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
#109 ·
I went to my see my 1st hunt test last weekend. There were several bench bred dogs competing for their JH. I spoke with one of the owners and her CH dog was on a truck for a full year and was still trying to earn a JH. I watched the bench bred dogs run or should I say waddle? It was similar to watching a quarter horse trying to run in the Kentucky Derby...
 
#113 ·
What about white, silver, charcoal and red? Just fried some bacon or, rashers if you chose to be on the British side...mmm
 
#115 ·
My point was that both venues went to extremes, the show t to the overdone side and the field trial to further , faster , sharper obedience. ( Because of pin point timing with corrections) THat is why I asked about the standard being FC. YES I understand about MH being non competetive. BUT COULD IT BE that the field trial world has gone to a extreme also?
 
#116 ·
My point was that both venues went to extremes, the show t to the overdone side and the field trial to further , faster , sharper obedience. ( Because of pin point timing with corrections) THat is why I asked about the standard being FC. YES I understand about MH being non competetive. BUT COULD IT BE that the field trial world has gone to a extreme also?
Modern technology, training methods, information avialability/sharing, pedigree databases, performance tracking has added up to more than just the games going extreme in my opinion. You used to allow dogs to breed. Now, many breeders won't even let their dogs tie? Those will become the bulldogs of the lab world. I joke about it to a few show breeders close to me but, I'm relatively serious. Some studs don't know how to do anything unless it involves a zip-lock and five fingers. Tell me that isn't, "Extreme".....for the last thing that should come naturally.
 
#121 ·
This is much different that the conformation evolution within the Labrador Retriever breed. That evolution just ignored function altogether & established a path detached & independent from which the bench enthusiasts could re-write the historical interpretation of the breed conformation std. The result is the short-legged, over-weight version of the Lab with the near-Rottweiler look that has little or no retrieving desire - and who knows what health issues have come along with this evolution because these dogs do little or no field work.[/QUOTE]

Well said David. There is a split where did it come from? People imported Labs in the early 1900s that looked like the dogs you and I have today. Somewhere along the way "someone" developed a dog that looks like the show dogs of today. Now they say my dog "isn't built right to do what a Lab does. He doesn't have the proper conformation to run and swim long distances. His coat won't keep him warm." My dog does what a Lab was meant to do all day long. "Their" dog has the perfect conformation to do something it will never do...Incomprehensible.
 
#122 · (Edited)
There is no denying the difference between the Labs one sees in the show ring and those at upper levels hunt tests or field trials.

However, I think we are missing Dr. A's point. When hunt tests started, the dogs participating were a mixed bag of pedigrees. Many people started out with their hunting dogs or pets. Those who got hooked on the hunt tests didn't take long to figure out that it was easier & more fun to train a dog who had a lot of natural ability to start with. So those people looked toward the field trial bloodlines for their next dog; not to mention that they also went training with the people who trained for field trials :)

So, now the majority of the most successful hunt test dogs have pedigrees that are not far removed from the field trial pedigrees. The only difference between the individual dogs may be that their individual owners chose different pursuits. There can also be differences in a litter bred specifically for field trials, i.e. some of them don't become FCs. If in the same litter you have an FC, a couple of MHs, and a few pets, you'll pay a stud fee for the ones with the titles.There may also be valuable genetic material in the pet, but it hasn't been documented.

Some of the short-legged, bulky Labs get MH titles. Some field-bred Labs wash out. It's about the laws of probability being not as much in favor of the bench dogs to succeed in MH as for the dogs who have been bred for the high levels of natural abilities specifically needed for working tasks.

No question in my mind that the FC title is light years more difficult than a MH title. The distance factor, alone, adds the dimension of quality of the dog's eyesight. Not every dog of even the best pedigree may have the eyesight needed to be a brilliant marker.

In Labs there are many FCs and AFCs to choose from. In the other retriever breeds, the choices are much more limited. So, in those other breeds, QAA and MH sires (and dams) are, of necessity, the genes that are also used by those who wish to produce field-working offspring.

In Goldens, if we added up all the living FCs and/or AFCs in both US and Canada, the number would still be a small fraction of the # of FCs and/or AFCs achieved in Labs in just one year! So, for other retriever breeds it can be more challenging to find the right combo of genes; and then to find owners interested in high-level field activities who haven't already decided they need a Lab :) It's not surprising that many owners of Goldens or Flat Coats, etc. also have acquired a Lab for field work even if they don't abandon their loyalty to their primary breed.

