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
#43 ·
Some doctors of dogs would copter up a far more complex explanation than I
pure genius!:D
 
#45 ·
I wonder how many posters to this topic have owned and/or bred a Field Champion. Those who have not have no idea what a difficult accomplishment that is. Anyone who believes they are up to the task of being the breeder of a Dual Champion Labrador should work on conquering the FC part before considering the CH part.
 
#48 ·
I am doing that Doc, training with Pat several times a year , just about ready to run Derby.....I really do have a plan! That is part of the 30 years!:p
Everybody has to have a dream! Life would be pretty boring without
 
#47 ·
One of the few things that we have accomplished in the field trial breeding program and not thought much about until reading this thread, was being the breeder of a FC and a FC/AFC. The only breeding I ever did as a Labrador owner was breeding my FC/AFC as a nearly seven year old bitch. I kept one of the pups and my co-owner including myself made his
FC/AFC and was awarded a breeders award from AKC. The second male from the litter made his FC. There were six pups in the litter and a third became a HRCH MH and pointed all age dog. I owned and trained him. I took that breeding for granted and mostly forgot about it. Dr Ed hit it on the head, the goals should be trying to breed field champions before having pipe dreams about dual champions. The breed long ago split.
 
#49 ·
Our retriever club had Frances O. Smith DVM over to speak at our club last night. She is the current VP of the Labrador Retriever Parent Club. In her presentation, she mentioned that the labrador retriever is one of the least likely breeds to have another Dual Champion because of the seperation of the breed. The parent club looks for three things in judging - block type head, thick double coat, and an otter-like tail. She mentioned some of the biggest differences between show champions and field champions are the coat (slick coat vs. thick double coat), weight (most show champions are obese), tail (tail should be parallel to the back and not curve up or down), and overall body proportions (i.e. show dogs usually have short legs). When she is looking at buying a lab, she looks for somewhere in the middle. In her opinion, both ends of the spectrum are getting away from the standard description of a lab and breeding is focusing on requests of the buyers (i.e. color, temperament, etc).

Fran - if your on this forum, hopefully I did your presentation justice!
 
#50 ·
Yours & other verbal responses sound reasonable, but the answer is not somehow a compromise of appearance, i.e, something in the middle. Instead of verbal descriptions (which generally are an attempt to influence for a particular position on the issue), look at the photos of the dual champions that we have had. I posted a rather famous one of the Grangemead dogs. This "look" can be found today at most any AKC FT event. It may not be the typical look of every FT competitor but it is far from rare. But the problem is that a Grangemead dog today wouldn't get to first base in a show. But the show enthusiasts don't want to hear that they have gone a different direction. Show enthusiasts have abandoned the rule that form follows function. Ed said it right, focus on developing an FC then look at appearance. that was the Grangemead approach but it won't fly today among the show crowd.
 
#51 ·
Agree with a lot of the comments above, but I DO think people would "see" the difference between the old Duals and the current field dogs if they STOOD them side by side. Coats seemed to be much better on those old classics. I would venture to guess they were shorter coupled than most field dogs out there today too. Coats can be tough enough to change, but long loined dogs are VERY tough, ime, to change. Front assemblies tend to be quite straight currently in the field lines.

I wish there were more standing photos taken of todays' FCs instead of the more classic sit w/ bird in mouth photos. There is more to the equation than the head when it comes to looks. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I like the other extreme end of the show labs either... I'm one of those breeders wanting to stay in the middle of the spectrum.
 
#55 ·
The Sad thing I see about the split and why we would never see a coming back together is quite honestly, very few if any FT breeders know anything about official conformation (angulation, vs. function etc.), it's judging, and because the venues no longer cross, there is no check and balance system on the performance dog. Most take the attitude, that if the dog can preform well under the stresses we put on them they must have proper conformation, which is semi-correct, you couldn't run well with over-exaggerated conformation characteristics. But with-out the balancing-input of people who actually know what and why body structure needs to be a certain way, we run the risk of breeding in tendencies for injuries that while repairable ALC tears etc. might be avoided if structure was regulated a bit. Of course that's pretty hard when people from both sides look pretty pointedly down their noses at each other. Most performance dog people would argue that the Conformation Lab is not what they want a lab to look-like. I've taken a few labs in for conformation evaluation, I didn't get the impression that the judges really knew what to do with my dogs, they couldn't believe how well they moved despite "faults", and while they were still determined to be Labs (yay I was worried ;)) we were pretty much passed off in 2-3 mins. Seeing the 30-45 min high praise " you must show" evaluation of portly C Lab pups, who kind've waddled around Didn't really leave me with the need to care about their opinion. And there's the split in a nut-shell ;). Performance Labs would be better off having a Chessie conformation judge or other sporting group judge, to do such conformation evaluations, but that would put the Lab club up in arms. So the performance lab will continue with no checks on their structure, while over-exaggerated dogs will continue win in the show ring.
 
