys may not think much of that, it does show that a dog will go pick up a bird. And the attitude that it is painful is while true, is rude, as at least they are trying. And hopefully will get hooked enough to try harder. Do you know how hard it is for the average person to get ducks, and teach your dog to pick them up???? Really, think back to when you first started doing all of this!!! My freezer is full of dead ducks for the puppy, but I am lucky to have friends who hunt...
So-Have the Lab people tried to reach a compromise? Have they tried to have a more moderate dog that can do the work? Have they tried to educate people? Judges? 
I have heard all the arguments-will water down the lines, they won't retrieve, etc etc. 
I love my dogs, but they are field dogs, which in the old days would have been fine in the show, but not so much today, but I admire the good looking working show lines.Whistler has the best front I have seen, bad rear, not so nice head. Hardest charging dog I have ever seen, and no common sense. I bred him to a female who had a better rear, better head (and common sense), and got Carbon, both in my avatar. But lost some of the retrieve. I have a puppy in my house (actually my car) who is huge-he comes from AFC/Champion lines after his parents-I will be interested to see how he turns out. He is a charming puppy, who does not yet have a name)

So, my point is, I do not think they should be moved. I think there should be some non-judgemental education. Who knows what that could do in terms of heath and conformation.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Franco said:


> If you read the discription of the 1967 National in James Lamb Free's book, the work would be Qualifying level today.


since I did not see a National Championship stake until the late 70s I could not comment on Free's description, but I did see Shadow of Otter Creek win (with Honcho nipping at his heels) and it was no Qualifying

and Dual CH Trumarc's Triple Threat would be just as competitive today as he was in his day


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

It has merit Bob-although I think we have an CAFC/CanCH in Push.

It is a mess......


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Kevin-

I didn't respond to the survey since I don't have a dog in the fight. However, I may be able to lend a bit of historical perspective.

When the standard of the Labrador Retriever was last changed, several members of the LRC of the Potomac took issue with it and filed a lawsuit against the AKC. After perhaps a year, the suit was dismissed by summary judgement. The issue of the suit was that the LRC had not followed the club's own procedure in adopting the changes and forwarding them to AKC. If you'll recall, ultimately the AKC approved the LRC changes twice, the second time after the i's were dotted and the t's crossed. The remedy that the suit sought was to split the breed. The plaintiff's argued that the LRC/AKC had changed the standard to the point that only field bred dogs could meet it. Don't remember all the points of issue but one, the color issue, required show judges to NQ any dog that was not uniform in color and judges started dismissing yellows for the highlights in the coat.

George Bragaw was alive then and heavily involved in the plaintiff's side. George was about as serious a student of the Labrador standard and history as any person ever was. As I recall, his real argument was that the LRC Standards Comm had unilaterally declared something to be true that simply wasn't. George was on the Standard Committee but was not invited to the meetings.

In short, the Lab standard has been heavily discussed in the past 20 years with the very idea of splitting the breed. George related to me at the time that it was becoming difficult to tell the LRC from the NRC and that the goal seemed to be to make that line even fainter. George was quick to point out that the "true Labrador" was not anything like the field bred dogs on the American scene. In fact I once said that it sounded like he was arguing to split the breed three ways.....American Field Labrador, Labrador Retriever, and the dogs that most often won in the show ring with non-Labrador judges. He said there was something to that and that "the true student of the history of the labrador doesn't prefer either of the extremes."

Perhaps there are members of the LRC of the Potomac who are present and can correct me where I've over-simplified or stated something in error. George was very frustrated by the whole affair.

Eric


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Sean H said:


> We're talking about a Dual Champion here, not a certificate. Besides, there's already a comparable certificate for the field dogs to get. It's the conformation certificate.


I have a freind that his dog become a CH yet it could not pass its conformation certificate.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

I don't own labs, but have considered it..and I do, I will definitely go with a breeding that has some substance and is correct to the written standard... I like a more solid dog, and more importantly, one with proper coat - one that is dry as a bone underneath the heavy layer of guard hairs after a long swim..I had a mostly lab mix that was almost impossible to soak all the way down to the skin because she had a really really good coat....

I like the looks of the pup in Angie B.'s avatar... 

I think the show lab has just become too overdone....and it can be brought back to a more moderately built dog if people just acknowledge that.

I think it is great to see the CH MH labs....I don't think it will be too many more yrs before a DC quality lab is bred, given the fact that there seems to be more breedings that are combining the show/field traits....

Juli


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

Juli H said:


> I don't own labs, but have considered it..and I do, I will definitely go with a breeding that has some substance and is correct to the written standard... I like a more solid dog, and more importantly, one with proper coat - one that is dry as a bone underneath the heavy layer of guard hairs after a long swim..I had a mostly lab mix that was almost impossible to soak all the way down to the skin because she had a really really good coat....
> 
> I like the looks of the pup in Angie B.'s avatar...
> 
> ...



Wanna put some money on it.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Steve Amrein said:


> I have a freind that his dog become a CH yet it could not pass its conformation certificate.


Then the dog wouldn't be a Dual Champion. I don't understand where you're going with that.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sean H said:


> Then the dog wouldn't be a Dual Champion. I don't understand where you're going with that.


I think his point was that something (height perhaps?) was overlooked in the AKC show ring which could not be overlooked in the LRC's conformation cert. Most CC's have a wicket that gets used. The shows don't. I for one have lost height in my lines, and am thrilled that my 8 mo old bitch is already well over 21.5". 

I didn't vote, mainly because I just don't think that a split is the answer. We still have Cockers in the Sporting Group and they've all but become extinct at field events. I do think the LRC tries to educate, but judges tend to put up what they like personally (breeder judges esp) and the all arounders just have gotten used to the bigger clunkier lab. 

The boy that just won Euk last weekend (Bravo) was very nice, btw: Am.Ch.StarQuests Right On Que "Bravo". Moderate, moves well, and owner says he'll be doing obed and field work as soon as he comes home.  Kudos to her!!! Anne


----------



## jimmyp (Aug 21, 2008)

So.... I don't particularly have a real interest in whether a dog fits one standard or the other as long as it does its intended job, whether that be show or field. However it wa said that a dog should not have to be made to retrieve, but I'd be willing to say that 80% of us have FFd our dogs. Also an FT bred dog in my opinion is not necesarily being bred to do what a lab was intended to do. They do retrieve birds and I know that folks hunt them but its like training a thoroughbred to run in the derby then trying to make a pleasure horse out of it. I guess what I'm saying is these dodgs all come from similar origins but due to selective breeding enthusiasts have made a versatile breed where you can find anything your looking for. Why split the breed? Dogs that are fit for the ring will earn ribbons. Dogs fit fo the field will earn their ribbons there. Just my opinion.
Jim


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Losthwy said:


> I didn't vote. I do agree the show lines in Labradors, are far removed from field dogs. And those people who are engaged in showing their dogs are far removed from those engaged in field events. And the rift grows with each passing year. Show and Field participants nothing in common except the name Labrador. And both groups will continue to go their separate ways. And as a buyer of a pup who would be running field events in the future, I would have great concerns about buying a pup that had bench dogs in it's 3-G pedigree. My :2c:


Even if that pup had several CH/MH's and several other MH, SH and JH (and obed and agility) titles in the 3 gen pedigree? Just asking... because some of us really do care about producing a well rounded Lab.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> I think his point was that something (height perhaps?) was overlooked in the AKC show ring which could not be overlooked in the LRC's conformation cert. Most CC's have a wicket that gets used. The shows don't. I for one have lost height in my lines, and am thrilled that my 8 mo old bitch is already well over 21.5".



I guess I should read the full post instead of scanning. :-?

Sorry Steve, thought you said working certificate, not conformation certificate. A CH failing a conformation certificate is definitely a problem.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Sean H said:


> Then the dog wouldn't be a Dual Champion. I don't understand where you're going with that.


My point is that the compitition of the show ring does not always meet the criteria the dogs are supposed to fit, meaning the certificate of conformation.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

windycanyon said:


> I think his point was that something (height perhaps?) was overlooked in the AKC show ring which could not be overlooked in the LRC's conformation cert. Most CC's have a wicket that gets used. The shows don't. I for one have lost height in my lines, and am thrilled that my 8 mo old bitch is already well over 21.5".
> 
> Anne


OH NO! I think I'm having a flashback! When I first discovered the fabulous RTF a little over 3 years ago, it was this same conversation, I swear on my dog! Anyway, while reading it, I whipped out a tape measure and measured my dog's height. I looked at the results and said to Indy, "Nope, you are too tall Jones, no dog shows for you". He grinned and ate a cookie. Thus my screen name, 2Tall. LOL! I can't say how many people I have met on here that were shocked when they met me in person at my lofty 5'2"

Sorry, back to topic now!

Child of the '60s regards,


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Eric,

Everything you say is true, but in the terms of the big picture it is recent history, and illustrates only a small part of the split.

The split began back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Lab was principally a field dog, and when a segment of the fancy, led by Helen Warwick, wanted to make it more competitive in show, they were trusted by the field folks, and allowed to unchecked. Helen was the breed columnist in the _Gazette_ which the judges read for direction. It started with importing English judges for Specialties and breeding seminars. Soon, show breeders were importing studs and brood bitches from England. In the meantime the field breeders were just staying with their same lines from the 1930s. (Most field-bred Labs of today look similar or the same as the American Labs back in the 1930s. Show-bred Labs do not.)

---------------------------------------------------

The split is almost sixty-years old now! It is time to accept the fact.

Yes, there have always been some idealistic breeders who have had some success marrying the two, and more power to them. But they are a tiny, tiny percentage, and have had limited success. It is tough to be something both extremes find acceptable, with the divide being so wide between the two sides.

And the wide divide illustrates why it is time we finally acknowledge what we already know to be true. Except is very rare cases, show-bred Labs cannot compete in the field, and field-bred Labs cannot compete in the show ring. It is over. It is done. Finis.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> Eric,
> 
> Everything you say is true, but in the terms of the big picture it is recent history, and illustrates only a small part of the split.
> 
> ...



How do you propose to make the distinction between show-bred and field-bred?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Is the goal of this change to improve the breed,if so how, or to allow some dogs to receive more titles?

Just asking I have no dog in this fight!

Tim


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Sean H said:


> How do you propose to make the distinction between show-bred and field-bred?


easy, make them prove their merit in the field prior to entering the conformation ring

Dual CH Trumarc's Triple Threat (Punt) was a Field Champion first before he was ever shown in conformation


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

EdA said:


> easy, make them prove their merit in the field prior to entering the conformation ring
> 
> Dual CH Trumarc's Triple Threat (Punt) was a Field Champion first before he was ever shown in conformation


So are you proposing that the dog must first be a FC before competing in conformation? Or would a lesser title be necessary?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Sean H said:


> So are you proposing that the dog must first be a FC before competing in conformation? Or would a lesser title be necessary?


I'm not proposing anything, just joining the discussion, as far as I am concerned if there was never another Dual CH it would be no great loss

However I think any breed that was developed for a specific purpose should be able to demonstrate the ability to fulfill that purpose prior to entering the show ring (which will never happen)


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Sean H said:


> How do you propose to make the distinction between show-bred and field-bred?


Any number of ways! 

But to go there would be to get bogged down in details, and we can't even agree yet on the principle of the need for the change! ;-)


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> The split began back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Lab was principally a field dog, and when a segment of the fancy, led by Helen Warwick, wanted to make it more competitive in show, they were trusted by the field folks, and allowed to unchecked. Helen was the breed columnist in the _Gazette_ which the judges read for direction. It started with importing English judges for Specialties and breeding seminars. Soon, show breeders were importing studs and brood bitches from England. In the meantime the field breeders were just staying with their same lines from the 1930s. (Most field-bred Labs of today look similar or the same as the American Labs back in the 1930s. Show-bred Labs do not.)


I agree with some of the above, but I don't think the blame really goes to the English imports. The ones I know of around my parts (a couple in my dogs' pedigrees) were VERY moderate. And the English breeder judges that have been brought in by our club actually seem to prefer a more moderate, fit lab w/ more muzzle length than the current show ring trends (and commented on the muzzles in their notes that I read in my club newsletter). 

The past AKC Gazette columnist (Bernie Ziessow) and the current (Lee Foote) were/are both very much into the moderate, versatile/all arounder Lab. Anne


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> Any number of ways!
> 
> But to go there would be to get bogged down in details, and we can't even agree yet on the principle of the need for the change! ;-)


Sorry, I can't agree to split the breed unless I know how the distinction for the split would be determined.;-)


----------



## jmaher (Mar 10, 2009)

This may have been mentioned already and I missed it. On the other hand, there are many field labs that really look more like greyhounds. Most breed judges have no idea about the concept of a "working retirever" and most field breeders are not as concerned about looks but rather titles. As a chessie guy one of the most disturbing things I have heard from someone who breeds and trains chessies was, "I don't care what they look like as long as they perform." And I'm sure there are people out there with the opposite opinion for the show side. So much for the integrity of the breed.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> I agree with some of the above, but I don't think the blame really goes to the English imports. The ones I know of around my parts (a couple in my dogs' pedigrees) were VERY moderate.


It is not entirely the fault of the English imports. It is not entirely the fault of Mrs. Warwick and her friends; Nor the field breeders who passed the job, nor the contemporary show breeders, nor the contemporary field breeders. It is a confluence of factors and events.

I remember when we were showing our Labs back in the early-80s. Campbellcroft's Angus was still an Open dog, and then soon after a Special. All the gossip behind the owners back was "the dog [is] so overdone he looks like a Rottweiler!" Then he starts winning, including at Specialties, and the show people breed to him. By today's standard in the show ring, _"Gus" was moderate!! :shock: :shock:_

---------------------------------------------
More to illustrate the divide and the need to acknowledge the difference --

You have show pedigrees and field pedigrees, and no common ancestors for what now, fifteen generations?? :? Lots of English imports behind the show Labs. NONE behind the field Labs.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> This may have been mentioned already and I missed it. On the other hand, there are many field labs that really look more like greyhounds. Most breed judges have no idea about the concept of a "working retirever" and most field breeders are not as concerned about looks but rather titles. As a chessie guy one of the most disturbing things I have heard from someone who breeds and trains chessies was, "I don't care what they look like as long as they perform." And I'm sure there are people out there with the opposite opinion for the show side. So much for the integrity of the breed


I know absolutely nothing about Chessie confirmation.
But I can tell you this I have seen short squaty long nosed chessies with a CH in front of their name and I have seen a very tall broad pit bull lookin chessie with a CH infront of their name,,
My only conclusion and its probabbly the wrong conclusion,,,correct me if I'm wrong,,,,,is that there is a broader acceptance of types in the chessie compared to the labs

Maby it is due to the fact not many chessies are usually entered at a show compared to labs... I dont know,,, but in my eyes there are distinc difference.

Pete


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I have to go to work, but let me throw Sean and Dr.EdA a bone --

For a number of reasons, several National parent clubs for breeds have had to petition the AKC to have distinct "varieties" recognized within their breed, such that it dictates separate conformation classes.

You have 13" and 15" Beagles. Same breed! Can be interbred! But different varieties. You have three varieties of Cocker -- Black, Parti-, and ASCOB. Same breed! Three varieties. You have three varieties of Poodle -- Standard, Miniature and Toy -- in different groups! You have different varieties of Dachshunds, Collies, Chows, etc.

Okay, here is my proposal for Labs: Two varieties 

Retriever, Labrador (English) in the NonSporting Group
Retriever, Labrador (American) in the Sporting Group

And the prerequisite for titling in the American variety conformation is a MH or QAA!


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReedCreek 
Just asking; could someone please post pictures of the last Dual Champion Retrievers along with a description/complexity of the field trials run at that time (length of marks and blinds; types of marks ((multiples, etc.)); including as much as possible difficulty of factors)....just askin....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco 
If you read the discription of the 1967 National in James Lamb Free's book, the work would be Qualifying level today.

Quote:
? There are some breeders and/or owners of "show bred labs" that are working the field at Master and Qual levels. Things have changed in both venues. The CH/MH dogs now are the old Dual Champions. They are doing the same work in the field. In the field things have progressed. ?
__________________
Greg

Pretty much my point; things have changed/evolved/progressed both in the field and in the breed ring. Whether you believe the change has been for the better or for the worse; would probably be heavily dependent on what dog stands beside you at the line or in the ring. Mine is a show bred girl and I believe she and others like her could be the wave of the future for those who want (and that is key "for those who want") a dog that can reach as close as possible to blending today?s standards for field and show. She is not the only one out there by any means who could go into a show ring (perhaps not a specialty ring) and not be laughed out and who could stand on line in a Qual and do a good job, a credible job (perhaps not win; that would depend on the day, the test, the judge, the dog, the handler and the competition (but then few field bred dogs can win and few show bred dogs win in the ring...as we all know, competition among labs in whatever venue you choose is fierce). There are several very dedicated breeders around who are trying to preserve the birdiness and intelligence of the breed while also producing dogs that conform to the standard. My girl has 30 years of careful breeding behind her. My search for a qualified stud dog who meets all the standards that I consider important (health, temperament, breed standard, birdiness, intelligence) is not easy; but they are out there. Hats off to those breeders who despite all continue to try to produce a dog that can do both on a high level and I consider a CH combined with an MH and then add "Icing on the Cake" with a QAA.....WOW! I am not so sure that the answer lies in asking anyone to ?change the standards? or ?divide the breed? simply because it might eliminate me or my dog from ?having it all??for me a CH/MH with a QAA would be having it all! For me, that would be the equivalent of a Dual Champion!
________
Portable vaporizer reviews


----------



## leo455 (Aug 15, 2008)

Reedcreek,
Pretty much my point; things have changed/evolved/progressed both in the field and in the breed ring. Whether you believe the change has been for the better or for the worse; would probably be heavily dependent on what dog stands beside you at the line or in the ring. Mine is a show bred girl and I believe she and others like her could be the wave of the future for those who want (and that is key "for those who want") a dog that can reach as close as possible to blending today’s standards for field and show. She is not the only one out there by any means who could go into a show ring (perhaps not a specialty ring) and not be laughed out and who could stand on line in a Qual and do a good job, a credible job (perhaps not win; that would depend on the day, the test, the judge, the dog, the handler and the competition (but then few field bred dogs can win and few show bred dogs win in the ring...as we all know, competition among labs in whatever venue you choose is fierce). There are several very dedicated breeders around who are trying to preserve the birdiness and intelligence of the breed while also producing dogs that conform to the standard. My girl has 30 years of careful breeding behind her. My search for a qualified stud dog who meets all the standards that I consider important (health, temperament, breed standard, birdiness, intelligence) is not easy; but they are out there. Hats off to those breeders who despite all continue to try to produce a dog that can do both on a high level and I consider a CH combined with an MH and then add "Icing on the Cake" with a QAA.....WOW! I am not so sure that the answer lies in asking anyone to “change the standards” or “divide the breed” simply because it might eliminate me or my dog from “having it all”…for me a CH/MH with a QAA would be having it all! For me, that would be the equivalent of a Dual Champion!

