[windycanyon]

Maybe we analyze this from a different angle. Has anyone ever done a study regarding the life expectancy of the show lab versus the field lab? I would think the more "fit" dogs would have a tendency to live longer, and the larger,overweight labs would have more ailments and a shorter life span (just like us people). We might also be surprised as many of our field labs live a "harder" life than some show labs. Trust me I'm not passing judgement as I'm constantly in a weight battle with myself.

Maybe from a "health" perspective we can then determine what traits and standards are desirable in the breed standard.

IMO, I much prefer the look of a healthy, fit Field Labrador Retriever.

Purina did a paired littermate/ nutrition study years ago, comparing free fed Lab pups to those eating ~1/3 less if I remember right (you can probably still find it online by Google). The leaner pups lived an average of 2 yrs longer and had half the HD as the fatter group. That sure worked for me. I'd be willing to bet that cancer goes up in the chunkier dogs, and sadly, Dog Fancy has had our breed listed w/ a lifespan of only 10-12 yrs for several years now. I'd like to believe it should really be 12-14 yrs.

2Tall... here's my 2cents on why weight wins in the show ring. I personally think that to get that "dripping" (heavy) coat that is part of the winning ticket, you have to have a surplus of nutrition there. I've seen it with my crew anyhow-- right after breeding and whelping litters, I tend to beef them up a bit, and they come back w/ the most beautiful coats. Otherwise, if kept in working condition, coats are fine from a functional standpoint, but would look "slick" / skimpy compared to the dogs in the ring. And no, you don't want to show a dog w/ tuck up in the ring but tuck up can be structural issue too if the dog has a longer loin or shorter ribcage (or worse, has herring gut). Ideally, we want a nice long rib cage for protection in the field and whatever may linger under the surface for those dogs w/ nice water entries.

Anyhow, right now in AKC, "more" seems to be preferred in the Lab ring. More coat, more bulk, more bone (different than bulk), more head.. just MORE. Okay, so less muzzle seems to be in style, sadly. I think I'll have to stick to Intl shows personally as I saw how "petite" my youngest choc looked next to her competition in the show ring a few months ago. I really like what she looks like... but she's not competitive in that ring in the current form. And for those who have or will see her at hunt tests, for 59#, she has quite the "stocky" look to her compared to most. It's really frustrating to me as I look at the illustrated standard and see a moderate, athletic dog but yet that style is rarely winning in the ring. You really need to hunt out the right judges to show under w/ a moderate lab anymore, and even at that, if placed in a lineup w/ much beefier looking stock, your's is going to "look" out of place more than it really is.

 

[Losthwy]

I think it is FUN-NY! "The Dog That Does It All." :grin:

That got a chuckle from me as well. Those who brought the "standard" to what is today should be blind folded, hands tie behind the back, tied to a post and summarily executed. Guilty of the crime of terminal stupidity. Now "Super Chief" was a good looking dog.

 

[Karen McCullah]

1. What's a "tuck"?!

2. I feed Evo, have lean labs and I get compliments on their coats all the time!
So I'm thinking it's not *how much* to feed, it's the *quality* of the food that they are getting that will affect the coat.

3. My dogs are too lean to be in the show ring but my vet told me my older yellow boy is the PERFECT size/weight for a lab!

Proud mama regards!

 

[windycanyon]

1. What's a "tuck"?!

2. I feed Evo, have lean labs and I get compliments on their coats all the time!
So I'm thinking it's not *how much* to feed, it's the *quality* of the food that they are getting that will affect the coat.

3. My dogs are too lean to be in the show ring but my vet told me my older yellow boy is the PERFECT size/weight for a lab!

Proud mama regards!

Coat that WINS is like the dog that the OP posted. Long, wavy, thick..... not typical of most field labs!

Tuck is that waistline that many in the field (and agility) seem to LIKE to see. Really the underline should be straight, though a sloping line is fine... it's undesirable to have the underline curved up to the waistline (that is TUCK). Herring gut is a severe tuck and is not anyone's friend in the field as it indicates a short rib cage which means less protection for the major organs.

If you get the opportunity, the LRC illustrated standard is a handy reference. Also see if there is a conformation certificate offered near you. Usually they are held in conjunction w/ hunt tests. Anne

 

[Grasshopper]

The dog in the original picture looks like Dickendall Arnold, or one of his get, to me. In my opinion, he seemed to be the "turning point" for chunkier lab conformation. Before him, winning conformation labs appeared more athletic, after him, more chunky.

Don't get me wrong, I love the conformation labs. Just not the morbidly obese ones.

What are your thoughts?