#57 ·
The Sad thing I see about the split and why we would never see a coming back together is quite honestly, very few if any FT breeders know anything about official conformation (angulation, vs. function etc.), it's judging, and because the venues no longer cross, there is no check and balance system on the performance dog. Most take the attitude, that if the dog can preform well under the stresses we put on them they must have proper conformation, which is semi-correct, you couldn't run well with over-exaggerated conformation characteristics. But with-out the balancing-input of people who actually know what and why body structure needs to be a certain way, we run the risk of breeding in tendencies for injuries that while repairable ALC tears etc. might be avoided if structure was regulated a bit. Of course that's pretty hard when people from both sides look pretty pointedly down their noses at each other. Most performance dog people would argue that the Conformation Lab is not what they want a lab to look-like. I've taken a few labs in for conformation evaluation, I didn't get the impression that the judges really knew what to do with my dogs, they couldn't believe how well they moved despite "faults", and while they were still determined to be Labs (yay I was worried ;)) we were pretty much passed off in 2-3 mins. Seeing the 30-45 min high praise " you must show" evaluation of portly C Lab pups, who kind've waddled around Didn't really leave me with the need to care about their opinion. And there's the split in a nut-shell ;). Performance Labs would be better off having a Chessie conformation judge or other sporting group judge, to do such conformation evaluations, but that would put the Lab club up in arms. So the performance lab will continue with no checks on their structure, while over-exaggerated dogs will continue win in the show ring.
With all due respect to the bench enthusiasts, the dogs of recent years, that I am seeing being rewarded with CH titles, would indicate that the bench judges over the last 30-40 yrs know increasingly little about conformation as well - when compared to our past dual champions. My point is that it is much easier to misrepresent or trend a written conformation std than it is to refute photos of past dual champions as the most representative of correct conformation. But then again, many bench champions of today clearly do not meet the objective height measurement & weigh portions of the std yet they are given Ch titles nonetheless.
 
#59 ·
Instead of spending an hour speculating and typing!..spend some time having a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMegQH1SPg
The issues exposed in the video are sad, the implications, however, are not necessarily universal where an adequate & expanding gene pool is involved. Unfortunately, some breeders refuse to follow accepted breeding guidelines - and absolutely refuse to do the testing to avoid issues expressed in offspring. Unfortunately, many breed enthusiasts refuse to follows the basic rule of form follows function. Therefore many abnormalities can be masked because the dogs only have to look good.
 
#64 ·
It's not My video !
and I ain't arguing!
?
"I can understand if appearance alone becomes the focus of breeding then there can be some narrowing of the gene pool used by a certain or small group of breeder"
Are you a breeder?.or a Judge?, or both? or neither?
 
#66 ·
It's not My video !
and I ain't arguing!
?
"I can understand if appearance alone becomes the focus of breeding then there can be some narrowing of the gene pool used by a certain or small group of breeder"
Are you a breeder?.or a Judge?, or both? or neither?
Yes & yes...........and also a handler who has provided part of the training of my dogs who have earned titles for their work, since you have inquired.
 
#69 · (Edited)
It appears to me that the show dog has undergone the most drastic change of appearance due to breeder selection for the flavor of the week. The field lab has evolved from selection based upon form and function to retrieve ducks and geese and even the occasional swan, therefore the longer muzzle and legs perhaps? Is one more Labrador Retriever than the other? Perhaps not, but will continued breeding selections create a show type dog known as the Labrador and the field type dog eventually be called a black, yellow or chocolate Retriever? We have seen the Irish Setter (show dog ) that couldn't find a bird if it had to and now we are seeing the Red Setter (field dog) surface where again they are bred to hunt. I feel the change in appearance has been the result of judges selecting dogs that were perhaps outside the breed standard. One solution could be, until they can attain a performance title (JH minimum) not be allowed to attain a CH title, then maybe we could put some show titles on the field bred dogs. I have seen the so-called fads come and go in horses and dogs over the years but as breeders maybe it is time for everyone to give some thought to what their breeding will produce! The most rewarding thing I and one of my dogs attained were the words from and elderly judge a few years back that simply said, "that's a mighty fine dog you've got there young man."
 