I agree


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

EdA said:


> ...as far as I am concerned if there was never another Dual CH it would be no great loss


Second that sentiment.

I really could care less about bench dogs. Let the show do as they like, I for one couldn't care less. And I get no pleasure from watching folks running in a circle at Westminster. I would would bet the great majority of folks involved in Field trials feel the same way. Yup, if there was never another Dual Ch it would be no great loss.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> I have to go to work, but let me throw Sean and Dr.EdA a bone --
> 
> For a number of reasons, several National parent clubs for breeds have had to petition the AKC to have distinct "varieties" recognized within their breed, such that it dictates separate conformation classes.
> 
> ...


How about Retriever, Labrador (Companion Dog variety) and Retriever, Labrador (Working Dog variety). 

I may vote yet.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> The boy that just won Euk last weekend (Bravo) was very nice, btw: Am.Ch.StarQuests Right On Que "Bravo". Moderate, moves well, and owner says he'll be doing obed and field work as soon as he comes home.  Kudos to her!!! Anne


Hey heard - due to the pedigree!) of the win as I hardly see any bench folks. Was surprised as Australia and New Zealand follow UK standard, not US.


----------



## ad18 (Aug 23, 2006)

Voted to leave the everything alone. In the show ring the dog, in my opinion, is what a lab should look like. Although they appear to be getting heavier and stockier each year. Unfortunately the intened hunting desire has been watered down significantly. Having said that the field dog that is prevalent now is such a mish mash of looks that even if the breed was split I don't think a new standard body wise could be established to appease everyone. As well, far too many field dogs are losing the laid back temperment of the traditional lab and that is truly sad. Unless a very dedicated breeder and special dog comes along the chance of a dual championed lab is pretty much zero. Pick which type of lab you prefer, play the game you desire, and enjoy the time with the wonderful dog you have.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

American working labrador? Normally the breed name is from country or area of origin, except for Australian Shepherd.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Kevin-

Your proposal would eliminate hunt tests, even field trials, for the Labs that started in the non-sporting group....even if the owner wanted to try and the dog could do the work.

It's a non-starter.

Eric


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> Your proposal would eliminate hunt tests, even field trials, for the Labs that started in the non-sporting group....even if the owner wanted to try and the dog could do the work.


You lost me.

Poodles are in the NonSporting Group and are eligible to run both HTs and FTs, and those that can, do.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> I have to go to work, but let me throw Sean and Dr.EdA a bone --
> 
> For a number of reasons, several National parent clubs for breeds have had to petition the AKC to have distinct "varieties" recognized within their breed, such that it dictates separate conformation classes.
> 
> ...


I'll agree with you that the breed is split. Now that is out of the way, what criteria can be used to determine if a dog is in the English or American group? Without being able to quantify this for every dog presently called a Lab, two varieties would be impossible. What are the criteria?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Aussie said:


> American working labrador? Normally the breed name is from country or area of origin, except for Australian Shepherd.


I am confused. The Labrador, despite its name, originated in Newfoundland.

In any case, we can discuss, joke around and play with the details of the change, but it is all a waste of time until there is agreement on the overriding principle for the change.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ironman said:


> ....what criteria can be used to determine if a dog is in the English or American group? Without being able to quantify this for every dog presently called a Lab, two varieties would be impossible. What are the criteria?


First off, I was making the suggestion of American and English varieties half-in-jest, playing with Sean's desire to want get down to details. You apparently agree with Sean. 

I don't have all the answers. I imagine no one person does. It would probably take a committee of experts from both sides of the divide to work out all the details.

All I am doing is identifying a need and making a case for it.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Aussie said:


> Hey heard - due to the pedigree!) of the win as I hardly see any bench folks. Was surprised as Australia and New Zealand follow UK standard, not US.


 
Just to bring others on board, Bravo (BOB Eukanuba) is the product of 2 New Zealand imports. Anne


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Why stop at two ? Let's have an all others category

john


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I certainly forgot about the Poodles (1 of 3 varieties) that are allowed in hunt tests. Not certain about field trials.

How would you implement the split since the gene pool is the same?

For that matter, should the other varieties of Poodle be allowed to run tests and trials?

In light of the scrapping of the move to re-align the groups, I'd guess this just isn't going to happen.

Eric


----------



## chrism (Oct 2, 2009)

I have a Field trial lab who is a very handsome dog but not to standard with conformation. Now my youger one i showed once, The judge stated he was what they call an old fashioned but wouldn't win by what they are looking for today. He is right on the edge of the limit for size being on the large side but is a very fit dog since we train or hunt at least 2x a week.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There are breeders who breed for the moderate and do well in some areas under certain judges. In conformation, it's all about what the judges put up. If it became _mandatory _to follow the rule *that is in place* for dogs to pass a field title before they could CH, I think things would change. I would like to see SH at least to show they could handle, but I'm afraid that would never happen. I think if it became a part of the judging that dogs were in muscled working shape instead of carrying an extra 15-20 pounds with short legs, things would shift. It's all in what's put up. If dogs were considered beautiful as a working dog, which is what they should be, then you would have a chance of an FC going in the bench ring and completing a CH, which is what happened to the last couple of Duals. It will never happen the other way around, a CH becoming an FC. There are some good looking FC's. It is all in changing the mindset away from overdone. Once they aren't being put up, breeders would come closer to the middle.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

I voted no on the split for a lot of reasons. I own labs from both camps, and a MUL, Mixed up lab,half field half show. With our FC/AFC sired lab, his coat is the pits. This dog loves to be outside unless it is cold then he shakes and shivers and wants to come in to warm up. 30 degrees and he is cold. The show dogs are loving the cool weather. The show dogs are still jumping in and out of our inground pool.
Many show dogs that win right now couldn't hold a duck in their mouth.
So for me, judges put up dogs that are not to standard and many field labs are not to standard.
Enforce the standard and we may make progress.
Working condition is rare in the show world. Conformation to the standard including a proper coat seems rare in the field world.
30 degrees outside, and the only one that wants to be inside is the FC/AFC sired lab.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> There are breeders who breed for the moderate and do well in some areas under certain judges. In conformation, it's all about what the judges put up. If it became _mandatory _to follow the rule *that is in place* for dogs to pass a field title before they could CH, I think things would change. I would like to see SH at least to show they could handle, but I'm afraid that would never happen. I think if it became a part of the judging that dogs were in muscled working shape instead of carrying an extra 15-20 pounds with short legs, things would shift. It's all in what's put up. If dogs were considered beautiful as a working dog, which is what they should be, then you would have a chance of an FC going in the bench ring and completing a CH, which is what happened to the last couple of Duals. It will never happen the other way around, a CH becoming an FC. There are some good looking FC's. It is all in changing the mindset away from overdone. Once they aren't being put up, breeders would come closer to the middle.


Well put. I think if the WC was consistently closer to a JH, I'd be happier with it (I actually heard of one that was tougher than the JH held on the same grounds one year). Let's face it, many hunters who think of themselves as "avid" don't even require delivery to hand, let alone handling. Though I think it'd be great to have to prove trainability, it won't happen, so we just need to show a little more natural desire and instinct perhaps than some of the WCs apparently do. 

All that said, I've never done a WC personally, but one of my 7/8 show bred pups participated in our club one this past year and Q'd at just 5 mos. Anne


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Kevin...Unless of a recent AKC change...Poodles AREN'T allowed to be entered in AKC Field Trails...due to their non-sporting statis. Hunt Tests, yes. I guess AKC must think that hunt tests are "non sporting" and did allow the Poodles to enter the HT's. Confusing? I'd say.


----------



## Lance-CO (Jan 10, 2003)

How about if we have a show competition after or before each National and Nat Am? Only National qualifiers are the only dogs allowed to enter the show competition. Points will be awarded towards his/her Ch title and go on to compete for the Nat Ch (if there is one). Just a thought 

Angelo


----------



## shootncast (Dec 30, 2008)

There are a ton of great Ideas flying around on this subject, But there is no one here who can deny this basic reality....Jeff Lusk has the best avatar out of all of you.



Sucher der vogel Czar..BR IN GE R OF BI RD S AN DBL OW ER OF FAR TS
( Call name Czar)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Since form should follow function, since the Labrador breed was developed to retrieve game & since we are talking about dual champions, it is an easy solution: in order to earn a CH title a dog should FIRST receive an FC or AFC title. Things would change over night. Pigadors that have no retrieving desire or capability to do a day's work would have no place in the breed. And field dog owners who wanted a dual champion would have to pay more attention to conformation. All solved........

Ah, but politics, yes those in the places of authority have too much vested in their quest for power, control and financial gain to come to such a simple and practical solution. So just dream on, those in charge will continue to make decisions that best suit their interests.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I dunno David. FC or AFC seems like a little overkill.

Why not just say they have to be QAA'd before they can use the title CH?


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

From the LRC website.

SECTION 1. Restriction. No member of the Club shall use the title "CH" in front of the name of a registered Labrador Retriever dog until said dog, having won a conformation championship, shall also receive a working certificate or the equivalent as defined in this Article. 

If the dog can work, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The solution is, change Working Certificate to SH, and make the above 
part of the AKC's requirement to be a CH. Because many CH owners are not a member of the LRC it would need to be an AKC requirement.

I know, good luck with that.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

brandywinelabs said:


> From the LRC website.
> 
> SECTION 1. Restriction. No member of the Club shall use the title "CH" in front of the name of a registered Labrador Retriever dog until said dog, having won a conformation championship, shall also receive a working certificate or the equivalent as defined in this Article.
> 
> ...


On the other side in order for a dog to be an FC require a certain number of conformation points. I know dream on.
Heck I'd like to see conformation dogs compete against CH's to earn the title CH like they have to in the UK.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> From the LRC website.
> 
> SECTION 1. Restriction. No member of the Club shall use the title "CH" in front of the name of a registered Labrador Retriever dog until said dog, having won a conformation championship, shall also receive a working certificate or the equivalent as defined in this Article.
> 
> ...


As a "concept" that would seem like a solution; but we know the time/money invested in training our labs to the level of SH; it is no small investment. Couple that with time, money and breeding knowledge that it takes to produce a CH, this would be very hard to achieve for the average breeder; perhaps if you only breed a few dogs then it is more realistic to achieve. Since we are dreaming here, consider that a JH would be a more reasonable expectation; JH is certainly harder to attain than a WC and, among other things it tests the marking ability of the dog; which is key. I think a real solutions would be to have AKC make QAA a recognized title ?.now that would really spur competitive breeders and owners on; you would see more breeders trying to produce dogs who could add a very prestigious title to their lines and type may have to change a bit in the breed ring!
________
Marijuana vaporizer


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> I think a real solutions would be to have AKC make QAA a recognized title ….


I think that I can speak for the majority of the field trial community that there is almost no interest or support for such a designation, the Qualifying Stake is just that and nothing more, certainly not meritorious of a pedigree designation


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

ReedCreek said:


> As a "concept" that would seem like a solution; but we know the time/money invested in training our labs to the level of SH; it is no small investment. Couple that with time, money and breeding knowledge that it takes to produce a CH, this would be very hard to achieve for the average breeder; perhaps if you only breed a few dogs then it is more realistic to achieve. Since we are dreaming here, consider that a JH would be a more reasonable expectation; JH is certainly harder to attain than a WC and, among other things it tests the marking ability of the dog; which is key. I think a real solutions would be to have AKC make QAA a recognized title ….now that would really spur competitive breeders and owners on; you would see more breeders trying to produce dogs who could add a very prestigious title to their lines and type may have to change a bit in the breed ring!


Yes but it does not make a Dual CH any easier to attain. To attract both factions, you have to hit that middle ground. No Whippett like labs and no pigador labs would be CH's and make the other changes.

Dream a little dream for me.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

How about a few simple adjustments in conformation as a start. A scale before entering the ring, all dogs must be within the weight limit or your dismissed for lack of merit (working condition). A wicket before you enter, except puppy classes.(puppies can be under but not over). On the puppy exception you can't get points or maybe you must stay within height rules as an adult say 18 months for points to count. These could also apply to field trials. Simple.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

EdA said:


> I think that I can speak for the majority of the field trial community that there is almost no interest or support for such a designation, the Qualifying Stake is just that and nothing more, certainly not meritorious of a pedigree designation


Interesting...well, on the flip side; why would an SH or a JH be meritorious of a pedigree designation...why not just an MH?
________
Aromed vaporizers


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> Interesting...well, on the flip side; why would an SH or a JH be meritorious of a pedigree designation...why not just an MH?


sounds appropriate to me but that rule is already in place, it was passed on by the Hunt Test rule makers not Field Trial rule makers

Any such designation regarding Field Trial Rule changes would have to be implemented through the Retriever Advisory Committee


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey Dr. Ed. With many clubs doing both field trials and hunt tests don't be surprised if the QAA title makes it to through the RAC someday.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> As a "concept" that would seem like a solution; but we know the time/money invested in training our labs to the level of SH; it is no small investment. Couple that with time, money and breeding knowledge that it takes to produce a CH, this would be very hard to achieve for the average breeder; perhaps if you only breed a few dogs then it is more realistic to achieve. Since we are dreaming here, consider that a JH would be a more reasonable expectation; JH is certainly harder to attain than a WC and, among other things it tests the marking ability of the dog; which is key.


Since the rule of having a working title is ignored along with the weight rules, things will not change and this is all fantasy. A SH is not that difficult to obtain in a trainable dog so it would show trainability and not just marking.; however, neither should an FC be changed to QAA to accomodate those that want to make the Dual title more obtainable.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Hey Dr. Ed. With many clubs doing both field trials and hunt tests don't be surprised if the QAA title makes it to through the RAC someday.


hopefully not during my tenure on this earth.....;-)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Howard N said:


> I dunno David. FC or AFC seems like a little overkill.
> 
> Why not just say they have to be QAA'd before they can use the title CH?


Because it compromises what is most important, the working aspect of the breed. Again I come from a form follows function mentality (& a history of the breed supports that view through the 1950s). If we want one breed, there must be an if-then requirement. There should not be a separate faction of the breed community saying they concentrate on conformation or shows, etc unless their dogs have first demonstrated a titled ability in the field. I'd go much further than the LRC requirement for using a show title, I'd want the requirement to be that eligibility for competing for conformation related titles and awards be predicated upon first winning a field title. I'm all for consideration of the conformation of the dog but only if that dog has first demonstrated its ability and worth in the field by winning a field title. Anything less will perpetuate a separate breed mentality. There is no suitable middle ground on this issue. If we want one breed it has to be this way or there is no motivation for the one breed with no divisions.

From a practical view, such a field title first view would also govern the inevitable evolution of the breed std as field abilities continue to progress.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> Because it compromises what is most important, the working aspect of the breed. Again I come from a form follows function mentality (& a history of the breed supports that view through the 1950s). If we want one breed, there must be an if-then requirement. There should not be a separate faction of the breed community saying they concentrate on conformation or shows, etc unless their dogs have first demonstrated a titled ability in the field. I'd go much further than the LRC requirement for using a show title, I'd want the requirement to be that eligibility for competing for conformation related titles and awards be predicated upon first winning a field title. I'm all for consideration of the conformation of the dog but only if that dog has first demonstrated its ability and worth in the field by winning a field title. Anything less will perpetuate a separate breed mentality. There is no suitable middle ground on this issue. If we want one breed it has to be this way or there is no motivation for the one breed with no divisions.
> 
> From a practical view, such a field title first view would also govern the inevitable evolution of the breed std as field abilities continue to progress.


Why the field before the conformation? Prove the dog meets the standard and then let it compete in the field. Just saying that it goes both ways.
I don't ever want to own another lab that shivers at 30 degrees due to lack of proper coat. At least I live in NC now not CT.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Why the field before the conformation? Prove the dog meets the standard and then let it compete in the field. Just saying that it goes both ways.
> I don't ever want to own another lab that shivers at 30 degrees due to lack of proper coat. At least I live in NC now not CT.


I have one that is not shivering and it is 20. And the reason for field before confirmation is they are only pageant queens and kings if they cannot do there job in the field.
________
ass Cams


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Hey Dr. Ed. With many clubs doing both field trials and hunt tests don't be surprised if the QAA title makes it to through the RAC someday.





EdA said:


> hopefully not during my tenure on this earth.....;-)


About three years ago, the Midwest Field Trial Club voted to endorse the proposal. The signed paperwork was submitted to LVL who was going to secure the endorsement from the ACC. The oldest retriever breed club and the oldest all-breed field trial club submitting the proposal to the RAC. At the time the chair of the RAC was Midwest's AKC Representative, the late Pete Simonds. For whatever reason it never got past LVL's desk (I asked repeatedly in email she never replied). It would have been interesting if it had made it. Under AKC rules, Pete would have been obligated to represent the desires of the club.

It was _that_ close, Dr. Ed.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

scott spalding said:


> I have one that is not shivering and it is 20. And the reason for field before confirmation is they are only pageant queens and kings if they cannot do there job in the field.


I have 3 that don't shiver at 20 degrees or even lower. The only one that gets cold is the FC/AFC sired dog.

