RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Labradors - are we splitting the breed?

37K views 207 replies 62 participants last post by  Gerry Clinchy 
#1 ·
Recently we bred our female with a really great FT dog. This is the first time I've ever bred a dog, and so I was reflecting back on the traits that I had been looking for in a stud dog: I didn't care much about color, but I wanted a dog with immense desire. I wanted a dog that was rock steady, and took direction well with it's handler. I wanted a dog with great prey-drive and one who had a reputation as a great marker. Our female is really a looker (who doesn't think their dog is handsome?) and so we wanted to produce puppies that would have that American Field-Bred labrador look to them: muscular body intense gaze, and strong bone structure.

While I was doing research a few weeks ago, I looked high and low. I looked at almost every labrador in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Louisana. There was a ton of talent out there. Occasionally though I'd run into a dog listed "at stud" whose breeder would brag about immensly - as a show dog. Some of these animals almost didn't look like Labradors. They were short, stocky, and sometimes obese. In talking to other dog folks I know, I'd find out that many of these show people were incredibly happy with a dog that could pass an AKC JH test - in other words, some of these Labs, didn't posess the desire to hunt or the ability to do field work beyond a few single retrieves.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to knock on the Show Dog people. Personally, I have no desire to ever show a dog in a ring, but I understnad that people have dogs for all sorts of different reasons - and that Labs can be sucessful in a variety of disciplines. But the original intent of the breed was to retrieve dead birds. How can we claim that a short, squatty, blockheaded dog, is the same breed as a dog as the incredibly high-powered, very lean atheletes that compete in sporting events?

Are we splitting the breed?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Yep. Been split for decades.

Evan
 
#4 ·
I guess that was a dumb question. What I meant to say was this: at what point can we definitively say that we've got two different breeds of dog here?
 
#7 · (Edited)
I think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type. Which tend to be short, stocky, block head. The English type dogs are by no means slackers when it comes to hunting. With the internet you should be able to find a suitable Stud for your girl. I would start with the stud dog ads in RNT myself.
 
#8 ·
Yeah, we bred her with FC AFC Wing Magic's Louisana Roux MH. I knew what I was looking for, and I realized that the gap was pretty wide between both forms, but I didn't realize how wide it was until I really started doing some reading.

I guess what concerns me is that less scrupulous breeders could breed a "champion" show dog with an MNH or NFC dog and create a creature which was a "labrador retriever" but served neither purpose. How is this ok?
 
#12 ·
I guess what concerns me is that less scrupulous breeders could breed a "champion" show dog with an MNH or NFC dog and create a creature which was a "labrador retriever" but served neither purpose. How is this ok?
This situation exists in just about every working and sporting breed in existence; and, as mentioned, the tendency can be seen in just about every country as well. Human nature is what it is ... people get into "specialization" in their hobby which leads them to the venues that most fit with what their innate likes and dislikes.

While I don't favor the extreme of the short-legged, heavy-bodied Labs, some of them still can do a pretty good job hunting. Their physical limitations may make them more suitable for certain types of hunting than others.

We also have to accept that both show and field trials are stylized extremes of the breeds' original purposes. Human nature at work again. For retrievers, they all started out with mid-size bodies (because that size was versatile) and strong retrieving instincts, backed up with intelligence and temperaments that allowed them to work with other dogs when necessary. As society evolved into being less dependent on hunting, keeping dogs became more of a pleasure than a necessity. Does anyone really "need" a car as fast a Ferrari? Probably not, but for some people, owning such a car is a pleasure and a hobby.

Yet, while the retriever breeds started out with these common traits, we still have multiple retriever breeds :) So, is a Lab better than a Chessie? I wouldn't want to be the one to say that very loudly if there are a bunch of Chessie owners standing around :) Why did Lord Tweedmouth feel a need for the Golden Retriever, when Flat Coats and Labs already existed? He wasn't interested in a "pretty" dog. He just wanted a "meat dog". Game was a cash crop that fed the Lords' families, their estate workers, and their guests. If he had wanted a lapdog, they already had them.