#71 ·
It would appear from the video that most of the breeds featured are ones where function is not a pertinent factor. Pekes, Pugs, Cavaliers, for example. It was a very hard video to watch. I can't imagine that there are many on this forum who could watch it without finding it painful. The Cavaliers are Spaniels, but I'm not entirely sure what their hunting specialty may have been. I think they are now in the toy group. I can't imagine that too many people have used Bulldogs to bait bulls in recent history.

So, if we want to continue to have dogs who have a chance to be functional, we should stand close to the hunters and guard their rights.

While there are many show dogs I find unattractive (both in Labs and Goldens) because they do not appear to have the physical endowments to fulfill their function, there are some that I can find appealing. Would it be such a bad thing to encourage the people who own such dogs to breed more dogs like that? If such dogs should turn up at a field event (more likely to be a hunt test than a field trial), and if the dog looks capable, it would not be such a bad thing to offer a compliment. There are still some conformation people around who will admire a nice-looking dog who comes from field lines, usually those who understand good structure and working condition.

I have to express some admiration for the Golden community. I believe that there are people from the conformation community that would pitch in to the effort for a Golden who became an FC and had a shot of adding the CH to the dog. There is a passion for another DC among Golden people, even though it seems an impossible dream.

It's kind of worth noting that the most recent DCs in Goldens that I can remember offhand (Clickey Click, Bow, Quar) all had their FCs before their CHs. Basically, all of them knew that the FC was the hard part (as Dr A stated). They didn't start thinkinig about a DC until they had the hard part completed.

Sorry to go off the topic of Labs ... but Goldens face the same basic issues.
 
#73 ·
Has anybody paused to consider that "letting" the breed split, might have been the single most significant reason that Labrador Retrievers absolutely dominate the field in Retrieving events?

In order to successfully select for the traits that matter, you have no choice but to ignore the traits that don't.
By striving for both, you tie your own hands.

If you refuse to "split" your breed, you will not be able to keep up.
The breeds that split what matters from what doesn't matter, and then select for what matters will pass you by like you are standing still.
 
#74 ·
Yeah, I don't get what the issue is. Do they want me to run a trial with a portly, short legged Lab? Or do they think I want to hear that my dog looks like he is put together well enough to swim for a 15 minute 4th series?

The breed is split, if you want to run trials get a field bred dog if you want to compete in dog shows get a show bred dog. Dual Champions are very, very unlikely. How to get it back? Why do we need it back? I wonder how many "field trial" people have ever entertained the idea of going to a dog show.

Unless the perception of what a dog should look like changes, there will always be a huge chasm between the shows and the field. The field dogs continue to progress in the field, and people are always trying to do a little better.

Someone mentioned requiring a show dog prove that it had some hunting ability before it was considered a Champion. I'd like to see one prove that it could run behind a 4 wheeler 250 yards out and back...
 
#75 ·
So, I think its important to look at the issue from "conformation" vs. breed type.

In my opinion, the majority of field bred dogs that I have seen at HT's have very good conformation. Dogs with poor conformation do not hold up long under physical stress. Are they perfect? Nope. But neither is the top ranked special of any breed. I think they have substantially better rears- better angulation for sure. Perhaps not as strong of shoulder/front assembly. But, overall, good sound dogs.

Everyone keeps pointing out that "retrieving" is what makes it a retriever. But what makes it a LABRADOR retriever? A golden retrieves! A chessie retrieves! Heck I even knew a guy that trained his boxer to retrieve ducks... does that qualify as a Labrador retriever?

For me, breed type boils down to 3 major characteristics: retrieving ability/style; temperament; and last, the physical: head, coat, and tail. Combined, these factors describe what the Labrador retriever is as a breed, that which separates it from every other breed. The dog that excels in all 5 of those characteristics sould be considered the "ideal" example. The reason that a field dog would be unlikely to finish a show CH is due to predominant focus on the first 2; the majority of bench dogs have focus on the last 2. Although I have seen some field dogs with what I would consider an appropriate head, the overwhelming majority lack double coat and appropriate tail. Size aside on head (and I'm in agreement here that too many labs look like pit bulls!)- snipey muzzles and lack of parallel planes are faults in the majority of sporting dogs for a reason. Guess what? I know the dog can swim without an otter tail... but that is a defining characteristic of the breed. Likewise, before the advent of dog vests, that double coat was of huge importance.