The field working contingent has one important factor on their side. The dog whose form is faulty may be more injury prone or have a shorter career. Drive may give them momentum to overextend their bodies' limits, but, in the end, the body must be able to hold up to the rigors of the work. Unfortunately, from a show standpoint, the structure may "look good on paper", but it is not often put to the test of the durability that is needed from the working aspect. The hard working dog has proven its durability.

We really shouldn't leave the best hunting dogs out of our equation. The MH or field trial dog might be considered a "sprinter", while a hunting dog may need the stamina of a marathon runner. Human runners, regardless of the length of the race, often have similar physique. I've not heard of any successful runners who are built like Sumo wrestlers :)
 
#123 ·
There is no denying the difference between the Labs one sees in the show ring and those at upper levels hunt tests or field trials.

However, I think we are missing Dr. A's point. When hunt tests started, the dogs participating were a mixed bag of pedigrees. Many people started out with their hunting dogs or pets. Those who got hooked on the hunt tests didn't take long to figure out that it was easier & more fun to train a dog who had a lot of natural ability to start with. So those people looked toward the field trial bloodlines for their next dog; not to mention that they also went training with the people who trained for field trials :)

So, now the majority of the most successful hunt test dogs have pedigrees that are not far removed from the field trial pedigrees. The only difference between the individual dogs may be that their individual owners chose different pursuits. There can also be differences in a litter bred specifically for field trials, i.e. some of them don't become FCs. If in the same litter you have an FC, a couple of MHs, and a few pets, you'll pay a stud fee for the ones with the titles.There may also be valuable genetic material in the pet, but it hasn't been documented.

Some of the short-legged, bulky Labs get MH titles. Some field-bred Labs wash out. It's about the laws of probability being not as much in favor of the bench dogs to succeed in MH as for the dogs who have been bred for the high levels of natural abilities specifically needed for working tasks.

No question in my mind that the FC title is light years more difficult than a MH title. The distance factor, alone, adds the dimension of quality of the dog's eyesight. Not every dog of even the best pedigree may have the eyesight needed to be a brilliant marker.

In Labs there are many FCs and AFCs to choose from. In the other retriever breeds, the choices are much more limited. So, in those other breeds, QAA and MH sires (and dams) are, of necessity, the genes that are also used by those who wish to produce field-working offspring.

In Goldens, if we added up all the living FCs and/or AFCs in both US and Canada, the number would still be a small fraction of the # of FCs and/or AFCs achieved in Labs in just one year! So, for other retriever breeds it can be more challenging to find the right combo of genes; and then to find owners interested in high-level field activities who haven't already decided they need a Lab :) It's not surprising that many owners of Goldens or Flat Coats, etc. also have acquired a Lab for field work even if they don't abandon their loyalty to their primary breed.

The field working contingent has one important factor on their side. The dog whose form is faulty may be more injury prone or have a shorter career. Drive may give them momentum to overextend their bodies' limits, but, in the end, the body must be able to hold up to the rigors of the work. Unfortunately, from a show standpoint, the structure may "look good on paper", but it is not often put to the test of the durability that is needed from the working aspect. The hard working dog has proven its durability.

We really shouldn't leave the best hunting dogs out of our equation. The MH or field trial dog might be considered a "sprinter", while a hunting dog may need the stamina of a marathon runner. Human runners, regardless of the length of the race, often have similar physique. I've not heard of any successful runners who are built like Sumo wrestlers :)




You ever met a fat Ninja ?
 
#126 ·
So in addition to the endurance and trainability ,if we could add coat, otter tails, level toplines and better heads, we might be getting somewhere. (NO I do not mean rotty heads either) If we could start to see FCs in a standing picture to evaluate structure, it would go a long way to being able to select for the whole package. We could look at the past generations and discard candidates that have poor construction. Sooo, can we start to show pictures of dogs standing, we all know FCs can sit;)
IT is not and cannot be just about the performance nor just about the structure ,
 
#130 ·
IT is not and cannot be just about the performance nor just about the structure ,
So where do you factor in temperament, trainability, skin and haircoat problems, entropion, ectropion, chronic otitis externa, retained testicles, CCL injuries, OCD, etc............?
 
#127 ·
So what does an Otter Tail have to do with either performance or structure? Appears to me to be pure vanity in a human conceived idea of beauty. I will say most, if not all, of the top field dogs I have seen have nothing like an otter tail. Show dogs are never seen without one.
 
