The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 159

Thread: Biggest Labrador Show in North America / Potomac

  1. #51
    Senior Member AmiableLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    3,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labbie_lover View Post
    I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.
    Wow. I sure have! When our field-bred lab took fourth in an Open class of five dogs at licensed dog show, the lady who didn't win a ribbon went up to the judge and read him the riot act. When we entered our field-bred Labs in conformation at the National Specialty in order to qualify for the "Dog for All Reasons" award we were snickered at to our face and laughed at behind our backs.

    I started showing Labs in the late 1970s, and have heard more criticism from show breeders toward field breeders than visa versa.
    Kevin Walker

    Drive is the manifestation of Desire, and measured in Style.
    Thank you judges who score Style, you are preserving Desire!

  2. #52
    Senior Member Montview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labbie_lover View Post
    No, sorry, I have NEVER once heard it from a show breeder.
    I have heard it from both sides relatively consistently. The proof is in the pudding.
    If the show dogs can work then get them in the field and prove it.
    If the field dogs have the looks, get them out to a UKC show or even a CC evaluation, if not an AKC lab specialty show and enter "hunting retriever" to prove it.
    The whole argument gets old, on both sides, and neither side is innocent. To say so is ignorant.
    -Julie, Monty (2005 YLM), Rogue (2009 BLM), and Eddy (2013 BLM)

    "To err is human, to forgive, canine." - Anon

    LIFE IS GOOD. "Do what you like, like what you do."

  3. #53
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labbie_lover View Post
    I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.
    Well I have many times. Had the FC/AFC sired guy with me at a show. Walking around the grounds with both the CH/MH sired and the field kid in tow, many overheard comments that the yellow(field) was either a BYB or a rescue! Well he is far from either.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  4. #54
    Senior Member Billie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montview View Post
    I have heard it from both sides relatively consistently. The proof is in the pudding.
    If the show dogs can work then get them in the field and prove it.
    If the field dogs have the looks, get them out to a UKC show or even a CC evaluation, if not an AKC lab specialty show and enter "hunting retriever" to prove it.
    The whole argument gets old, on both sides, and neither side is innocent. To say so is ignorant.
    I agree - there are a lot of show bred dogs that can do the work-but if you dont train your show lines dogs and continue the instincts, there is no way to prove it. Have to get them out there- not in a FT- but at least train for some basic field level. Its helping to preserve the complete Labrador.
    This debate doesnt get old to me because there are always others perspectives on it.
    HOME OF:
    Waterspook Sables Dark Secret, MH (Sable)
    Trumarcs Bankshot Bandit, MH ( Fats)
    Waterspook Tomfoolery, SH ( Tommie)
    IN MEMORY OF::
    Waterspook Bankshot Whiz Bang,JH (Jesse)
    Waterspooks Girl Named Bill, SH ( Billie- my princess.....)
    Waterspook Kickin' Gunshot, SH ( Boom)
    Waterspook Kickin' Good Time MH(Kick)
    Waterspooks Partner In Crime, SH ( Bouncer)
    Brush Creek Waterspook, JH, WC- my first girl.(Spooky)

  5. #55
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labbie_lover View Post
    Of course, if you are going to run down the show breeders, you should try to get your information correct. The dogs being shown at Potomac and Westminster are one and the same. Do you think there are two different sets of show labs? You apparently don't have a clue. maybe you should actually try READING the information at the links you were so willing to post. On the page that you sent everyone to regarding the winner at Potomac you will find:

    In 2009 Scrubs won an Award of Merit under respected breeder judge Nancy Arbuckle at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club dog show.

    So, you are obviously completely misinformed.

    It is such a shame to here one set of labrador breeders running down another set. Don't we have enough other people running down dog owners/breeders now-a-days? is it really necessary to run down one another? So show labs aren;t your cup of tea. Is someone telling you that you have to have one? I have NEVER heard a show lab breeder criticize field lab breeders. Apparently that doesn't work both ways.
    Both live in my house and the FC/AFC sired and CH/MH sired are exactly 9 months apart in age. They are not youngsters anymore at almost 9 and 10. I can tell you that I have had the field one bashed many times by the show world, and he has a CC. I can also say that many if not most show dogs are FAT.I can walk over from the ob ring to watch conformation and I see it wiggle and jiggle. Thats why I quit showing mine after he aged out of puppy classes even though he never got dumped.
    I can remember the first time I saw Buzz in person and all I thought was FAT and no way Magic was going to get that way. I was disgusted. He was in a battle for #1 in the country. I played your game with a dog that could do it. The worst was getting your number around a bunch of untrained dogs.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  6. #56
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,851