I realize that bench dogs have gone to the end of the extreme. I am frustrated when I see morbidly obese dogs trying to compete in performance events (not just HT). When I look at Hudson, I consider him very moderate, especially by today's standards. In fact, I'm fairly sure that he would not finish his CH if I was showing him today. I also know that at 7 years of age, I might not be still training and competing with him if he wasn't structurally sound- so I guess my next dog, I may just have to forgo the CH in order to keep working in performance venues.

I would love to see field dogs with more consistent features of breed type. Those dogs would look ALOT like the ones earlier in this post.
 
#76 · (Edited)
....I would love to see field dogs with more consistent features of breed type.....
If they can't perform in the field, NOTHING else matters.

And performing in the field, means a lot more than what it takes to earn a JH title.
 
#77 · (Edited)
The Labrador retriever, as a breed, is as diverse a breed as there may be in the world. To talk about them as if they are either a field bred Lab or a show bred Lab ignores the majority of Labs who are neither! True, they may have ancestors from one side or the other, and maybe both sides, but they were not bred to compete in either venue.

The parents of those Labs may have been selected for breeding because they were pleasant to have around the house, good with the kids, good hunters, or just great looking. Regardless of the reason, they pleased someone.

It is easy for those who are interested in pursuing titles in either venue to focus on the traits required to attain those titles and ignore other traits that are of no consequence to their pursuit. However, I believe that the majority of Lab Lovers may have a different view of the breed. It's not quads and 400 yard blinds that attract tens of thousands of Lab owners, nor is it their head, coat, and tail. It is the smart, sensible, attentive, loving dog that we all know that is the reason the Lab has been number one in AKC registrations for 22 years in a row.

You can argue which side (field or show) is right and which is wrong. Depending on your point of view I'd say there are problems to be credited to each side of the arguement. However, the most encouraging thing I've seen on this thread is from breeders who have stated that they are trying to produce Labs that are in the middle of the road. Those breeders know that they are in danger of being lost in no-man's-land. Their Labs may not be able to compete with the best of field trial Labs, nor will they be put to the head of the line in the show ring. Their courage to strive to produce a Lab that meets their own ideal without much chance of being given acclaim for their achievement is a testament to their dedication to the breed. I wish them the best of luck in their quest to produce their image of the ideal Labrador retriever!

Swack
 
#80 ·
good post Jeff- very well stated.
 
#79 ·
The same can't be said for animals who are bred for a set of looks. A fat squatty Lab doesn't do anything well, except eat and crap.
may have been selected for breeding because they were pleasant to have around the house, good with the kids, good hunters, or just great looking. Regardless of the reason, they pleased someone.
Mostly, I agree with Jeff in pointing out the difficulty of breeders finding it near-impossible to reach the highest levels in two very disparate types of competition. Yet, we can't rely on the preferences of the pet-buying public to determine what a Lab (or any breed) is "supposed" to be. Perhaps we hear it more in Goldens, but Lab breeders may also hear: "I want one with a big, blocky head." "I want a BIG male." In Labs, the pet-buying public may favor certain colors. A petowner may also favor a more placid dog than is suited for a working sporting breed. In fact, history seems to tell us that when the petowners create popularity for a breed, it opens the door to irresponsible breeding that can often lead to health issues that are ignored, not to mention the other qualities that made a breed popular to begin with.

OTOH, I think that we can't totally ignore the Standard of the Breed. I can recall when white was more common on the working lines than I've seen today (feel free to correct me if I haven't seen enough Labs lately!) People accepted the white in a good working dog, but the impression I got was they really didn't like it. Somehow, the dog didn't quite look like a Lab? We see white in Goldens on the chest, and sometimes on the feet. If the dog is also of small stature, and we have to look twice to make sure whether it is a Golden or a NSDTR, then something has been lost that distinguishes the one breed from the other. Isn't that an integral part of having a purebred dog?


