The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 69

Thread: Show vs. Field enlightenment

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    667

    Default

    Swack- fair comment. I have had access over the years to an English publication , if memory serves me right that had origins in the 1790s. There are etchings of these dogs in that period stated. i THINK (?) it/was called Sporting Times. The University of Minnesota , Vet school should have it because I found it misplaced in the Science Library on a locked 4th floor (1986). . The short and long of it, there are period paintings which I have seen @ the Washington , D.C. mall museum complex by English artists showing these dogs as well as etchings and photographs.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swack View Post
    duckstruck,

    The LRC has a requirement for their members that show champions must pass a WC to be able to use the title CH. What do you think about a field Lab having to get a conformation certificate (CC) before they can use the titles FC, AFC, MH, etc.?

    Swack
    I guess my point is, if the Field or Working Dog people have a problem with how the breed standards are interpreted to rule out the type of dogs that excel in the field, then start your own beauty contest if you want. To have it that all FC's or Hunt Test Titled dogs must conform to the Confirmation would be like mandating that all hockey players must have all their original teeth.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California
    Posts
    495

    Default

    The LRC brought in a field champion to show the judges in a judging seminar. The judges all thought it was over sized. Measured, it was right in standard, just appeared taller because it actually had legs. The show judges need to be exposed to field Labs who meet the standard so their eye will adapt. If all they see are overweight Labs with no air under their tums, this is what they will assume is the norm.

    All ten of the Field Trial dogs passing the Conformation Certificate at the National Amateur, measured in standard---included two NAFCs.

    Glenda

  4. #24
    Senior Member Trifecta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Auburn, AL
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda Brown View Post
    The LRC brought in a field champion to show the judges in a judging seminar. The judges all thought it was over sized. Measured, it was right in standard, just appeared taller because it actually had legs. The show judges need to be exposed to field Labs who meet the standard so their eye will adapt. If all they see are overweight Labs with no air under their tums, this is what they will assume is the norm.

    All ten of the Field Trial dogs passing the Conformation Certificate at the National Amateur, measured in standard---included two NAFCs.

    Glenda
    I've had the wicket called on my dogs twice. I'm happy to have my dogs measured in.

    The problem is, I know there are judges out there who don't bother to measure. They just assume the dog is too big (or too small, for that matter).
    Natalie Fraser, DVM
    Trifecta Labradors

    Home to my heart dog, Hudson:
    Am/Can Ch. Marshyhope's Satisfaction, CGC, WC, CDX, RE, JH

  5. #25
    Senior Member jenbrowndvm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenda Brown View Post
    The LRC brought in a field champion to show the judges in a judging seminar. The judges all thought it was over sized. Measured, it was right in standard, just appeared taller because it actually had legs. The show judges need to be exposed to field Labs who meet the standard so their eye will adapt. If all they see are overweight Labs with no air under their tums, this is what they will assume is the norm.

    All ten of the Field Trial dogs passing the Conformation Certificate at the National Amateur, measured in standard---included two NAFCs.

    Glenda
    [Glenda has a good point and I think that both the Conformation as well as the Working Labrador people would be surprised at how well the working Labrador fits within the measurements outlined in the breed standard. There is the impression that the working Labrador is taller/bigger than the standard. I would bet that if we went and measured a large group FT/HT dogs that we would find that alot of them actually are right in there. You can measure your own to see how they compare.

    I just went through and measured all 4 in my house right now - two bitches and two males. All four are working Labs of FT/HT breeding. I would consider them the typical body type and size that I see at FT/HT and other working disciplines. Here were their measurements:

    Bitch #1: 21" - 54# (a bit short and underweight for the standard - but may just make it in there with the 1/2" variance - and she's preggers so she will have that Bench belly here soon enough)
    Bitch #2: 23" - 58# (within standard)
    Male #1: 24" - 72# (within standard)
    Male #2: 24" - 68# (within standard)
    My other female who is in training I would guess is 22-22-1/2" and weighs 52#. (underweight for standard ) - but I would consider perfect body condition)

    So they meet at least this aspect of the breed standard. Now they may not win any beauty contests but they can do the job they were designed to do.
    Jennifer Brown DVM, DACVS, DACVSMR, CCRT
    K-9 SportsVet

    HRCH Maranatha's She's Got Phanesse MH, SAR U-1
    Maranatha's Black Talon Phallon JH, SAR U-1

    www.lpkennels.com
    www.k9sportsvet.com

  6. #26
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,782

    Default

    I first posted this in 2007, then again in 2012. In 2012, ol Swack really took issue with it, so I don't expect he'll like it any more this time around. The book comes from a textbook of dog behavior.