Heck 2 of them are well known to jump in the pool on the rare 3 degree day. They must have their early morning swim.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Why the field before the conformation? Prove the dog meets the standard and then let it compete in the field. Just saying that it goes both ways.
> I don't ever want to own another lab that shivers at 30 degrees due to lack of proper coat. At least I live in NC now not CT.


Even if what you were saying were true. I could throw a neopreme vest on a skinny field bred dog that will retrieve a bird, and he will. You could put a life vest on some show bred and tell ya what they'll look at ya for a long time wondering if your waders are tall enough for you to get to that bird you just shot! LMAO


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Would it help the situation if the AKC/LRC followed the FCI standard like the rest of the world does?


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Fire N Ice said:


> Even if what you were saying were true. I could throw a neopreme vest on a skinny field bred dog that will retrieve a bird, and he will. You could put a life vest on some show bred and tell ya what they'll look at ya for a long time wondering if your waders are tall enough for you to get to that bird you just shot! LMAO


 I never said the field kid would refuse a retrieve, but he can not tolerate cold temps like the others do. He will be staying home this weekend when my husband goes north hunting. Hubby is taking one of my dogs because he is afraid his dog will get too cold! Of course the dog that is going has a CH/MH sire.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Why the field before the conformation? Prove the dog meets the standard and then let it compete in the field. Just saying that it goes both ways.
> I don't ever want to own another lab that shivers at 30 degrees due to lack of proper coat. At least I live in NC now not CT.


Because the Labrador breed was developed to retrieve game. I.e, form follows function - seems both logical and simple to me. And Forrest Gump had it right, beauty is as beauty does.

And my position takes care of that shivering issue, the dog that shivers likely won't win a cold water trial and won't be a dual champion. And coat is not the only consideration regarding cold water with courage, desire & intelligence play an equally important role.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> Because the Labrador breed was developed to retrieve game. I.e, form follows function - seems both logical and simple to me. And Forrest Gump had it right, beauty is as beauty does.
> 
> And my position takes care of that shivering issue, the dog that shivers likely won't win a cold water trial and won't be a dual champion. And coat is not the only consideration regarding cold water with courage, desire & intelligence play an equally important role.


A field trial is not what a lab was bred to do. That is not a typical days hunting.
Sorry I will never agree that todays field trials were the original purpose of a labrador.
I grew up around those original dogs.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> A field trial is not what a lab was bred to do. That is not a typical days hunting. Sorry I will never agree that todays field trials were the original purpose of a labrador.


Then you don't understand FTs.

All FTs do is test dogs on the _concepts_ the average hunting dog can expect to experience in a lifetime. Granted, because of the competitive nature of the sport, the concepts have been taken to extreme limits. They are combined, they are compounded, they are stretched to limits of difficulty the average dog will likely never experience. But they are the same hunting concepts, nothing more. The same hunting concepts hunting dogs experience every season.

A great FT dog is a great hunting dog regards,


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> Then you don't understand FTs.
> 
> sport, the concepts have been taken to extreme limits.
> ,


 
That is my point, extreme limits. Not a typical days hunting, so why try to place extreme limts on all the dogs?
BY the way in our house the show dog is the better dog to take for a days hunting, he is quiet in the blind, has better endurance, better foot warmer. THe field kid is a fast flashy dog but.....


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Then you don't understand FTs.
> 
> All FTs do is test dogs on the _concepts_ the average hunting dog can expect to experience in a lifetime. * Granted, because of the competitive nature of the sport, the concepts have been taken to extreme limits. * They are combined, they are compounded, they are stretched to limits of difficulty the average dog will likely never experience. But they are the same hunting concepts, nothing more. The same hunting concepts hunting dogs experience every season.
> 
> A great FT dog is a great hunting dog regards,


I'm not well versed on the show side so I'll leave the critiquing of it to those who are. 
But on the field side......In my view, it isn't the inability to find good looking dogs( read dogs that fit the minds eye picture of the classic Labrador Retriever) from within and outside FT lines, endowed with everything it takes for a successful season of retrieving shot waterfowl for the hunter that's the stumbling block.

It's the caricature of hunting portrayed at Field Trials and the reckless abandonment of the breed standards in the quest for the game playing super star who can excel within the framework of this ever further distorting caricature, where the problem lies.

The tail wagging the dog regards

john


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> That is my point, extreme limits. Not a typical days hunting, so why try to place extreme limts on all the dogs?
> BY the way in our house the show dog is the better dog to take for a days hunting, he is quiet in the blind, has better endurance, better foot warmer. THe field kid is a fast flashy dog but.....


Correct me if I'm wrong but our discussion has not been about a typical dog on a typical day's hunt but rather about dual champions which are less typical than any field trial, as extreme as they might be. What champions give us is the best of the breed. And the best dogs from which to perpetuate and improve the breed. So start with the field champion pool and then within that pool find the best bench/conformation dogs. From that limited pool determine the bench champions & dual champions.

Only that approach will ever reunite the breed. Unfortuately politics will prevent it from becoming reality.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> That is my point, extreme limits. Not a typical days hunting, so why try to place extreme limts on all the dogs?


Who said anything about putting extreme limits on dogs?!? I was talking about taking the concepts to extreme limits. The fact that we still have not found the dogs' limits is one of the reasons why the game continues to get tougher! They are amazing creatures, living up to the demands their work puts on them. No, no one said anything about putting limits on dogs. So far, the very notion is absurd.



> BY the way in our house the show dog is the better dog to take for a days hunting, he is quiet in the blind, has better endurance, better foot warmer. THe field kid is a fast flashy dog but.....


Oh, for crying out loud, don't pull out this stereotypical bull. :roll:

Every dog I have ever had from FT lines has been a perfect pet round the house, calm and quiet. We have four, they live in the house and sleep with us on our bed. They are perfect gentlemen and ladies in the duck blind. And almost every field Lab will have more endurance than any show Lab because of conditioning from being worked. 

The false stereotype come from the ignorant seeing dogs like mine so excited they are trying to jump out of their skins at FTs and HTs. Well surprise, surprise, THAT IS THE WAY THEY ARE AT FTs AND HTs! Not at home. Not in the duck blind. :roll:

I apologize if I am sounding rude. I am just tired of this bull-loney being repeated over and over by people who don't have a clue.
Cheers. :barf:


----------



## jen (Jun 2, 2005)

Heard a funny one from one of the vendors at the obedience trial this past weekend. She told me she had a lot of conformation folks coming into her booth looking for labrador prints and most of them wanted pictures with NO birds in their mouths- or anywhere in the picture. She said most said- Oh, my lab does NOT hunt (proudly). So.... now when they come in asking for pictures, she asks if they want fat or functional?!!! I thought that was hilarious!


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

EdA said:


> I think that I can speak for the majority of the field trial community that there is almost no interest or support for such a designation, the Qualifying Stake is just that and nothing more, certainly not meritorious of a pedigree designation


Perhaps there are many field trialers who don't put a lot of weight on a QAA dog, but I disagree with you, Dr. Ed. when you say QAA is not meritorious of a pedigree designation.

When looking at a pedigree, I'd like to know if an untitled dog was at least qualified all age. 
"Miss Suzy" on the pedigree tells me nothing. "Miss Suzy *** tells me something.

The GRCA (Golden Retriever Club of America) uses the *** designation to indicate the dog is/was Qualified All Age. Seeing those *** means something because it indicates the dog achieved that level in field competition. (Key word: competition). 

I'd like to see the *** used on Lab pedigrees as well.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

If it is being suggested that AKC create "QAA" as a title for every dog who becomes qualified all age, I agree with Dr. Ed. It is not that stellar a deal in the field trial community and the QAA level is not "title worthy".

However, having a *** designation used as a suffix on Lab or Chessie pedigrees would be helpful. Perhaps some Lab and Chessie owners already do that.

Helen Graves


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

I do not care about having a Dual Champion. I train for Hunt Tests and hunting. When I buy a pup, I want Field Titles in the pedigree not show titles.The show lines that I have seen at Hunt Tests cannot compare to the Field lines.IMO, Field Labs are far superior in every aspect.I would hate to see our fine Field Labs water down with show lines.

If someone wants to have a show lab, I don't care. But for me, a hard charging Field Lab is a true joy to train and hunt with. 

Regards
Jeff


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> Oh, for crying out loud, don't pull out this stereotypical bull. :roll:
> 
> I apologize if I am sounding rude. I am just tired of this bull-loney being repeated over and over by people who don't have a clue.


Yeah, it's really annoying when clueless people use stereotypes when you've seen and have dogs at home who prove those stereotypes nonsense....oh wait, wasn't that exactly what this thread was doing?? pot meet kettle :roll:


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

This whole thread is really striking me as funny; the reality is that there is a lot more standing between my dog and a field championship than short legs and long distances; there is a lot more standing between field trial dogs and a CH than 10 pounds and a wicket. 

Because I kind of skirt around the edges of both the breed ring and the field, I hear a bit from both sides. Breed people have been known to proclaim, ?? my dog could run a field trial, he/she can run really long and loves the birds; all they need to do is take off 10 pounds.? Field people say, ??if my dog put on 10 pounds and was an inch or so shorter; he/she could be a CH.? Really, is that all they need to do? 