I think it's pretty clear that someone interested in field work wants an athletic dog who can jump ditches and take a long swim when needed. Too short in leg can be a liability for tough terrain. Excess fat is always a liability for any breed. So, if the show lines follow a trend of whimsy of the current breeders' "vision", without testing the durability of that construction, it will stray from the structure needed to fulfill the breed's working purpose. A failing of the show ring may be that the Standard of the Breed leaves room for "interpretation". When a certain interpretation becomes predominant, the dog in the group who demonstrates a different interpretation may be overlooked, even though it adheres to the Standard as well.

I also have noted that when someone shows up at a trial with their new young pup, they may often say, "He really loves to retrieve, and he's a good-looking pup, too." I never have heard anyone say, "I'm glad this pup is ugly." :) So, even in the performance world, people do take note of appearance. Nor have I heard a show breeder say, "I'm so glad this dog hates those stinky birds." More likely to hear, "He's a great retriever."

It's not likely that most will ever leave the comfort zone of their area of "specialization," but it is helpful for the breed to acknowledge the common ground, than not.
 
#83 ·
While we are all praising the middle of the road approach, let me point out the benefits of the competitive dog sports: they provide a somewhat objective measure of our dogs. If you say you are trying to breed dogs that can win field trials, you either can or cannot point to dogs you've bred with field trial wins.

Sadly for those who want a good moderate pet, there is no such measure for the middle-of-the-road Labrador or the ideal pet Labrador. There is, however, at least one high volume breeder marketing puppies via Internet as "family Labs." These mass-produced puppies go for $2499 and up (last I checked) and have nothing to recommend them but the breeder's say-so. There is no venue of competition to "keep 'em honest."

I am always cautious about criticizing the extremes of Labrador type around anyone who might be a prospective pet puppy buyer.
 
#84 ·
Amy the problem with the moderate group is just that, they compromise by accepting that the bench dogs of today have a look to be sought when in fact by just looking at our dual champs (FC/CH) it is obvious that the bench crowd has gone on a wide tangent from the accepted appearance that was, in yesteryears, the norm or desired conformation and instead gone for an English dog that is short, heavy, has a near-Rottweiler head & is devoid of the ability to function to the std set by today's field trial Labs....form follows function.
 
#88 ·
At some point in their history all breeds of dogs had some sort of purpose in their existence. Some breeds were lap dogs for royalty, some were bred to be draft animals or hunt lions, but most were probably used to help people in their everyday lives. I think the labrador was just such a dog, the breed has been humanized for lack of a better term but originally they were bred to work. The physical attributes that enable the dog to do his job are the ones that should in my opinion be bred for.
 
#89 ·
Yes, Amy, it should not be the petowning public that determines what is best for a breed. What they want in a pet may not be what that breed was meant to be. I can recall reading an article in the AKC Gazette, years ago, about Dobermans. People wanted Dobermans as pets because of their noble, elegant appearance, but didn't want the temperament that typified a Dobe! The article lamented that some breeders tried to make that accommodation, and ended up with mentally unstable Dobes.

The retrievers' generally tolerant temperaments can mislead people into not providing obedience training. So, to make their life easier, they'd prefer a less active, energetic dog. Most of the sporting dogs have easy-going temperaments, but I really don't think any of them were made to be couch potatoes. Yet a couch potato can be the kind of dog the petowner wants.

Grandaddy, you are correct, I think, that there is no way to particularly judge a middle-of-the-road breeder, although hunt tests and other performance venues can assess some of their success. Always one tries to keep in mind that a good field dog can probably be a good obedience or agility dog, but the converse is not always true.

You may be incorrect, however, in assuming that all straddling the middle of the road will default to the Standard exemplified by the dogs in the show ring. If they study the breed's history and purpose, along with the Standard, (both older ones and modern ones), their vision of the "ideal" may be far different than the current show dogs.

I remember old photos of the Sandylands Labs (a UK prefix) who were distinctive in type and still athletic in appearance. The Sandylands head formed my own image of the perfect Lab head. Does anybody have photos of those old Labs? There were still some of them around in the late 60s and early 70s, I think.

DC Warpath Macho was built more like a show Lab (he came from show lines), but he was also still built like a powerful working dog. I saw him when he was a young dog running some sanctioned trials at the Q level.
 
#91 ·
Yes, Amy, it should not be the petowning public that determines what is best for a breed. What they want in a pet may not be what that breed was meant to be. I can recall reading an article in the AKC Gazette, years ago, about Dobermans. People wanted Dobermans as pets because of their noble, elegant appearance, but didn't want the temperament that typified a Dobe! The article lamented that some breeders tried to make that accommodation, and ended up with mentally unstable Dobes.