    Originally Posted by Buzz
    I found some interesting thoughts in a book I'm reading - "Applied Dog Behavior and Training," by StevenR.Lindsay. The section is called, "Origins of Selective Breeding."

    He mentions that the Greeks understood the importance of selective breeding, but they also recognized the danger of breeding that displaces function for the sake of appearances.

    Quote:
    The rise of breeding for the sake of appearances alone is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of dogs, coinciding with the appearance of organized dog showing and efforts to standardize the various breeds. This new emphasis and interest appeared shortly after the banning of dog fighting and bull baiting in England in 1835 - an event closely associated with the founding of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824. With the loss of these traditional forms of canine "entertainment," the public turned its attention toward other venues for the enjoyment of dogs.

    These various cultural changes moved dogs out of the hands of the lower working classes and placed them (after a transition of "proper" breeding) on a "higher" social level. The Victorian bourgeoisie adopted the dog as a newfound status object with which they could proudly display their refined taste in the form of breeding and pedigree. Along with this preoccupation with status came an effort to standardize the various breeds - a process based largely on appearances, with an inevitable neglect of function.

    He goes off on another track, then comes back with this:

    Quote:
    Undoubtedly, appearance has always played an important role in the selection process, but it was rightfully subordinated to the far more important goals embodied in utilitarian function, health, and temerament. Many experienced breeders have lamented the genetic fact that form and function rarely interact in felicitous proportions - good working dogs are more often than not "ugly" according to breed standards of beauty. With an eye set rigidly on the arbitrary appeal of appearances and beautiful form, the qualities of intelligence and function inevitably degrade over time.

    Drakehaven posted some pretty great information about the origins of the Labrador Retriever in that 2012 thread.

    http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...l=1#post901263
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  7. #27
    Senior Member MikeBoley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    temple, TX
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    if they can be measured for height why dont they make them run across a scale and weigh them also?
    'I make my practices real hard because if a player is a quitter, I want him to quit in practice, not in a game.' - Bear Bryant / Alabama

  8. #28
    Senior Member .44 magnum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Last edited by .44 magnum; 02-23-2014 at 09:38 PM.
    I don't think I smell like a brewery. I was drinking Scotch.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Cowtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duckstruck View Post
    Maybe the Retriever or gun dog clubs should get together and start a working show dogs type of event. Minimum quals or title to be called a working dog as a pre-requisite to enter, then hold the beauty contest. You could go as deep as you want, best of breed, best color of each breed and then best of show etc...

    I can feel the cost of new pups going up already.
    The GRCA has somewhat done exactly that.

    FC Topbrass No Time To Paws SH CCA "Flash" was the first Golden to get the new CCA title at the Golden Specialty last Fall. It is a non competitive Conformation Assessment Program. It's a similar purpose to the WC (Working Class) and WCX (Working Class Excellent) titles for mostly show Goldens to show basic competency in the field.

    1) What is the original intent of the CCA?

    Twofold: (a) to provide a NON-COMPETITIVE area of participation in conformation where dogs are assessed against the Breed Standard rather than merely against other dogs present and (b) to give owners written reports as to the evaluators' assessments which will provide information not available in the show ring.

    2) How does the CCA compare to other basic non-competitive, entry level tests offered to Golden Retrievers?

    Both the Hunt Test and WC programs require an average passing score of 7 points in all categories and the number of attempts is not limited.

    The CCA program is also on a point scale requiring the dog to score a minimum of 75 or higher out of 100 possible points, broken down into ten categories. A non-competitive CCA event tests the individual dog on the physical conformation and temperament qualities as set forth in the Breed Standard. There is a limit on the number of attempts that can be made. It also has a mandatory pass for temperament and sets a minimum age of 18 months. While the conformation quality of a retriever MAY improve with maturity and conditioning, the basic structure changes very little.

    The CCA, WC, and Hunting Test programs are similar in that they all reward very good to excellent representatives of the breed by comparison to an impartial criteria without bias or dog-to-dog competition, and they all test the desired physical and/or mental attributes of a sound hunting companion.

  10. #30
    Senior Member copterdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW IL
    Posts
    2,452

    Default

    Anybody that takes the WC or WCX seriously, is too far gone to be able to recover.
    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
  •