 

[2tall]

I dont know about the "coat" reason. My 100% field dog, has a coat that is long and wavy, I used to worry about it! He has a full ruff on his neck, and feathers on his tail. No way would he fit any other part of the conformation look. Somewhere, sometime, somebody decided that these chunksters were the right way to be. Who decided and who went along with it?

 

[windycanyon]

I dont know about the "coat" reason. My 100% field dog, has a coat that is long and wavy, I used to worry about it! He has a full ruff on his neck, and feathers on his tail. No way would he fit any other part of the conformation look. Somewhere, sometime, somebody decided that these chunksters were the right way to be. Who decided and who went along with it?

Hate to tell you but the feathers (and excessive wave) aren't supposed to be there. Interesting that they've got a genetic test now for the "fluffy gene" (long coat) but yet that *is* considered stylish in the ring. I honestly think the breeder/judges set the trends, not the LRC. I was just chatting w/ a show golden friend who is every bit as fed up w her ring and the trends. I saw the most interesting coat on a show bred lab a couple weeks ago, btw. I knew the male had thrown some long coats, but this was long and wirey textured like a doodle maybe. Odd to say the least.

Has anyone noticed the COATS on show goldens lately? Have you had to run your young impatient lab behind one on water? It's the kiss of death to run behind one that is fighting to stay afloat, let alone get to the bird. Fat labs at least float (bob like a cork)! ;-)

 

[Sharon Potter]

There is a breed standard in writing that should be followed, and neither extreme in show or field fits. Sadly, a balanced dog isn't too likely to draw a judge's attention. Problem is, the majority of show judges go for extremes rather than following the standard....and it's not just in Labs. If the show Labs had to walk across a scale on the way into the ring, most classes would be empty, and if they were measure for stuff like height vs. length and also length of ear and muzzle, a bunch wouldn't qualify.

 

[windycanyon]

There is a breed standard in writing that should be followed, and neither extreme in show or field fits. Sadly, a balanced dog isn't too likely to draw a judge's attention. Problem is, the majority of show judges go for extremes rather than following the standard....and it's not just in Labs. If the show Labs had to walk across a scale on the way into the ring, most classes would be empty, and if they were measure for stuff like height vs. length and also length of ear and muzzle, a bunch wouldn't qualify.

Amen Sister.

 

[Ironman]

The reason the show Labs are kept fat is to try and hide shortcomings in thier breeding. Lack of proper structure, coat, etc. IMO the best looking lab is a show quality Lab that is in working shape...a dog like Tatyana's "Scotty" pictured earlier, just beautiful!

 

[Illinois Bob]

A handful of years ago they introduced a wicket to the Lab ring to measure height -- making sure dogs were not too tall.

I have long argued they should also introduce a scale to measure weight.

They should take them all on a hunt after the show too to see what they can do.

 

[MBH]

My guess is that the dog on the cover might be Lobuff's Bare Necesseties--Baloo--since he was bred by Lisa Weiss. Anybody with more experience want to chime in? I was wondering who the dog was too.

 

[ReedCreek]

My guess is that the dog on the cover might be Lobuff's Bare Necesseties--Baloo--since he was bred by Lisa Weiss. Anybody with more experience want to chime in? I was wondering who the dog was too.

You are correct, it is Ch. Lobuffr's Bare Necessities "Baloo" CD, JH. (his sire was a CH/SH). He's clearly an older dog in that photo and he was not run in that weight. Below are links to pictures of the same dog when he was being shown and run:

http://www.winddreamer.net/images-lr/lobuffs_bare_necessities-baloo2.jpg
http://www.joebattsarm.com/lobuffsbarenecessities3.jpg

Lisa Weiss has shown dogs at the garden for 30 years and was BOB owner/handled this past year. She wrote the book and chose a picture of her most beloved dog to go on the cover... !!! Any of you can put a picture of your own beloved dog on the cover when you are qualified in your sport to write a book!!!

Also, what changes were made to the standard that you have a problem with? I ask this because the changes were actually in favor of a more moderate dog.

Patti
________
RANCHERO RIO GRANDE

 

[Angie B]

Way To Go Patti!!!!

Angie

 

[Paula H]

And were made by the field trial component of the LRC.........

Look. What wins in the Labrador specialty ring is not my cup of tea - I think that the big, honking, overdone dogs are not correct. My dogs do go from the show ring to the field. The "breeder" judges tend to put up dogs with more what they call "type" - I choose not to feed that kind of dog, so I do not exhibit under those judges. I've given up losing sleep and gnashing my teeth over that fact - let them breed what they want and I don't have to buy their puppies or show to them.

I've shown to Lisa Weiss on several occasions, and my dogs are "not enough" for her so we didn't do anything under her. Fair enough. She is respected and is a very nice person, consistently putting up a similar type. She even told me later that my dog needed "more substance" for her (fair enough - he's not enough for most Lab breeder judge types). Fair enough. Look at someone's Winner's Class - if all the dogs are consistent, then I respect their opinion - it might not be what I brought them that day, but if they know what they like, more power to them.

The problem was that the FIELD TRIAL people made the height a DQ for the show dogs - if a dog is DQ'd 3 times, that means it can't play anymore. The show people got mad because the field trial people can play their game with dogs that obviously DO NOT meet the standard (coat, otter tail, over the height standard) and still play their game. That was the essence of the deal - the conformation folks felt that if the standard were going to be enforced, that EVERYONE who exhibited (field trial folks too - don't know if that extended to hunt tests, obedience, agility, etc. - doubt it) should be held to the same standard, so the field trial dogs 25" and over and the little 50 pound bitches ought to be DQ'd along with the lumbering show dogs.

All this rancor is why I got an American Water Spaniel.

 

[cakaiser]

Is the LRC run by FT people? Aren't most breed clubs controlled by the confirmation people? Excuse my ignorance.

 

[DRAKEHAVEN]

All this rancor is why I got an American Water Spaniel.

So you can fight with the Boykin people over which is the "REAL" version of the breed, the one with the tail or without.

Sorry....had to !!
JK

 

[Grasshopper]

So, after some quick internet research, I discovered that "Baloo" and Dickendall Arnold are both by Dickendall Ruffy, which explains why they looked similar to me.

http://www.dickendall.com/arnold.html

http://www.winddreamer.net/labfiles/lobuffs_bare_necessities.html

http://www.dickendall.com/ruffy.html

 

[nwlabs]

Why are they fat...well many judges reward big and overdone, so if one wants to win, one creates dogs that look that way...

Regarding *some* judges, yes they do put up big and overdone. Do ALL judges reward that? Absolutely NOT. Does everyone follow the leader and do as the others do as far as breeding goes? No they do not. I know I don't! My dogs do well at Specialties and at All Breed shows and they perform in other venues. My dogs are within the standard....I compete in Conformation/Field/Obedience. My dogs are shown at an appropriate weight and in shape. It has never once hurt me in the breed ring. I won't add/take off weight on my dogs in order to compete in one venue or another. It is not healthy.

Here is my Am/Can CH bitch. She was 21 months in this pic. She finished her Am breed CH at 26 months (Can CH at 13 months) which is very young in our breed and in Division One where our point schedules are the highest in the nation. She *will* have working titles. You can clearly see a waist and a tuck up oh and muscles!! This candid was taken at the LRC of Greater Boston's Specialty last year where she went Reserve Winner's Bitch. She is not fat and yet she was rewarded at a Specialty....interesting how that happens. Constructive comments welcome...

As far as field work goes, I am a junior hunter kind of gal as I can only do so much with my time, but my husband goes waterfowling and upland hunting with our dogs, so they get to do what they are bred to do. I respect those who do advanced field work with their dogs. I love to watch Senior/Master tests. I marshalled at tests long before I ran my first dog.

However, I am amazed at how rude some of you are on this thread and others. I would never think to pick on anyone's dogs. Someone loves that dog! Its hard to defend "field only" people in a field/show discussion with "show only" people, when *some* of you do nothing but act like so horribly. Think about it!

As far as longevity goes. This gal's great grandmother was a few months shy of 14 YO when we lost her. She was sound her entire life. She died of hemangiosarcoma...and died 3 months after diagnosis. Who knows how long we would have had her living a top quality of life, but she was never lame and never sick prior to her diagnosis. That gal's mom lived to over 16 YO. My current "old lady" is 12 1/2 YO and she was out breaking ice late last hunting season getting birds. So much for short lived "fat" show dogs.

I am not a "show" person...or a "field" person. I am a *Labrador* person! Its very hard to be "middle of the road" (wanting to succeed in conformation and in the field) in a breed with such extremes on both ends of things. Neither extreme is "correct" I might add. I see the good in both field and show stock and it bothers me to hear either camp being so disrespectful.

Just my two cents...

 

[AmiableLabs]

Any of you can put a picture of your own beloved dog on the cover when you are qualified in your sport to write a book!!!

I don't see anyone having a problem with the sentiment of the choice. The problem is with the logic of the choice of that picture of that dog juxtaposed with the phrase "the dog that does it all."

And here is the sad thing -- The Labrador breed TRULY is "the dog that does it all." That individual animal is NOT.

Also, what changes were made to the standard that you have a problem with? I ask this because the changes were actually in favor of a more moderate dog.

I have no problem with them introducing the wicket. Do you have a problem with them introducing a weight scale?