The retrievers' generally tolerant temperaments can mislead people into not providing obedience training. So, to make their life easier, they'd prefer a less active, energetic dog. Most of the sporting dogs have easy-going temperaments, but I really don't think any of them were made to be couch potatoes. Yet a couch potato can be the kind of dog the petowner wants.

Grandaddy, you are correct, I think, that there is no way to particularly judge a middle-of-the-road breeder, although hunt tests and other performance venues can assess some of their success. Always one tries to keep in mind that a good field dog can probably be a good obedience or agility dog, but the converse is not always true.

You may be incorrect, however, in assuming that all straddling the middle of the road will default to the Standard exemplified by the dogs in the show ring. If they study the breed's history and purpose, along with the Standard, (both older ones and modern ones), their vision of the "ideal" may be far different than the current show dogs.

I remember old photos of the Sandylands Labs (a UK prefix) who were distinctive in type and still athletic in appearance. The Sandylands head formed my own image of the perfect Lab head. Does anybody have photos of those old Labs? There were still some of them around in the late 60s and early 70s, I think.

DC Warpath Macho was built more like a show Lab (he came from show lines), but he was also still built like a powerful working dog. I saw him when he was a young dog running some sanctioned trials at the Q level.
Gerry,

I agree strongly with your statement which I have enboldend. I was surprised when folks seemed to assume that "middle of the roaders" breeding "more moderate" Labs would be breeding show style dogs. That was not what I had in mind!

There are good looking field bred Labs out there that very much resemble the Grangemead dogs that Granddaddy has promoted. But, it is silly to act as if all field bred Labs of today are cut out of that bolt of cloth.

I too believe that form follows function and that the form will change when the function changes. Is there any doubt that field trial retrievers of today are asked to perform significantly more demanding tests than their counterparts were performing 50 years ago? If you agree, then is it possible that the form of today's Lab has changed to meet the challenges of those more demanding tests?

I know there will be differences of opinion to whether there have been changes in type within the field Lab population over the years and if so to what degree. Many will profess that those changes have been for the better and others will disagree. There is no one type of Lab that will please everyone.

In my earlier post I didn't mean to infer that the pet owning public was making decisions as to what is best for the breed. I meant to imply that the breeders who chose the dogs for mating selected them based on the traits that mattered to them. There are responsible breeders who are trying to produce hunting/companion Labs based on a vision of their ideal, who are not basing their decisions using the same criteria as a field trial breeder or a show breeder.

Swack
 
#94 ·
The Labrador Retriever was not developed to be a Field Trial breed. It was developed as a hunting dog... a retriever of game. So, why then should the "breed standard" (which is already defined..... just not always followed) be affected by what "Field Trial" dogs look like (whatever that is....).

Granddaddy... you say you weren't "knocking" HT dogs... but in fact you were. We get it... Field Trial dogs do amazing things. Their training is incredible. But folks don't have to find a way to knock Hunt Test dogs, or meat dogs for that matter, when discussing what the breed should look like. We know what the breed should look like based on the breed standard.. period. Not what a field trial dog looks like (whatever that is) or a hunt test dog (whatever that is) or someone's couch potato lab (whatever that is....)
 
#95 · (Edited)
Mike, I'm sorry if you think so but you don't know me or what I think. I have said I am not knocking the hunt test dog or the title. I have said the MH title is a fine achievement & if you are a gentleman you will accept what I am saying as my opinion - and what I think. And to respond directly, I was answering a question to me, "..why not the MH...".

You also do not understand the history of our breed (the Labrador Retriever) or you would understand that we have always looked to our champions as the best of our breed. This is done because the champion title has historically been the pre-qualifier for consideration as to the type to be sought. Once you have the group of champions (field champions since form follows function) then from within that pre-qualified group you find your best conformation examples. This is not my idea but has been the tradition of breeders of champion & dual champion dogs since the beginning when the AKC recognized the Labrador Retriever as a breed - and yes the breed std was written to reflect the performance & conformation type that has been exemplified by our dual champions.
 
#98 ·
OK... well let me get to my point from this direction then...

Just what does a "Field Trial " lab look like... and how does it differ from what "Hunt Test" or "Meat Dog" labs look like?