Ask someone who has a FC what it realllllly took to get that title; ask someone who has a CH what it reallly took to get that title; and maybe, just maybe we could develop a little more respect for both sides. I, for one, do not feel either side has to change their sport or their rules to accommodate the dog that I have chosen to love and run?the rules are clear on both sides, I just need to follow them; not attack them, ridicule them, or name call ?just do the work and follow the rules of the games (or games) I choose to play; or as an alternative you could always invent your own game and make your own set of applicable standards and rules for it
________
Anger Management Advice


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

I will be the first one to admit I have no idea what it takes to put a CH in front of a dogs registered name. What are the requirements?
________
S1


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> This whole thread is really striking me as funny; . . . .there is a lot more standing between field trial dogs and a CH than 10 pounds and a wicket. . . .Field people say, “…if my dog put on 10 pounds and was an inch or so shorter; he/she could be a CH.” Really, is that all they need to do?


That sounds like a straw man to me.

Can you please show me where anyone here said any of that?

I didn't see it.

Thanks.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> I will be the first one to admit I have no idea what it takes to put a CH in front of a dogs registered name. What are the requirements?


The requirements when I was last doing conformation some twenty years ago was a total of fifteen show points and two "major wins." Points are calculated based on the number of dogs entered in their sex. One to five points are awarded at any one event. A major is a win of three, four, or five points at one time. Only one male and one female of each breed are awarded points at any one show.

Also, as stated previously, a Labrador must also earn a WC to use the CH title. But I don't think that is enforced.

Unlike FCs, show CHs are not required to defeat other titled dogs or dogs of the other sex to become titled. Technically, neither are FCs, but it is the nature of the sport that is how it always happens.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Thank you for the information. Other than JH level field work what other training is involved? I guess my question is what does the dog do to get this recognition.
________
Kids Prilosec


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

What are the credentials required of a Show Judge? Are the breed specific (experts) or can they cross over to breeds?

If the cross over is allowed you could see how a judge that predominately judges a group of non-sporting could skew there judging from a working or sporting dog perspective. I know there is a standard but you could see that personal preferences for a certain characteristics could be judged into the wrong group. Is this possible?


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Best Written Response goes to ......... Dan Wegner!!!

Thanks Dan, very educational, the BC example is great.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> Also, as stated previously, a Labrador must also earn a WC to use the CH title. But I don't think that is enforced.


I think that only applies to the members of the LRC, Inc.(parent club)-- in order to advertise your CH dog, it must also have a WC or better (a JH leg --I think-- will suffice).


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> That sounds like a straw man to me.
> 
> Can you please show me where anyone here said any of that?
> 
> ...


If you look there have been lots of posts regarding type and weight (whippetts, pigadors, and some direct talk about weight specifically)

You seem to be pretty one sided about this so....
A FT dog is not tested on what a typical hunting dog would see.
For that matter neither is a HT dog. However, what a HT dog is tested on
is a lot closer to what a typical hunting dog would be asked to do. 

Regarding stereotypes. There is usually atleast some truth to a stereotype.
Not necessarily a lot, but some. When I think of people with labs that are trained and who do not allow them into the house because of their more up disposition, in my experience these are usually field bred labs. And yes it is probably not the norm but it is probably more likely to be seen from this type of breeding. Not saying it is wrong, just saying.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> And almost every field Lab will have more endurance than any show Lab because of conditioning from being worked.
> 
> The false stereotype come from the ignorant seeing dogs like mine so excited they are trying to jump out of their skins at FTs and HTs. Well surprise, surprise, THAT IS THE WAY THEY ARE AT FTs AND HTs! Not at home. Not in the duck blind. :roll:
> 
> ...


Don't assume that the show dog in our house is not in condition!! Since my main focus with him, while a show dog, is ob he is in condition. Hubby travels during the week so his dog, the field kid does not get as much daily training and workout as the show(really ob) dog does. Magic, show, is up at the ob club with me training 5 days a week. This dog jumps the old ob heights in practice every day. I swim him at least 5 days a week. Buddy, gets exercise everyday, from me, but honestly I focus on training my competitive dog.
By the way, BUddy, the field kid is calm in the house. He is actually curled up on the couch next to me right now.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

This thread has little to nothing to do with what our individual dogs do, their prsonalities or their appearances. As I recall it speaks to the issue/demise of the dual champion Labrador. We all have examples to prove our preference. I have two of those rowdy field bred Labs snoring away right next to me as I type.

This thread is addressing the idea of a dual champion. As regards a dual champion, they should be the best the breed has to offer, in the field first - because it is the purpose of the breed and then in terms of conformation. All these personal examples, the issues of sterotype, etc are just extraneous clutter. If we want a dual champion then look at the field champions, those Labs with field titles and from that group look for a subgroup of those dogs with the best conformation. Then from that subgroup of field titled dogs with good conformation contest their conformaton merits, bestowe conformation titles and you have your dual champions. A very simple process that would keep the breed together and truly salute the best of the best. Below is a group photo of what we will find if we follow that process:


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Sure, today's Field trials are much more difficult than the ones of yesteryear.

However, today's Field trial dogs look much closer to the Dual Champions in that picture than any show Lab I have ever seen. ;-)

Have we changed what a Lab is supposed to look like that much?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

brandywinelabs said:


> If you look there have been lots of posts regarding type and weight (whippetts, pigadors, and some direct talk about weight specifically)


Yes, but nowhere I saw did anyone say something like "If only my dog was smaller, s/he could be a CH." That is why I called it a straw man.



> A FT dog is not tested on what a typical hunting dog would see.
> For that matter neither is a HT dog. However, what a HT dog is tested on
> is a lot closer to what a typical hunting dog would be asked to do.


Did you not understand my previous explanation or do you disagree with it? If you disagree, explain where I went wrong. FT dogs AND HT dogs are tested on the concepts an average hunting dog is likely to encounter. At their essence they are the same thing. It is just HTs are simpler and non-competitive. 



> Regarding stereotypes. There is usually atleast some truth to a stereotype.


I agree! But if you go back and read my post I said _false_ stereotype. There is a difference between true and false. It is a _false_ stereotype that American field-bred Labs are "hyper," "make bad pets," and on, and on, and on. We hear it all the time from show Lab breeders who take their "lazy, fat, stupid, non-birdy dogs that lack all desire to retrieve to HTs over and over again chasing those elusive JH legs."

Now don't you think false stereotypes are unfair?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> However, today's Field trial dogs look much closer to the Dual Champions in that picture than any show Lab I have ever seen. ;-)
> Have we changed what a Lab is supposed to look like that much?


It is MUCH worse than that! Back in the '30s Jay Carlisle and his kennel manager Dave Eliot published a book on what the Lab should look like. It was mostly picture book alongside the breed standard. Jay Carlisle was "Mr. Labrador" in the US. The LRC itself said he was singly the most important man for the popularity of the breed in the US. Eliot was a pro dog trainer Carlisle brought over from Scotland. Eliot was intimately familiar with the Labs in England of the time. (Eliot also introduced handling to the retriever sports in the US, but that is another story.)

I'll post the pics from their book on another thread. They look exactly like the field-bred Labs of today.

Richard Wolters was right. The divide in the breed began with the show fanciers importing British show stock in the late-'50s and early-'60s. Those British imports are behind generally speaking ALL show Labs, and NO field Labs.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> Sure, today's Field trials are much more difficult than the ones of yesteryear.
> 
> However, today's Field trial dogs look much closer to the Dual Champions in that picture than any show Lab I have ever seen. ;-)
> 
> Have we changed what a Lab is supposed to look like that much?


Doug, you are right that FTs are much more difficult today than in the 1950s but IMO the ability potential of the competing FT dogs is not the major change since then, rather it is the training that has advanced dramatically. During the intervening years since the time of the photo dogs, training has become a real science and has improved performance dramatically.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

AmiableLabs,

What should your bench standards be, for working labradors. If you pick ONE physicial trait, lets say a long thin tail. People will select for such. Working traits may be lost as a result. 

I cannot see how we will not end up with the same result as now. Models and athletes.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Ok, this is now headed down a familiar path.

How about we quit attacking each other with tired stereotypes, and get back to the topic at hand.

Should the breed be split, and if so, how would it be determined which dogs go to which side?


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

The main problem I have with bench fanciers is that if fido has ever even looked at a duck then they advertise that it is a great hunting companion. A WC or leg of a JH does not make a hunting dog. Now most Field people will admit their dogs dont look anything like the standard the way it has been revised to suit the bench folks needs. One more thing from my rambling. The bench folks talk about form following function and incorrect Field bred dogs not going to hold up. Then why do the large majority of FT/HT dogs compete competitively to 10+ years. How long to the bench dogs compete and how soon would they did if they were kept in Shuw condition(slaughter weight) if they tried to keep competeing?


----------



## Bryana (Nov 25, 2009)

I quite frankly think it is ridiculous and don't see how it would help anyone OR the breed. If we want things to change we should do it through education and actually taking action. There are a ton of posts on here that give examples of just that.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Is there a point at which we should say something is so far over the line from the publishes LRC standard, that it is therefor a disqualifying_ fault _ even for field labs.