#129 ·
So what does an Otter Tail have to do with either performance or structure? Appears to me to be pure vanity in a human conceived idea of beauty. I will say most, if not all, of the top field dogs I have seen have nothing like an otter tail. Show dogs are never seen without one.

That's why there are "Purebred" dogs. Human vanity. What other reason would there be?
 
#132 · (Edited)
It's been said before but the best looking dog is the one coming back with the last bird in the last series, level topline and otter tail not withstanding.

I'll never understand how there can ever be another dual champion Lab, when the ones that are built "right" can't perform and the ones that supposedly look like they can't run or swim all day do.

FCs show what they can do nearly everyday.

If someone produced an FC with an otter tail I wonder how many breedings they'd get?
 
#134 ·
Funny enough , there was a very recent trial where the amateur dog that got second was sired by a show champion.... Congrats again Glenn. There is also another bitch here in the East that has been getting Jams that has a pretty strong show pedigree. Maybe we are closer than we think...
 
#135 ·
Glen is a great guy & he works very to get the best from his dogs. But I don't think we are close really, more of an anomaly.

here's the logical & historical progression, form FOLLOWS function, which means from the performance pool the elite performers are determined through competition, from those elite performers those with the very best structure are selected as the best over all examples of the breed. The performance regiment of the elite field dog is the very best proof of proper structure and ultimately health as well.


When conformation is allowed to be evaluated or judged separate from performance, then it enables those who judge to bring wide ranging and subjective interpretations to the conformation std. And in that separation, the ability & desire to do even rudimentary field work is systematically lost. In this process, where dogs are being selected for conformation excellence without an elite performance pre-qualifier, I.e., from dogs outside of the elite performance pool, then it precludes the very dogs that should be the pool from which our best structural dogs (dogs who have proven the viability of their structure through years of high level field work) should be selected. Being precluded from conformation consideration, the elite performance pool then loses the historic level of attention to structure. That said, I firmly believe the grueling level of field work to which the elite performance dogs are daily subjected is the very best proof of proper structure for those dogs that hold up under years of field training....a much more objective judgment of structure that a human judge who subjectively pronounces which dogs represent best their idea of proper structure.
 
#137 ·
I have long thought that outcrosses of a strong field sire to a dam of very different breeding produce great working dogs more often than chance would indicate. Genetics tells us that these dogs are likely to be very poor producers--so such a cross can produce performers, but it's a dead end reproductively.

I'm not comfortable giving "known" examples--maybe students of pedigrees will instantly think of a few. I have seen the same thing in the dogs we've trained as gun dogs, that we wished the owners wanted to trial. Seems a lot of the time these are show/field crosses, and they do everything right, learn fast, great attitudes, can remember and separate tough marks, etc.

Parents of vastly different physical types can produce odd-looking offspring though.

Amy Dahl
 
#141 · (Edited)
Looking at hind limb structure, many field dogs are too straight behind...and many show dogs are over-angulated and sickle-hocked to the point of losing power and drive. Again, extremes....but different in their existence. It's not all that common for field trial breeders to look hard at rear structure and make breeding decisions with that in mind (it's way down the list, as a rule)...while many of the show dog folks select for the over angled extreme. One side ignores it, the other side over-does it.

Having said that, I do believe there is a correlation between too-straight hind limb structure and CCL tears. However, one also has to take into consideration the work the dog is doing. A hard running athlete is more likely to injure itself than a dog that does no strenuous work. I've seen some show dogs that are so over-angluated in the hocks that I'd expect plantar ligament issues if stressed. And if you really want to see a show dog that is ruined in the rear, take a look at the horrible hocks on the Gordon Setters...yikes! Some of them almost make the show German Shepard Dogs look normal.
 
#142 ·
I believe that there is more involved in CCL tears than conformation, they were relatively uncommon 25-30 years ago, I believe there is a genetically based predisposition that will hopefully be identified by DNA analysis. Familial history suggests there is a genetic component.
 
#144 ·
Sharon
I am working with a show bred Gordon that makes me dizzy when he is moving away. Granted he is young (12 mos), but he is very narrow and his legs are all over the place...
If the field breeders would pay more attention to movement and balance it would go a long way. I personally feel that the HEART (guts,tenacity,will) of the field bred dog overcomes the short comings of the structure.