My point being, in all these categories, there are labs that conform with the breed standard and there are labs that deviate from it to a greater or lessor degree. I don't think we can say that one game that we play harbors all the best conformation characteristics of a Labrador Retriever. Just because a dog has to "win" does not mean it is any closer to the breed standard that a dog that has to "qualify" or jump the furthest, or hunt the hardest or retrieve the fastest.
 
#99 · (Edited)
I thought I had explained the historical process in post #96:

"...we have always looked to our champions as the best of our breed. This is done because the champion title has historically been the pre-qualifier for consideration as to the type to be sought. Once you have the group of champions (field champions since form follows function) then from within that pre-qualified group you find your best conformation examples. This is not my idea but has been the tradition of breeders of champion & dual champion dogs since the beginning when the AKC recognized the Labrador Retriever as a breed - and yes the breed std was written to reflect the performance & conformation type that has been exemplified by our dual champions.

Amy Dahl explained the context of the bolded statement above when she told us, "...
Here in the U.S., it was a field trial dog first."

Unfortunately, you seem to want to take a detached position of conformation relative to function where the form std can be an independent consideration while ignoring function or at least lowering the functional bar to include "meat-dogs"
as you put it or less awarded dogs in field achievement. In my view and that historically, prior to the English bench influence, function - and particularly our field champions, was the pre-qualifier for correct conformation, i.e., the field champions served as the pool from which correct conformation was judged and represented the basis for the conformation std to which you refer. When certain field champions were valued for their field prowess but lacked certain conformations qualities sought, their pedigree line was sometimes influenced by breedings to less awarded dogs or bitches to hopefully add the conformation qualities deficient in the line of the dogs with field prowess so valued. That approach puts breeding in proper context. This detached position of form from function, on the other hand, is the very basis of the split which we are discussing. So yes I do think we can say that our field champions by virtue of their champion status do in fact 'harbor' the conformation requirements necessary for them to meet the function (which is the most important consideration) required of the breed to be a field champion & therefore that group of field champions should serve as the only pool from which we find our dogs that best represent our breed's conformation. It is simply a matter of show how the dog functions first before giving it any consideration as to whether the conformation of the dog should be valued. And field trials are the means by which we have historically recognized & awarded performance for our very best dogs.
 
#100 ·
That is my complaint of the moderation breeders who by the consideration of the bench type are admitting that there is merit in that tangent which is far afield from anything resembling the American Lab that achieved a dual champion status.
Unless we take each of the moderation breeders case-by-case we may not be able to say that the "Standard" they are using is based upon the bench type seen most often today. The frame of reference may be a compilation of certain specimens and study of the evolution of the breed Standard.

Not a disagreement that the squatty-body dog is the correct dog.

Amy raises a very good point. Hunting conditions have changed over time, even in Europe, I'd venture. Different parts of Europe quite reasonably have differing terrain and conditions. The same would be true for North America. My vet's father bred Gordon Setters. He bred brawnier dogs than the European model. He was a hunter, and contended that hunting conditions in the US required a brawnier dog than Europe's use of the breed. It seems a reasonable premise that modifications to breeds would evolve over time. Still doesn't make me like the short-legged, bulky look, but may help understand how these changes evolve.
 
#101 ·
Unless we take each of the moderation breeders case-by-case we may not be able to say that the "Standard" they are using is based upon the bench type seen most often today. The frame of reference may be a compilation of certain specimens and study of the evolution of the breed Standard.

Not a disagreement that the squatty-body dog is the correct dog.

Amy raises a very good point. Hunting conditions have changed over time, even in Europe, I'd venture. Different parts of Europe quite reasonably have differing terrain and conditions. The same would be true for North America. My vet's father bred Gordon Setters. He bred brawnier dogs than the European model. He was a hunter, and contended that hunting conditions in the US required a brawnier dog than Europe's use of the breed. It seems a reasonable premise that modifications to breeds would evolve over time. Still doesn't make me like the short-legged, bulky look, but may help understand how these changes evolve.
But if form follows function, these changes if significant or important, take care of themselves over time. And the breed conformation std should represent function and then form as it relates to function. It should not be independent or detached & it should not be influenced by form apart from function.
 
#105 ·
While I am not nor presume to be a David apologist when he uses the term "field trial dog" that also includes hunt test dogs. After more than a decade of not having a stud dog I can report that all of the hunt test females who have inquired about stud service are field trial bred on at least one side and generally both sides of the pedigrees, so the term "field trial dogs" is often synonymous with "hunt test dogs" at least by parentage if not accomplishment.
 
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