The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 179

Thread: How Labradors are Supposed to Look? (pics)

  1. #71
    Senior Member AmiableLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    3,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean H View Post
    It is my opinion (based upon the practice of selective breeding/artificial selection), that the field Labrador has to have improved in the last 80 years. That's why I don't think that the dogs of 80 years ago could compete with the dogs of today.
    That is so wrong in so many ways.

    First, no matter how hard humans try to improve on natural selection, in the long run we always make things worse.

    Second, we have written accounts of what the dogs were like, not eighty years ago, but over a hundred years ago, and the descriptions match what we see today.

    Third, as the games get harder, after eighty-years we still, STILL have not reached a level that the dogs cannot still amaze us. With the right training, it seems the sky is the limit when it comes to their capabilities. That is a statement about the dogs that was as true eighty years ago as it is today.

    Finally, we have members on this Board who have been in the game since the 1960s (40-50 years) and to a person they are of the opinion that the great dogs back then could have been great dogs today, given the same training and tools the dogs of today have.

    You give us humans too much credit. It is the dogs.
    Kevin Walker

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

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Losthwy View Post
    I do agree the dogs in 1930 would have a tough time competing today. And there are many who argue a O/H Qual at a HT is easier due, in large part, to less dogs running those events. Personally I would like to see more O/H Quals at FTs.
    I don't go back to the 30s but do to the late 50s & 60s in terms of memory of FTs. I am confident that dogs like Super Chief, who was known for his conformation (even though he wasn't show titled) as well as his field talent, would be a great dog today also. He had all the tools, great style, intelligence, tractability & most of all drive and intelligence. With today's training techniques he would still be a winner. The four dogs in the picture I posted previously were late 40s (in the case of the sire) and the 40s-early 50s in the case of the offspring. They were the legends I heard about when I was growing up along with King Buck. The reputation of King Buck was further enhanced by his duck hunting vists to the Beaver Dam Club where I had the priviledge to visit from time to time. From what I recall and heard about those dogs, any of them, training under our best trainers today, could excel today.

    IMO, the major difference today is that top-level training is more widely available than back then so the competition is tougher from trial to trial rather than any major gains in the ability of dogs.
    David Didier, GA

  3. #73
    Senior Member Sean H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, TX
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    That is so wrong in so many ways.
    You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither one is provable. I know I'm not going to change your opinion, but I'll gladly state mine and the reasons for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    First, no matter how hard humans try to improve on natural selection, in the long run we always make things worse..
    Yes, selective breeding often has unintended side effects (see health problems in labs & other breeds). But's it accepted that the traits being bred for are improved over generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    Second, we have written accounts of what the dogs were like, not eighty years ago, but over a hundred years ago, and the descriptions match what we see today..
    Descriptions always have many interpretations. I would love to read what you have on this though.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    Third, as the games get harder, after eighty-years we still, STILL have not reached a level that the dogs cannot still amaze us. With the right training, it seems the sky is the limit when it comes to their capabilities. That is a statement about the dogs that was as true eighty years ago as it is today..
    Maybe, just maybe, the dogs continue to amaze us because through selective breeding they are getting better as the games get harder??

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    Finally, we have members on this Board who have been in the game since the 1960s (40-50 years) and to a person they are of the opinion that the great dogs back then could have been great dogs today, given the same training and tools the dogs of today have.
    Studies have proven that eyewitness accounts are unreliable after mere months, much less 50 years. But I must ask, what does this have to do with dogs from 80 years ago? But based upon my argument, dogs from 50 years ago would be better than dogs from 80 years ago anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    You give us humans too much credit. It is the dogs.
    Gee, that's funny. Didn't humans create the Labrador Retriever Breed? (through selective breeding)

    Truely though, Kevin, your stance on this intrigues me. Do you not think that field labrador breeders are improving the breed?