Or, in the interest of breeding dogs capable of reaching _ zenith _in their ability to do the contrived, completely ignore the feral looks to which some lines have regressed ?

john


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Aussie said:


> AmiableLabs,
> 
> What should your bench standards be, for working labradors. If you pick ONE physicial trait, lets say a long thin tail. People will select for such. Working traits may be lost as a result.
> 
> I cannot see how we will not end up with the same result as now. Models and athletes.


An excellent point Julie, as long as physical traits in the absence of titled field ability are rewarded with CH titles it will inevitably result in model and athletes. Unfortunately the politics, the industry in the US associated with show/bench events is so big (& so supported by the AKC) things will never change - even though the solution is so simple.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Unfortunately the politics, the industry in the US associated with show/bench events is so big (& so supported by the AKC) things will never change - even though the solution is so simple.


As most Kennel Councils. 

The reason why working sheep and cattle enthusiasts, racing greyhounds etc have their own registries.


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

That was a good thread well worth the hour read!


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

It's not a binary solution set- there are other options.

Form follows functiion regards

Bubba


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

I say leave things the way they are. This arguement is a no win situation.
Let the conformation people have thier labs anyway they want them and what ever you do dont bring todays field bred lab into the show ring. Just look what it has already done.
I have no desire to show dogs, I like to see them work, personally I couldnt care less about a dual champion but that doesnt mean I dont care what they look like.

PS. I didnt read this whole thread cuz it drives me crazy


----------



## retrieverman (May 20, 2009)

That's what a Lab should like like.


----------



## Maxs Mom (Sep 17, 2009)

I wish show labs looked like that... 

One thing I wish the AKC would require, I know LRC does but I wish it were required by the AKC, in order to get a CH in front of the name the dog whatever breed it is, must prove it can do what the dog was bred to do. So a lab would be required to get at least a JH, as other retriever breeds, a beagle something in tracking, etc etc etc. When I was at the specialty last fall I heard a lot of talk about the labs showing having never been in water.... now that is just sad. 

I will say the last couple shows I attended and watched the lab ring, the judges were choosing much more moderate looking labs. I would like to see a trend to move in that direction. I believe in the goldens it is returning to a more moderate dog but of course every judge is different. 

Here is a pic of our new girls daddy. I wish all "show" dogs look like him. He has not gotten his AKC CH..not fat enough. 

Ann


----------



## trippadoo (Sep 8, 2009)

I think the burden falls on The American Labrador Retriever Club to clean up the breed. This issue comes up every few months, and it makes me smile every time I see it. It's always the same comments; with ridiculous reasoning.

The "Show" and "Sporting" breeders are both wrong; your Club allowed it to get out of control over the span of the last 2 decades. It might take 2 decades to "fix" the problem, but it should and can be done. Any Breed can be tweeked out of standard if the Parent Club allows it to happen. The blame lies entirely on the shoulders of The Labrador Retriever Club and only they can fix it. There is a STANDARD!!!!!! Follow it and live by it!!!! You should have beautiful dogs in the Ring running beautifully in the field. 

There should be a CH in front of the majority of your dogs followed by a minimal of a JH. 

You all failed the dog, they didn't fail you. Split the breed? That's ridiculous; fix what you all screwed up in the first place. Take responsibility.


----------



## Scout (Dec 23, 2007)

Well after searching this site and reading all the information on this fascinating topic; I have decided there is little to no hope.

The icing on the cake seems to be that in the insane event there is another Dual Champion, FTers wont want to breed him to mess up their lines, and CHers wont breed him to mess up their lines.

Oh well.


-Ed


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Scout said:


> Well after searching this site and reading all the information on this fascinating topic; I have decided there is little to no hope.
> 
> The icing on the cake seems to be that in the insane event there is another Dual Champion, FTers wont want to breed him to mess up their lines, and CHers wont breed him to mess up their lines.
> 
> ...


Probably VERY true.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

Maxs Mom said:


> Here is a pic of our new girls daddy. I wish all "show" dogs look like him. He has not gotten his AKC CH..not fat enough.


His weight wouldn't be what would hinder him in the show ring. You can take weight off of a dog with nice stucture if that's what you want...but if the structures not there, it doesn't matter how much they weigh


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

The breed split is de facto though not official. The show crowd long deviated from function. And everybody I know that runs field events has* zero* interest in conformation .


----------



## CMRR&GC (Apr 3, 2010)

The problem is like everything else people take things too far....

15 years from now a lab won't have a chance in the show ring if it isn't 225lbs and 3ft wide in the chest,,, you know the standard. And a field trial dog will be a wash out if it can't do 800 yard marks and run a 1.0 second 40... you know a life like hunting situation.


----------



## Mike Boufford (Sep 28, 2004)

Maxs Mom said:


> One thing I wish the AKC would require, I know LRC does but I wish it were required by the AKC, in order to get a CH in front of the name the dog whatever breed it is, must prove it can do what the dog was bred to do. So a lab would be required to get at least a JH...


A JH or SHR proves nothing beyohd the most elementary of marking abilities and does not demonstrate the actual abilities of the dog. I've seen so many conformation types brag about their JH dog as if it means something. To the field people it means that the dog is capable of doing puppy work and nothing more. To most hunt testers, an SH or HR at least means that the dog is capable of being a solid hunter.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

Mike Boufford said:


> A JH or SHR proves nothing beyohd the most elementary of marking abilities and does not demonstrate the actual abilities of the dog. I've seen so many conformation types brag about their JH dog as if it means something. To the field people it means that the dog is capable of doing puppy work and nothing more. To most hunt testers, an SH or HR at least means that the dog is capable of being a solid hunter.


Yeah, but if you surf some web sites (where no RFTer would EVER buy a dog from!) a JH seems to command a minimum price of $1000. Higher in some cases if ANY relative has a FC in the pedigree. Unfortunately, with that kind of money at stake, it ain't gonna change. (don't know what MH or FC would get....never seen one on those sites....imagine that!)


----------



## trippadoo (Sep 8, 2009)

Mike Boufford said:


> A JH or SHR proves nothing beyohd the most elementary of marking abilities and does not demonstrate the actual abilities of the dog. I've seen so many conformation types brag about their JH dog as if it means something. To the field people it means that the dog is capable of doing puppy work and nothing more. To most hunt testers, an SH or HR at least means that the dog is capable of being a solid hunter.


Do you actually ready what you write? "Conformation types". I know it does me little good to keep putting my 2 cents in, but I can't help it. Most people in the Show Lab vs Field Lab forums are so hung up on being right, they still won't face the truth. Read my last post, as that is the damn close to the truth. In addition to the vast number of puppy mills pumping out "AKC" labs and goldens, as well as owners who think because they have "papers" they can breed their dog; you have "legiitimate" breeders breeding "out of Standard dogs". To beat a dead horse, The American Labrador Retriever Club has lost control of the breed and with HARD work and TIME there is NO Excuse for not getting the breed back to where it belongs. 

As a group, you need to put your hard core prejudices aside and work at saving your breed. Why is it I see not one of you asking why, as a group, you can't get a Lab back to being a Lab. It's all about your way or the highway and it's not about repairing anything. It's not about the dog, it's about you.

Read what you are wrtiting, all of you. You really should be ashamed of what YOU all have done to a beautiful breed of dog. It's all about yourselves and what YOU want, not what is right for the Breed. It's all negative vs doing the right thing.

I don't own labs, but have. I love all retrievers. The popularity of the Labs and Goldens has ruined 2 great breeds of dogs. All I'm asking is for is everyone to think hard about what they say. Save your BREED!!!! 

Split the breed? Sure, that's what this Country has become, isn't it? The easy way out, that's what we are all about these days. Screw hard work, split the breed, that's way easier than fixing what is broken. Yeah, split it. That must be the right thing to do.............................

Wow. last time I post on this subject.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

trippadoo said:


> Do you actually ready what you write? "Conformation types". I know it does me little good to keep putting my 2 cents in, but I can't help it. Most people in the Show Lab vs Field Lab forums are so hung up on being right, they still won't face the truth. Read my last post, as that is the damn close to the truth. In addition to the vast number of puppy mills pumping out "AKC" labs and goldens, as well as owners who think because they have "papers" they can breed their dog; you have "legiitimate" breeders breeding "out of Standard dogs". To beat a dead horse, The American Labrador Retriever Club has lost control of the breed and with HARD work and TIME there is NO Excuse for not getting the breed back to where it belongs.
> 
> As a group, you need to put your hard core prejudices aside and work at saving your breed. Why is it I see not one of you asking why, as a group, you can't get a Lab back to being a Lab. It's all about your way or the highway and it's not about repairing anything. It's not about the dog, it's about you.
> 
> ...


If the breed has been "destroyed" as you suggest (I disagree strongly), the problem arose in the 1970's when bench trials began selecting winners that varied wildly from the dogs that were winning before, allowing dogs incapable of performing as working dogs in the field o become standard bearers for the breed. If you look at photos of the finalists from the NARC, I suspect you will find that they compare favorably with the Dual Champion Labradors of the past and with show Labs from the the early 70"s and before. The fact that they would be thrown out of the show ring today reflects on the shameful quality of what conformation judges have been doing over the last 30+ years.


