The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 69

Thread: Show vs. Field enlightenment

  1. #51
    Senior Member firehouselabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currently middle of the "Great" Plains- Ord NE
    Posts
    2,011

    Default

    Throw away the "wicket" and bring on the fence. If the show dogs can do this: then they are worthy to be called labs563281_471911212871957_1644233158_n.jpg
    Raina Anderson WWW.FIREHOUSELABS.COM

    According to this BMI chart, I am too short !!!


  2. #52
    Senior Member windycanyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    3,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firehouselabs View Post
    Throw away the "wicket" and bring on the fence. If the show dogs can do this: then they are worthy to be called labs563281_471911212871957_1644233158_n.jpg
    Poor Kiku got her butt whooped for doing that when she was young though.. 4' fence in front yard... not something I want to encourage my dogs to scale! They should however be able to handle obed jump heights and that's my concern w/ all the added bone these days. Don't see near the number of conformation bred dogs doing Open and Utility anymore and yet they used to have to jump 1.5x their heights vs 1x today.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Pa.
    Posts
    5,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    The dogs they are putting up as champions bear so little resemblance to the standard, I don't even know how you can begin to claim that the performance people are the problem.
    Putting aside for a moment the carracatures that are being putting up as champions.....it is sad to say that, for the most part, yes it is US, the field performance people that could not give a hoot about what the "good" performance dogs look like, even relative to the standard

    john
    "i guess the old saying 'those of us that think we know everything annoy those of you that does' " --bobbyb 9/13/06

    "A Good Dog is a Good Dog"

  4. #54
    Senior Member John Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bigfork, Montana
    Posts
    3,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john fallon View Post
    Putting aside for a moment the carracatures that are being putting up as champions.....it is sad to say that, for the most part, yes it is US, the field performance people that could not give a hoot about what the "good" performance dogs look like, even relative to the standard

    john
    Though we all, for the most part, appreciate a good looking animal, I think you are correct in that most of us would sacrifice a lot in order to have a field champion. If I had to choose between a really handsome dog who couldn't do the work or an ugly one who excelled, I would take the ugly one. Fortunately you can have your cake and eat it too. I very much consider looks when I'm choosing a breeding to pick a pup out of.

  5. #55
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    When anyone buys a AKC registered Labrador Retriever that is what they are getting. All Labradors are supposed to be bred to be wonderful pets with calm temperament that can be a hunting companion also.

    If you have needs like wanting to get into Field Trial games any old Labrador will not cut it. It is a specialized sport. Same goes for showing dogs. Not all Labradors are going to like the ring. If you want to get into that game another specialized dog is available.

    One can argue type till you turn blue. But the field trial specimens are as poorly bred to the standard are as some over done show specimens.

    Unless your Labrador has won a Field Trail Championship or a Bench Championship he is just a pet. Loved by all the owners. Myself when purchasing my last Labrador I wanted a "Gentleman's Hunting " Labrador. The dog comes from a breeder who has been in the game since the 1960's. Her husband has always hunted with the dogs that are bred. All Labradors if bred correctly can be trained to hunt. Each litter will have some pups with more desire. This goes for dogs from any litter and type.

    While I'd love for the breed to stop being split it is not going to change soon. Too much money is being made with the split. Specialization means a higher price for well bred pups on both sides.
    I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot. ..... Elmer Keith



  6. #56
    Senior Member crackerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .44 magnum View Post
    While I'd love for the breed to stop being split it is not going to change soon. Too much money is being made with the split. Specialization means a higher price for well bred pups on both sides.
    Even if you're not Confucius, please enlighten on that one...

    MG

  7. #57
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackerd View Post
    Even if you're not Confucius, please enlighten on that one...

    MG
    Show breeders have no difficulty selling all their pups and for $1,200.00 to $1,400.00 .. Find a good Grady/ Traveler litter on this site and the cost of a pup is... $2,000.00 .. or so.

    A popular well used Sire with results in their offspring can make quite a lot of money for breeders. While there at not that many making great sums of money breeding, some do. Don't also leave out the prices for handlers and trainers. Dogs are a big business.
    I like one-shot kills where possible and prefer to do all my hunting before I shoot. ..... Elmer Keith



  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California
    Posts
    513

    Default

    I wasn't sure which of the threads this should go on, but felt it might work well here. This is taken from an article in the February 1962 AKC Gazette and apparently first appeared in an earlier issue by the then editor, Mr. A.A. Jones.

    "The purpose of the breed Standard is to describe the dog that is ideally constructed to do the work of the breed. No interpretation of a Standard, as used in bench judging, can be correct if it rules out the dogs that are built to work. In the 1930s, we are told, 'the same dogs were scoring in field trials and shows. That was before the days of field type and show type. All Labs one saw were excellent movers ... most were lean canine athletes; well-muscles, handsome outdoor dogs.' This, although it was recently said of one breed, surely represents the ideal for all retriever breeds".

    This was then picked up by the Chesapeake column to say: "Whether or not we run our dogs in the trials, we must all feel that we owe it to our breed to work our dogs, to select for ability and performance, temperament and tractability and our ideal for conformation should be the dog that is built to work".

    Glenda

  9. #59
    Senior Member Swack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda Brown View Post
    I wasn't sure which of the threads this should go on, but felt it might work well here. This is taken from an article in the February 1962 AKC Gazette and apparently first appeared in an earlier issue by the then editor, Mr. A.A. Jones.

    "The purpose of the breed Standard is to describe the dog that is ideally constructed to do the work of the breed. No interpretation of a Standard, as used in bench judging, can be correct if it rules out the dogs that are built to work. In the 1930s, we are told, 'the same dogs were scoring in field trials and shows. That was before the days of field type and show type. All Labs one saw were excellent movers ... most were lean canine athletes; well-muscles, handsome outdoor dogs.' This, although it was recently said of one breed, surely represents the ideal for all retriever breeds".

    This was then picked up by the Chesapeake column to say: "Whether or not we run our dogs in the trials, we must all feel that we owe it to our breed to work our dogs, to select for ability and performance, temperament and tractability and our ideal for conformation should be the dog that is built to work".

    Glenda
    Good stuff Glenda!

    One thing I'd like to add is that "Built to Work" can be defined differently depending on what a person does with his retriever. A Texas dove hunter may have different needs from a guy who hunts geese from a field in the upper Midwest. Someone who hunts sea ducks may have a different ideal build from a person who hunts Dakota pheasants. A serious field trial competitor may have his idea of perfection which doesn't match a Michigan grouse and woodcock hunter's notion of perfection. And a flooded timber duck hunter may have different preferences from a fellow hunting tidal marshes.

    There's room to accommodate different styles (or types) within the breed standard. Each can be suited to a different specialty. One a little larger and more powerful; another a little smaller and more agile. Yet they each should have the "Stamp" on them which defines them as a Labrador retriever. What I think we've found issue with are those dogs at either extreme which have exceeded the limits set forth by the standard and deviated from what defines the breed.

    Swack
    Last edited by Swack; 02-26-2014 at 05:32 PM.
    Jeff Swackhamer

  10. #60
    Senior Member copterdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW IL
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    A dog that actually does the work, is obviously built to work.
    Considering the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity". -Unknown

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •