The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 208

Thread: Labradors - are we splitting the breed?

  1. #51
    Senior Member windycanyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    3,811

    Default

    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.

  2. #52
    Senior Member afdahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt8@cox.net View Post
    The last dual ch. I saw belonged to the Lilinfelds back in the early 80's. He was a nice dog to say the least, but the image of him being able to compete in todays trials? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
    Macho was nine when Carol bought him. Prior to that, he placed in one-third of the trials he ran. Very consistent. Smart, and able to do a lot of tests that gave other dogs fits, like pinning the short bird after running long right past it. I'd bet on him making FC/AFC today--but not Dual!

  3. #53
    Senior Member afdahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granddaddy View Post
    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.
    Shall I be really obnoxious and point out that that litter was an "oops"?
    Obviously the quality was there in the pedigrees on both sides, reflecting the breeder's priorities--but that particular breeding didn't represent intentional selection.

    I've read that no one knows what happened to Grangemead Sharon. Have wondered if she was considered "ruined" by the misbreeding and given away as a pet.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by afdahl View Post
    Shall I be really obnoxious and point out that that litter was an "oops"?
    Obviously the quality was there in the pedigrees on both sides, reflecting the breeder's priorities--but that particular breeding didn't represent intentional selection.

    I've read that no one knows what happened to Grangemead Sharon. Have wondered if she was considered "ruined" by the misbreeding and given away as a pet.
    I'd love to have such "accidents"........

    And an oh by the way, in my Stella's upcoming litter 12 gen pedigree, I found Grangmeade Precocious (110x), Freehaven Muscles (60x), Grangemead Sharon (89x) - and some other Grangemead dogs too. Other dual champs in the pedigree include Little Pierre of Deer Creek (152x), Shed of Arden (163x), Cherokee Buck (69x) & Bracken's Sweep (95x). Taking Stella as typical of pedigree's of many of today's FCs, I think it would be better to start with a current FC, if the intent is to replicate the conformation of our prior dual champions. And just to add, Stella has a wonderful coat (almost seems too dense and thick).
    Last edited by Granddaddy; 05-15-2013 at 11:57 AM.
    David Didier, GA

  5. #55
    Senior Member Hunt'EmUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,995

    Default

    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.
    "They's Just DAWGS"
    "Hunting is a skill to be learned whether you do it early or late it still needs to be learned"
    "I train dogs, Not papers"

    GMRH HRCH Quick MH (most importantly Duck/Upland Enthusiast) Rip. July-2014
    MHR HRCH Lakota MH (most importantly Upland/Duck Enthusiast)
    HR Storm.. the Pup (Beginning Upland & Waterfowl Enthusiast)

  6. #56
    Senior Member Dave Farrar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lemoore CA
    Posts
    447

    Default

    The breed is definitely split. Having said that, I bought my pup for "GO" not for show. I like my cars the same way.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt'EmUp View Post
    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.
    David Didier, GA

  8. #58
    Senior Member polmaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stirling Scotland
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Instead of spending an hour speculating and typing!..spend some time having a look at this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMegQH1SPg
    One Shooter One Spaniel One Retriever

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grantville GA
    Posts
    2,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polmaise View Post
    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.
    David Didier, GA

  10. #60
    Senior Member polmaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stirling Scotland
    Posts
    831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Granddaddy View Post
    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.
    Unfortunately, the issues are not only sad! they are real!.The implications are Universal,regardless of the gene pool,if the gene pool is narrowed by the judged winners,and the market breed or are drawn to the 'gene pool' of champions?
    Abnormalities cannot be masked!..they are abnormalities!..Judging and awarding abnormalities can and does promote the gene! ?
    The Rhodesian ridgeback (ridge on the back) Is actually an ''abnormality'' in the gene!...pups that had no ridge were discarded at birth!...not by the mother. By the breeder! who was breeding to the ''breed standard''!???
    One Shooter One Spaniel One Retriever

Posting Permissions

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