----------



## trippadoo (Sep 8, 2009)

YardleyLabs said:


> If the breed has been "destroyed" as you suggest (I disagree strongly), the problem arose in the 1970's when bench trials began selecting winners that varied wildly from the dogs that were winning before, allowing dogs incapable of performing as working dogs in the field o become standard bearers for the breed. If you look at photos of the finalists from the NARC, I suspect you will find that they compare favorably with the Dual Champion Labradors of the past and with show Labs from the the early 70"s and before. The fact that they would be thrown out of the show ring today reflects on the shameful quality of what conformation judges have been doing over the last 30+ years.


As I said. Screw the hard work. Blame everyone else. It's all everyone elses fault..............................don't discuss on how to reapir it. Blame the Judges, not your Lab Club. And might I add, these Labs I see in the Field today aren't close to looking like the dog's you mention from 30 years ago.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

ELLIOTT LABRADORS said:


> I voted to leave things the way they are, not that I like everything I see. IMO, the situation we are in didn't happen over night. It has been an evolving process that has crept in to the Labrador world.............. from both sides. I too feel that improvements will begin with an educational movement...........on both sides. It will also involve sacrifices...........from both sides. I have shown up at many a hunt test with my show dogs to see them make inferior runs to the non-conforming field dogs. Not that my dogs made sloppy runs, but they didn't hold a light to some of the "gazelle" speeds that birds were scooped up and returned by some of the field Labs. That makes my challenge of searching out sires and dams that conform to the standard and have that deep, truly burning, performance desire even greater. These dogs may be a little tough to find now, but if some of us remain persistant and continue to work and breed dogs of this description, just maybe we can slowly begin a reverse movement in this evolutionary process.
> 
> Wally


IMO this post is the closest to the truth and to possibly making steps towards a solution. I feel that as far as show lines go, through careful and thoughtful breeding (from the breeders who bred my girl) I am lucky to own and run one of those "show dogs" thatI believe comes close to displaying " ...that deep, truly burning, performance desire". My challenge is to find a stud dog that will enhance her best qualities while adding a bit more length of leg and better front and not compromising one inch on her drive, birdiness and intelligence. In breeding her, my goal would be to make steps in working towards the solution and not part of the problem. Working at the solution step by step; breeding by breeding.

**** I need to amend my post a bit. When I was speaking of intense burning desire, I do recognize that the performance desire that my girl possess does not come near the level of " ... deep, truly burning, performance desire? that today?s FC/AFC field champions must and do possess; I am comparing it to the performance intensity of hunt test dogs that I have seen and this thread was about Dual Champions?not hunt test performances.
________
Ultimate Fighter


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

trippadoo said:


> As I said. Screw the hard work. Blame everyone else. It's all everyone elses fault..............................don't discuss on how to reapir it. Blame the Judges, not your Lab Club. And might I add, these Labs I see in the Field today aren't close to looking like the dog's you mention from 30 years ago.


Please show us what YOU feel a Lab should look like? As far as not seeing a Lab that looks like 30 years ago there are a lot of good looking FC's that look like the picture in the thread of vintage Labs from more than 50 years ago-and many were at the National. I don't know where you are looking or what you think Labs should look like, but part of the problem is a person has to be thick skinned to go in the show ring with a field bred Lab, but I know it has happened with dogs out of my breeding and the handler has been complimented by the judge on having a Lab that looks like a Lab should look, and also be in shape and 100% field. They may sometimes be lacking in coat but I have dogs with coat also and again, 100% field. You can't entirely blame the breed club because there are breeders out there that won't let go of the overdone look. The LRC is the one that states the CH should have a working title and it's largely ignored.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

YardleyLabs said:


> If the breed has been "destroyed" as you suggest (I disagree strongly), the problem arose in the 1970's when bench trials began selecting winners that varied wildly from the dogs that were winning before, allowing dogs incapable of performing as working dogs in the field o become standard bearers for the breed. If you look at photos of the finalists from the NARC, I suspect you will find that they compare favorably with the Dual Champion Labradors of the past and with show Labs from the the early 70"s and before.* The fact that they would be thrown out of the show ring today reflects on the shameful quality of what conformation judges have been doing over the last 30+ years.*


what do you think would happen if a dog was required to at least have a JH before awarding a CH? the piggier labs might die in training but overall it would hopefully infuse a lot more athletic yet conforming dogs into the pool and eventually phase out the piggies.


----------



## Randall (Jan 8, 2008)

I think a JH would be a good requirement. Not because it is hard to do. Even the most showiest of show dogs still somewhere have some kind of birdiness in them and if the owners dont make them gun shy they should be able to obtain it.

However, it would expose the show people to the retriever side of the sport. Maybe some of them would decide to go for more then the bare minimum once they got there.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

I'd love to see more athletic show labs and fewer "houndish" field labs like back in the day, but like many broken things in society these day's it is too far gone now and money, predjustices, and outside enfluence by closed minded people will previal.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

david gibson said:


> what do you think would happen if a dog was required to at least have a JH before awarding a CH? the piggier labs might die in training but overall it would hopefully infuse a lot more athletic yet conforming dogs into the pool and eventually phase out the piggies.


I think it begins with the attitude that a Labrador shall possess "a _*sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation*_ *that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog*.." (AKC Labrador Standard). A dog that look like it would have a heart attack doing repeated, quick, 100 yard retrieves does not meet this standard any more than a dog with a head that looks like a whippet. I have no difficult understanding the field trial competitor who is willing to overlook a narrow head or a little white marking in exchange for an edge in performance. No one is suggesting that field trial dogs are or should be the measure of the breed standard. However, show dogs are supposed to be the measure of the breed standard and should not be forgiven when they stray from the fundamental functionality of the breed.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

ELLIOTT LABRADORS said:


> I voted to leave things the way they are, not that I like everything I see. IMO, the situation we are in didn't happen over night. It has been an evolving process that has crept in to the Labrador world.............. from both sides. I too feel that improvements will begin with an educational movement...........on both sides. It will also involve sacrifices...........from both sides. I have shown up at many a hunt test with my show dogs to see them make inferior runs to the non-conforming field dogs. Not that my dogs made sloppy runs, but they didn't hold a light to some of the "gazelle" speeds that birds were scooped up and returned by some of the field Labs. That makes my challenge of searching out sires and dams that conform to the standard and have that deep, truly burning, performance desire even greater. These dogs may be a little tough to find now, but if some of us remain persistant and continue to work and breed dogs of this description, just maybe we can slowly begin a reverse movement in this evolutionary process.
> 
> Wally


 
If I haven't said it before, I will. This mirrors my feelings as well.

It's become a real dilemma to find stud dogs that bring to the table what I want in working ability and type. So few show breeders are proving their dogs' working ability any more, and when they do get them out, I find myself disappointment more often than not. I bred to a "tweener" 18 mos ago and yes, I did take a step back on breed type, but she's put together well, and she's got DRIVE. What a fun dog to train and compete with!!!! I can absolutely relate to the field side because it sets my bar at a higher level. I finished her CD a couple weeks ago, and moved her up to Open Obed the next day, and that judge had a smile on his face the whole time (he owns Goldens). He told me 3 times while we were doing our individual exercises that he LOVED her enthusiasm! That's unusual to have an obed judge compliment handlers like that and it was genuine. I have some "bringing down" to do (which will likely come w/ maturity) but that is far more preferable than having to pump up a sluggo.

I believe I'm going to be doing more field breedings in the next few years for this reason. Working ability and enthusiasm is just too important to the breed to overlook. Not to mention far too many of the show breeders don't believe EIC is a problem... so therefore refuse to test (or share their results if they have tested). And considering the big winning show dogs are now tipping the scales at 95-100+ lbs, it's a hard pill for me to swallow since the standard does call for an active athletic dog. Even if that weight is attributable to "bone", it's way too much but when even my vets comment about what they are seeing in the show ring-- fat (before any of the show folks get their dander up, my regular vet is a former show breeder who is still involved in performance and she is tough on weight!). Anne


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

trippadoo said:


> Do you actually ready what you write? "Conformation types". I know it does me little good to keep putting my 2 cents in, but I can't help it. Most people in the Show Lab vs Field Lab forums are so hung up on being right, they still won't face the truth. Read my last post, as that is the damn close to the truth. In addition to the vast number of puppy mills pumping out "AKC" labs and goldens, as well as owners who think because they have "papers" they can breed their dog; you have "legiitimate" breeders breeding "out of Standard dogs". To beat a dead horse, The American Labrador Retriever Club has lost control of the breed and with HARD work and TIME there is NO Excuse for not getting the breed back to where it belongs.
> 
> As a group, you need to put your hard core prejudices aside and work at saving your breed. Why is it I see not one of you asking why, as a group, you can't get a Lab back to being a Lab. It's all about your way or the highway and it's not about repairing anything. It's not about the dog, it's about you.
> 
> ...


 




 OMG Save the breed, the Labrador is history, ruined as a breed! Going down the same road as the Poodle as a working retriever!

With my dogs I see nothing that needs fixing or saved. This whole topic is as nuts as Democrat vs Republican. Everybody know Democrats are crazy


----------