So, even when working aspects were the primary basis for the breeds, there were still multiple breeds. Did they have different styles of doing their job? Different strengths and weaknesses?

There are some breeders, in many of the breeds, who tread in the middle ground. The appearance of those dogs is somewhere between the dogs who "show" and the dogs who dominate in performance titles. Their levels of skill among those dogs may not be the sure bet for an FC-AFC, but the dogs are quite capable of doing their breed's working job (am including working breeds as well, not just sporting breeds).

For the retriever breeds, the hunt tests have encouraged more show dogs to explore their original purpose. The MH who may not be capable of field trial work, may still make a good hunting companion for most hunters. Let's not forget that hunt tests can also offer financial backing to clubs whose primary founding may have been for field trials. So, this helps continue the pursuit of the highest levels of field skills that field trials provide.

While field emphasis will generally rule out, by natural selection, the dogs who are poorly structured, that is not an "absolute". There will still be the highly driven dogs who may lack the structure that is most "durable", and are more subject to certain injuries. Having a broader gene pool to draw upon could help overcome those flaws. For the "show" breeder who seeks more emphasis on working ability, they can draw upon the gene pool where that has been emphasized.

When there are plenty of animal activists who believe owning a dog is "exploitation" of another species, and would like to eliminate the whole thing, it seems wise for us to be tolerant of all of the varied community that is in favor of dog ownership. I have no illusion that the breeds are not split between show and performance, or that the split will get mended, but there is commonality to be valued.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Lots of threads on this and lots of arguments, the breed is not officially split, and I don't see that happening. If it did happen, most likely we'd split just end up splitting it again. So for now there's an uneasy truths btw Show and Field in many of the Retriever breeds. Sort've like your strange out of towner cousins, that you only talk to at a family gathering. The competitive nature of Show (Conformation) and Field (FT) venues will continue to put up the dogs that can win above other considerations. We'll just continue to drift from each other, neither Field or Show are really interested in putting forth much effort to change or participate in the other venue. It's good that some conformation dogs do at least they try with HT's etc. However FT type dog would have a hard time in show, playing that game would take away from FT, such titles would not really do anything for an FC-AFC type dog, so realistically Why would they bother?

It is Field vs. Show (Conformation) the same spilt is seen in every country, whether British, German, Australian etc. There's no English short stocky Lab or American long legged, there are dogs of both types bred in each country, they are simply bred for a different focus-purpose, but both are bred to Win.
 
#10 ·
Good Lowered- do you have any idea how many electrons have met their death whipping this poor old long dead equine?

Get over it and move on regards

Bubba
 
#11 ·
Labs split breed? Lets see we got the show labs, we got the field labs, we got the agility labs, we got the jumpin jack flashlabs, and we got the pointing labs. Nah we ain't got no stinkin split breed labs your thinking about those fluffy dogs not labs.
 
#14 ·
What on earth is a jumping jack flash lab? See my sig line...

If you met the dawg, you'd know why I named him that...
 
#13 ·
Yes we are .....NO WHERE did you say that you were looking for a balanced well put together dog with a nice head and coat . All you stated was performance work only. The show people are looking for well angulated , dogs with substance and often overlook performance.
 
#16 ·
The show people are looking for well angulated , dogs with substance and often overlook performance.
But my point is that the original purpose of the dog was to retrieve, not go around in circles in a ring and look good (not that there's anything wrong with that...). Both types of Lab have really changed the breed. All I'm saying is that what I call a Labrador, is NOT the same dog as what Show folks call a Labrador.
 
#17 · (Edited)
MY point was when you pick for performance only, you get a type of dog,
when you pick for structure only, you get a type of dog,
when you pick for both you get in the middle.....which is why the breed is split. The middle does not usually win in either venue
 
#18 ·
I think you'll find that the show dog may be closer to the actual breed standard than many trial type dogs. Go back and read the history of the Labrador retriever. They were medium sized dogs built strong in legs, chest, head etc. I care very much about the looks of my dogs. I have seen many dogs that perform in some sort of game or another and they are gettinq quite unattractive. May as well get a grey hound. I do agree the show lab is too short and robust but I am seeing some trial dogs built for speed with skinny heads, noses and legs etc..very off the standard and ugly!
 
#25 · (Edited)
I think you'll find that the show dog may be closer to the actual breed standard than many trial type dogs. Go back and read the history of the Labrador retriever. They were medium sized dogs built strong in legs, chest, head etc. I care very much about the looks of my dogs. I have seen many dogs that perform in some sort of game or another and they are gettinq quite unattractive. May as well get a grey hound. I do agree the show lab is too short and robust but I am seeing some trial dogs built for speed with skinny heads, noses and legs etc..very off the standard and ugly!

Oh really?

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...iRUbvKEszriQKgi4GwCQ&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAA&dur=5840
 
#21 · (Edited)
Really? I thought the original intent of the breed was to retrieve fishing nets and boats from icy water. In which case, the shorter, stockier, heavier boned dog padded with some fat probably did serve a useful purpose. The high-powered, very lean athletes that we see today wouldn't stand a chance at the original intent of the breed.
Goldens, on the other hand, were bred to hunt ;)


But the original intent of the breed was to retrieve dead birds. How can we claim that a short, squatty, blockheaded dog, is the same breed as a dog as the incredibly high-powered, very lean atheletes that compete in sporting events?

Are we splitting the breed?
 
#28 ·
Barb,
Here's a brief history of Labs from The Labrador Retriever Club website: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/origin_purpose.php

Yes the ancestors retrieved fish & nets but was not at that point a purebred dog but instead a type of Newfoundland. It was also even at that point used to hunt game.
Early specimens were described as "extremely quick running, swimming & fighting"
The above was taken from the article.
The breed wasn't registered as a purebreds till much later. Also notice how often the words "elegance without refinement" was used to describe early specimens. The Lab wasn't a purebred till after English sportsmen got a hold of it.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Field Labs today look pretty much like the Labs you see in the history of Labs books. Unattractive you say? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The breed is identified as being Labrador RETRIEVER; it is a breed in the sporting group. Too many Labs paddling around the show ring today look like they could not survive 1 hour at the marsh, in the boat, or in the field as a hunting dog. Many are too fat and heavy boned. Most are too over angulated for me. When they move... they waddle and their backs roll. Coming at you they are out at the elbows, paddle, and sidewind. I am usually disappointed when I watch Westminster and see the Lab who is representing the breed.
 
#27 ·
I
think what you are looking for is an American type lab as opposed to the English type

no such things
 
#33 ·
Here is a link to the The Labrador Club of America http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed+Standard
The original post raised the issue of the breed being split. We agree there are differences in the the show ring Labrador and the field trial Labrador.
It may take the dedicated breeder looking 3-5 or more generations into the future to creat the all around Labrador- good looking with performance to match. There have been dual champions in the past and there will be dual champions in the future. It will take p work and patince so please don't be discourage by what now appears to be a split.
 
#36 ·
There have been dual champions in the past and there will be dual champions in the future.
I respectfully disagree, the chasm is too wide. The last 2 or 3 Dual Champions were field trial breeding the last one being 30 years ago. They were numerous in the 50s, not uncommon in the 60s, rare in the 70s and 80s, and non existent today.
 
#34 ·
There are good representitives of the breed in all venues. One just has to know where and how to look for them.
You will not find them here. My personal dogs have some of the best conformation of any dogs in the trial or huntest venues in the country. These dogs are all from "trial pedigrees" and have a very solid health history, OFA & CERF, along with solid temperments. Did it happen by accident, NO WAY, NO HOW. I'm picky and I know what to look for. The good ones are out there, YA just gotta find em, and know em when ya see em.
 
#39 ·
Good luck! I look forward to seeing it happen. !
 
#40 · (Edited)
I agree with Helen, looking back to the paintings or photos of the early days of the breed, should give us a good idea of what the people wanted who "created" the breed. We also should keep in mind that they may not all have been perfect in structure. There is always variation, even within the same litter.

We also have to keep in mind that our titling venues have become very "stylized" ... to suit our human whimsy. Even a field trial might not accurately simulate the stamina a dog needs for an extended hunting outing. Obviously, a show ring or an obedience ring cannot prove such stamina either.

If one truly wants to sort it out the appearance factor, then maybe the thing to do is read the older Standard of the Breed, and then read the most recent one, and discern what has changed. From that one might be able to come up with their own "vision" of what those descriptions (Standard of the Breed) are trying to explain. I'd venture a guess that most visions would end up somewhere between the show and field dogs' appearance (generally speaking, of course) Then you must honestly apply that "vision" to the dog standing in front of you.

My own dogs do not have the perfect head that I would envision for a Golden, but I can forgive the faulty details if the overall expression is pleasing. Still, I cannot lie to myself about the flaws I see if I hope to improve on the flaw in the next generation.

The same process can be applied to working abilities like work ethic or marking ability. A given dog may be "good", but not perfect. I must acknowledge lack of perfection in order to seek improvement in the next generation.

Also agree with the fact that the gap seems to get ever wider, gets ever more impossible to bridge. With that in mind, Bridget may not achieve her Dual CH goal, but in the quest, it is very possible that she will produce some darn nice dogs who are pleasing to look at (by both sides of the tracks) and have high levels of working ability to go along with that.

If your goals are based on traits you desire to produce, not just on the titles assigned by others who may have different ideals in mind, then you can find the quest more rewarding. A Lab who is pointed in both field trials and the show ring would be a HUGE accomplishment, I think. The show judges who rewarded the dog would have a good image in their minds of a working physique worthy of the Standard; and the field judges would be acknowledging the dog's working ability in spite of the fact that he may look a little different than those they are most used to seeing. That would prove that there are some very good dog people representing both perspectives.

Meanwhile, it serves the breed well, if the focus is on the common ground that is shared by all who love the breed (whatever your breed is). If there is any dim hope of any bridging of the gap, it lies with cultivating good will rather than disdain, as there is always something to learn.
 
#41 ·
If your goals are based on traits you desire to produce, not just on the titles assigned by others who may have different ideals in mind, then you can find the quest more rewarding. A Lab who is pointed in both field trials and the show ring would be a HUGE accomplishment, I think. The show judges who rewarded the dog would have a good image in their minds of a working physique worthy of the Standard; and the field judges would be acknowledging the dog's working ability in spite of the fact that he may look a little different than those they are most used to seeing. That would prove that there are some very good dog people representing both perspectives.

Meanwhile, it serves the breed well, if the focus is on the common ground that is shared by all who love the breed (whatever your breed is). If there is any dim hope of any bridging of the gap, it lies with cultivating good will rather than disdain, as there is always something to learn.
Gerry, the whole thing you wrote is the best thing I've ever read about the whole situation and fits with my scenario.

Sharon also said it well "In the beginning, competitions were used to find the best dogs of a breed. Today, dogs are bred for specific competitions rather than for the breed standard first and then competitions, and I don't see that changing, sadly. "

Thank you. There is middle ground if we but look for it.

Sue Puff
 
#42 ·
Hah!..Stick my neck out and above the parapet!..
Post on RTF ,with y'all who have retrievers that can do fantastic retrieves with titles!
......
A Labrador is a Retriever!...If the programmes y'all promote infallible,surely the programme will work with any dog?....especially a retriever ?
.....
Anna comes from a kennel that has won numerous show titles and represented at Crufts many times. In fact,this young bitch of 14 months had just come back from the show ring a week before the first clip!..So they can and are capable of doing it!...?
Anyhow ..I said to the breeder/owner they could! after two weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIXGFEDnP0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWAEd3zAwno

Some doctors of dogs would copter up a far more complex explanation than I ,for the achievement of the dog in the clip, but when it comes down to it!..It's just get out there and get that game!..Is it not?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top