    Default

    To the non-show people: Many show labs have a decent length of leg and are more moderate than those specialty winners (which are the same that go to Westminster). Specialties, tend to have "breeder judges" as opposed to all breed judges and breeder judges tend to be those that show/win a lot so they go with their preference which is the overdone, short legged, short-muzzled type. I went to that Potomac show once a few years back since our CBR National show was being held at the site; the Labs happened to be showing the day I went. Having shown my own CBR, I'd seen Labs in the rings at the all breed shows and seen many of the more moderate dogs put up so I wasn't prepared for seeing all those overdone kegs on legs in one place. In fact when I got there, I was surprised to see people moussing and sculpting their dogs' coats into Chessy-like waves! One exhibitor was happy to point out a dog that she swore had part of its tail amputated so it would be shorter and thicker! It is possible, but probably not easy, to finish a moderate dog without showing it at specialties, because of how many dogs you need to defeat to earn enough points for majors (you need 2 majors, which are determined by dog numbers) among the 15 points to earn the CH title. Those numbers mean you pretty much have to go to specialties to get the points. And that is hard for a moderate looking dogs because the specialties are the ones with breeder judges that put up what they like. And from what I saw, it's not the moderate ones that actually look as if they might not sink in the water.
    Last edited by Julie R.; 04-19-2014 at 07:41 PM.
    Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,897

    Default

    When the standard was re-written in the 1990's, my friend George Bragaw was at the center of the group that disputed the new standard and went to court about it.

    George was a real historian of the breed and once took a month to visit the UK simply to read the history and talk to breeders. No visits to the Tower or Madam Toussads. He was there to learn about Labrador Retrievers.

    He felt the group backing the revised standard grossly misrepresented the aims of his group. He made two points. First, the standard committee should have consulted with both sides in preparing the re-written standard. He was a member of the standard committee but was not even told when they were meeting. Secondly, he feared that the re-written standard would simply widen the split yet further. He went so far as to suggest that the new standard really envisioned two varieties ... the Labrador Retriever and the American Field Retriever as he called it.

    It's interesting to watch his argument unfold. For instance, do any of you know how the revised standard on height came to be? In fact, when the issue came up at the standards committee, no one knew any of the history of the breed as it related to height. So ... the committee went out to the host's kennel and measured his dogs, 4 in number as I recall, and that's the standard!
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy")
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge

  8. #58
    Senior Member Swack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    When the standard was re-written in the 1990's, my friend George Bragaw was at the center of the group that disputed the new standard and went to court about it.

    George was a real historian of the breed and once took a month to visit the UK simply to read the history and talk to breeders. No visits to the Tower or Madam Toussads. He was there to learn about Labrador Retrievers.

    He felt the group backing the revised standard grossly misrepresented the aims of his group. He made two points. First, the standard committee should have consulted with both sides in preparing the re-written standard. He was a member of the standard committee but was not even told when they were meeting. Secondly, he feared that the re-written standard would simply widen the split yet further. He went so far as to suggest that the new standard really envisioned two varieties ... the Labrador Retriever and the American Field Retriever as he called it.

    It's interesting to watch his argument unfold. For instance, do any of you know how the revised standard on height came to be? In fact, when the issue came up at the standards committee, no one knew any of the history of the breed as it related to height. So ... the committee went out to the host's kennel and measured his dogs, 4 in number as I recall, and that's the standard!
    Eric,

    Thanks for sharing some of your knowledge from "the old days". I appreciate Labrador history and would love to spend some time in Great Britain researching the breed. IMO, the crown jewels are probably in Sandringham kennels instead of the Tower of London!

    However, I think you are mistaken concerning what you call "the revised standard on height" in the 1990's. I compared the Labrador standard from Dorothy Howe's 1984 book entitled The Labrador Retriever with the current AKC Standard, approved February 12, 1994, effective March 31, 1994. The height for dogs was 22.5" - 24.5" and for bitches was 21.5" - 23.5" in both standards, pre-1994 and post-1994. They were the same. They didn't change at all! The only change made with regards to height was the disqualification of Labs a year of age or older that were more than .5" above or below the standard heights for their gender.

    That isn't changing the height standard. That's enforcing the existing height standard!

    You may make an argument for changing the height standard to fit your preference or argue that the height standard disqualification should be enforced in both field and show events and that's fine. But to state that the Labrador standard for height was changed isn't an accurate statement. Further, to state that it was changed based on the height measurement of just four Labs is inflammatory and only adds to the confusion and ill wills surrounding this often controversial subject.


    Swack
    Jeff Swackhamer

  9. #59
    Senior Member copterdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW IL
    Posts
    2,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montview View Post
    ....There are dogs that can do both games and do them well.....
    There are not. At least not Labs anyway.
    Considering the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity". -Unknown

  10. #60
    Senior Member copterdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW IL
    Posts
    2,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montview View Post
    If the show dogs can work then get them in the field and prove it.
    If the field dogs have the looks, get them out to a UKC show or even a CC evaluation, if not an AKC lab specialty show and enter "hunting retriever" to prove it.....
    Breeding selection is 100% about picking your priorities and selecting for them.

    The Conformation folks don't care that their dogs can't perform in the field. As long as they can win in the ring.

    The Field folks don't care what their dogs look like, as long as they can win in the field.

    If you really want to win in either world, you have to not care about the other.
    You have to ONLY care about the world that matters.
    Last edited by copterdoc; 04-20-2014 at 06:18 PM.
    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
  •