    So based upon your argument, we'd have better FT dogs if the breedings were totally random? Based upon your handle, I'd guess that you are a breeder. Do you put your money where your mouth is and randomly select a sire? Or do you go through a selective process?
    Last edited by Sean H; 02-26-2010 at 03:03 PM.
    Topform's B-2 Spirit MH

  4. #74
    Senior Member AmiableLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    3,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean H View Post
    Gee, that's funny. Didn't humans create the Labrador Retriever Breed? (through selective breeding)
    First off, the context was the innate and intrinsic abilities of the dogs. I fail to see the logic behind humans taking credit for what dogs can do innately and intrinsically. I believe there is a different Creator that gets credit for that.

    Second, you say "humans created the Labrador Retriever breed?" Perhaps you can tell me who were the humans that created them and what they used? Thank you.

    Truely though, Kevin, your stance on this intrigues me. Do you not think that field labrador breeders are improving the breed?
    As I said before, in the long run (across multiple decades), "no." We are not nature, we are not nature's God. They have reasons greater than our understanding. When we think we can do things better, when we interfere, we tend to do harm in the long run.

    So based upon your argument, we'd have better FT dogs if the breedings were totally random?
    No, that is a straw man argument. I am saying in the long run the dogs themselves would be better off if we let them and nature dictate breedings. See, unlike you I do not believe that nature's ways are "totally random." I think nature is systematic is ALL processes.

    Based upon your handle, I'd guess that you are a breeder.
    We just bred our second litter in seven years. I supposed that makes us "breeders."

    Do you put your money where your mouth is and randomly select a sire? Or do you go through a selective process?
    First off, as stated above, no where did I argue for a random breeding because I do not share your worldview about nature.

    Second I have used italics in this post when writing "in the long run" since you apparently missed it in my previous post. Like any breeder, when I choose a stud I am thinking short term -- the next generation, where I hope to make progress. I am not thinking across multiple decades into the future.
    Kevin Walker

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

  5. #75
    Senior Member gsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    417

    Default

    We are dealing with a closed genetic system. There are no new genes being added. If we look at such a system in light of the law of entropy, we will be doing good if we can occasionally repeat the greats of the past. I'm not sure where the genes are going to come from to "improve" the breed. What I see all the effort doing is "to do no harm".

  6. #76
    Senior Member Jeffrey Towler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Perry MI
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beerman View Post
    Tank had to be one of the best looking labs ever.
    Thanks for posting this.

    Regards
    JT
    www.marshhawkretrievers.com

  7. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,137

    Default

    Kevin Humans like dogs were created by nature so maybe nature is using Humans as a tool to improve the breed though selective breeding are do you think humans are only improving the breed though training and not breeding?

  8. #78
    Senior Member afdahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granddaddy View Post
    I don't go back to the 30s but do to the late 50s & 60s in terms of memory of FTs. I am confident that dogs like Super Chief, who was known for his conformation (even though he wasn't show titled) as well as his field talent, would be a great dog today also. He had all the tools, great style, intelligence, tractability & most of all drive and intelligence. With today's training techniques he would still be a winner. The four dogs in the picture I posted previously were late 40s (in the case of the sire) and the 40s-early 50s in the case of the offspring. They were the legends I heard about when I was growing up along with King Buck.
    [snip]
    Just to make a connection, Super Chief's two grandsires are in the photo David posted; his dam's sire (Cherokee Buck) is second from left; his sire's sire (Freehaven Muscles) at the right.

    Amy Dahl

  9. #79
    Senior Member Jo Ann Reynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post
    I agree.


    If the function of the Lab is to work, who is currently breeding the correct form?
    A lot of us would like to know! I dream of having the resources to breed labs that look like those you posted - not too chunky, not too whippy, like Goldilocks, just right and not plagued with health issues. Probably won't happen in this lifetime, though.

    My young male is reminiscent of them but he has elbow dysplasia with OCD.
    Jo Ann
    Connecticut

  10. #80
    Senior Member Jo Ann Reynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs View Post

    That Ch. Earlsmoor Moor of Arden is a handsome, HANDSOME dog! I am old enough to remember some show Labs from the 1960s that still looked like that.
    Ain't that the truth. I love the way that dog looks. I'd give my eyeteeth for a dog that looked like that and was a great hunting companion, biddable, and a joy to train.
    Jo Ann
    Connecticut

Posting Permissions

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