Dr Ed as a long time participant, what is your experience with arthritis and other joint issues in the older dog. Have you found straighter, post legged dogs (front and rear) might be retiring earlier? Is the any correlation to work longevity to structure?
 
#147 ·
Sharon
I am working with a show bred Gordon that makes me dizzy when he is moving away. Granted he is young (12 mos), but he is very narrow and his legs are all over the place...
If the field breeders would pay more attention to movement and balance it would go a long way. I personally feel that the HEART (guts,tenacity,will) of the field bred dog overcomes the short comings of the structure.
Bridget, I've seen some show Gordons who were almost walking on their hocks. All to get that overstretched, sloping topline and camped out pose...and they move like a trainwreck. Such a difference from the field Gordons....another breed split.

And I agree that the heart and desire often overcome structural deficiencies. In the end, without heart, we have nothing.
 
#154 ·
You are arguing, function follows form. And, your evidence for that is...coulda, woulda, shoulda.
When, there is real evidence, that it is the other way around. Form follows function.

That evidence is seen all the time. FT dogs
 
#150 ·
This whole argument get so old. To each his own. I and my circle of breeder friends choose to breed moderate dogs who can spend the day hunting with their owners. Can they do field trials? Probably not. Do they have double coats and a rudder? Yes. Can they live in the house and lay at their owners feet and relax and be ready to go in a minute? Yes. Do they look like a lab? Yes.

Do they win in the show ring? Yes, but it's really hard and takes a long time. Do they get to MH level? Yes. Does a dog need to be a CH or an AFC/FC to be a good hunting partner? No. Are there extremes on both sides? Yes. Labradors shouldn't look like greyhounds and have curved tails. Labradors shouldn't be so short they can't cover ground effortlessly. Labs shouldn't need a vest in the cold weather because they should have a tight DOUBLE coat. They shouldn't have a long coat.

My dogs are from long lived, classic lines, with minimal health problems, no lines are clear of everything. They can hunt, do agility, do obedience, be a couch potato. I have a bitch from my last litter that is working on her OTCH. I kept one that is halfway to her CH/MH. Two others are with families with kids that swim them in the Chesapeake bay everyday.

I don't think we should split the breed. But REALLY, can't you appreciate some of the things that make Labs, Labs? Both sides have great qualities.

Isn't the lab supposed to do it all? Isn't that the reason they've been number one for 10+ years unfortunately? Come on people....keep an open mind.

Sue Puff
 
#151 ·
This whole argument get so old. To each his own. I and my circle of breeder friends choose to breed moderate dogs who can spend the day hunting with their owners.
Sue - I am coming at labs from a working dog perspective as a guy that hunts hard, upland and waterfowl, as well as runs hunt tests.

What is it about your current litter that is 'moderate'? Siggy and Bree.

I'm really not trying to poke on you here - don't know squat about a bench dog. I do admittedly feel for some folks who've bought show line dogs with JH titles whereas the breeder pretty much sold 'em a bag of coal from a working dog perspective - when what they were after was a good hunting dog and pet and absolutely no intention of ever entering a ring.
 
#152 ·
Not buying the "tail as rudder". No dog swims faster or maneuvers quicker than my oldest. He has a gorgeous, high, curved tail. Rudders go on boats, not dogs. The ones I see with "otter" tails the appendage seems to act more as an anchor!
 
#157 ·
Well said Sue. I have to say that in the past 5 yrs especially, I'm getting more and more calls from folks that say they've not been able to find a Lab that looks like the old labs they grew up with. They complain about both ends of the spectrum. Too little coat vs too much coat, narrow lock picking noses vs big Rott heads , light rangy bodies vs big heavy bodies. Whenever I can, I have them come visit to see for themselves what I have here. I too have a range, and some are better at one thing or another. I love to breed to field dogs but they have to have decent structure along w/ everything else, or I'm not interested.
 
#160 ·
Bree is 60 pounds, Ziva is 55 soaking wet. Coal is 75 and Siggy is about 85-90. No fat on my three in real life. Siggy has extra weight on him when showing I assume. I never saw him in show weight. My Coal is going strong at nine and runs like a bat out of hell. The reason he doesn't have is MH is I'm an inept handler and I won't let anyone else compete with him. And I travel extensively for work.

None of mine have overdone bone or coat. They don't have TONS of bone and aren't dripping in coat as the fashion can be. I can actually lift my dogs up myself. So, I guess that's why I call them moderate. They just look a little different than yours. Maybe a little more than yours but less than current show fashion. They are sturdy.

Can they do FT? Probably not. Can they go out and hunt, probably so. they certainly can mark, remember and use their noses. My pups are exposed and worked with as soon as possible. I really enjoy preserving a good looking dog that can hunt.

My good looking is different than yours. That's fine. No one is better. Me saying the field lines are hyper, hounds greyhoundish dogs is like someone saying that all show labs are pigadors. It's just not true.

In my perfect world, we would each appreciate the pluses and minuses of all and acknowledge that none are perfect. I certainly appreciated the working ability of field dogs. It's stunning to watch. We certainly need to do a better job learning from each other across the board. With type, working ability, training, advances in health and reproduction. We need to understand that in all venues, the training, time and money spent is extensive. One venue doesn't corner the market on that.

Anyway....I guess I'm usually in dream land. :) I'm looking forward to my litter of black puppies out of a yellow bitch and chocolate sire. Ill have pups carrying all three colors. I hope my second CH/MH is in there! And I hope the kids getting puppies out of this litter enjoy them, for 15+ years!

Sue Puff
 
#163 ·
Sue - I'd have a hard time believing the legs on any of those dog could carry an upland longer than 90 minutes. There's a market for what you breed, I get it. But I don't honestly believe a JH, SH, or even in many cases a MH title mean much as far as the quality and athleticism of a Lab. I've seen dogs WALK and get a senior pass. And 'probably' can't compete in Field Trials is more likely 'definitely' can't compete. And you don't expose them to actual hunting which is quite different than a 'test'.

All that aside - I would not buy your breeding for a hunting dog. Nor would I recommend anyone else to.

Whether I'd suggest it for a show dog that can pick up a duck - maybe, don't know enough about the show side. I'm hoping that is your audience though.

I really don't buy for looks, I buy for pedigree. Working pedigree.
 
#164 ·
Ah well. We both enjoy our dogs and they enjoy what they do. I appreciate them all. And thankfully, mine don't walk to get their titles.

Sue Puff
 
#166 ·
I am absolutely convinced that Dickendall Arnold, while certainly not the beginning of the breed split, was the reason the breed split became acceptable--because so many breed dogs that have the heart and birdiness to work seem to have Dickendall Arnold in their lines, and the show folk say "My dog hunts/loves to hunt/can hunt/will hunt/trains to hunt" and, even though the dog is overdone to crispiness, the dog hunts/loves to hunt/can hunt/will hunt/trains to hunt, whatever.

All the pictures of him he seems to be a powerful-looking dog, definitely showy, but when young definitely also athletic (and when middle-aged and old, fat but happy). His progeny and progeny's progeny, to me, look like caricatures, and it bothers me to no end because they are probably not as capable as their desires could accommodate, but they do seem to carry the heart and birdiness as much as or more than the show look.

I'd be super-curious to hear others' observations about Dickendall Arnold and show/working outcomes.

I don't know. To each his own. I've come to think that the best-looking Lab in the whole world is mine. ;)

Which reminds me, Al--I'm going to e-mail you right now about the picture of Atticus jumping over the hay bale!
 
#174 ·
Hntfsh Curious if you think this dog could hunt? 3/4 show bred , a tad bit overweight here. Dog Mammal Vertebrate Dog breed Canidae
 
#175 ·
Hntfsh Curious if you think this dog could hunt? 3/4 show bred , a tad bit overweight here. View attachment 13315
Bridget - I can't tell if a dog 'hunts' by a picture. Then comes the question of hunt what and how long. Then the perseverance factor. Finally, the probabilities of how genetically predisposed a dog might be based on its ancestry. Needless to say two pics of dogs like in stature may have completely opposite dispositions.

And you do mean hunt right? Not just test?

Go ahead and fill me in on this dog.
 
#177 ·
Me, I don't know if that dog could hunt or not. But it just does not appeal to me. I particularly dislike this kind of "stretched" show stance. Reminds me of horses that are shown like this, say Saddlebreds and Arabs, to cover myriad fault in the running gear. With that said, if it's what you like, go for it! I like to see the ones like mine, that's why I chose them. Now when a breeder of either type comes up with the sure fire way to prevent all Ortho problems and illnesses, I'd go for that! Otherwise I think it is folly to pursue a one size fits all DC.
 
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