[Bridget Bodine]

good post Jeff- very well stated.

I agree , a very good post about what the Labrador really is

 

[Trifecta]

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.

Yes, I realize that performing in the field is more than a JH. However, the AKC currently registers 5 other breeds with the word "retriever" in the name- not including things like water spaniels, etc. My point is that retrieving ability, although an important component of breed type, DOES NOT distinguish the Labrador retriever from the other types of retrievers. Its those silly physical characteristics that distinguish between a lab, a golden, a chessie, a curlie, a flat-coat, NSDTR, etc...

 

[afdahl]

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.

 

[Granddaddy]

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.

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.

 

[Nate_C]

Really? I thought the original intent of the breed was to retrieve fishing nets and boats from icy water. In which case, the shorter, stockier, heavier boned dog padded with some fat probably did serve a useful purpose. The high-powered, very lean athletes that we see today wouldn't stand a chance at the original intent of the breed.
Goldens, on the other hand, were bred to hunt

You are absolutely right on this on. I am 5'10" 275lbs and built like a tree stump. Go put something in the water about 1/2 mile that you have to swim out to and pull in. I am sure everyone on this forum would pick me versus Michael Phelps right? How does Shorter stock and heavier boned = better swimmer. I understand the cold but there coat does most of that. Soem body fat helps but there is some diminishing returns at some point right.

 

[afdahl]

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.

David, you're preaching to the choir, here. I try not to get worked up about it, but it's just wrong to identify today's show dogs with original Labrador type. People keep saying the Standard is subject to interpretation, but the height and weight ranges give a pretty unambiguous idea of just how much "substance" the breed is supposed to have.

Mostly I try to be polite to everyone and encourage them to work their dogs.

 

[Bridget Bodine]

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.

I am not promoting show dogs in any way, but why is the function standard "today's FIELD TRIAL" dog? Does it have to be that extreme? Could the standard not be a MH hunt test dog?

 

[Olddog]

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.

 

[Gerry Clinchy]

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.

 

[Granddaddy]

I am not promoting show dogs in any way, but why is the function standard "today's FIELD TRIAL" dog? Does it have to be that extreme? Could the standard not be a MH hunt test dog?

The functional std has always been & should continue to be our best performers in the field - that would be our field champions - FCs. Not knocking MHs but they aren't FCs with all that it takes to achieve that title. Just by definition a MH designation is achieved not by competition among dogs but by a subjective comparison to a written std. And by numbers who have achieved the titles FC & MH, the MHs probably outnumber the FCs 100 to 1 or more. This again is not a knock on MHs, it is a fine achievement but not a competitive one where few attain the title.

That is why I always point to our dual champions. Look at them, wonderful performers who had the intended conformation rather than some English idea that doesn't come close to meeting our conformation std & even less in terms of performance/function. And the fact that some enthusiasts prefer the English bench look doesn't change one iota the Labrador's history in the US which says they are deviating dramatically from the American Labrador both in function & conformation.

 

[Swack]

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

 

[copterdoc]

.....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.....

The pet Lab breeders aren't selecting anything other than boy parts and girl parts. Sometimes, they select for color.

And that's a fact Jack.

The people that buy from those breeders, don't know a dog's ass from a hole in the ground. They believe what they read about "Labs" and they absolutely BELIEVE what they read.

And if you think the average show Lab is fat...............................

 

[Granddaddy]

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

No one has said or implied that "all field Labs of today..." have the conformation of the Grangemead dogs pictured in this thread. I said our dual champions are where we should look for proper conformation & that many of our FCs have similar body type. Even within the FC group there are some that are similar to the Grangemead dogs, others who fall short, but without question the dual champions is where we should be looking, comparing, striving to obtain. And I am confident that those dogs would acquit themselves very well in the field trial game of today. I will add any consideration of the short, fat, Rottweiler-faced dogs who have little or no retrieving desire or talent & who dominate the bench is a turn in the wrong direction. 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.

Further it matters not whether the look of field Labs with conformation to match the Grangemead dogs pleases the public or particularly the bench enthusiast of today. There is a std & the Grangemead type is the historical type for the American Lab & what we should be striving for if we want to maintain or revive an adherence to the std.

 

[Mike Tome]

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....)

 

[Granddaddy]

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....)

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.

 

[afdahl]

The Labrador Retriever was not developed to be a Field Trial breed. It was developed as a hunting dog... a retriever of game.

The breed was developed in England to pick up birds in driven shoots. It was imported to the U.S. to participate in the field trial sport, which (having developed in the meantime) was imported with the dogs. U.S. field trials changed to incorporate more of the skills required in American "rough shooting," mainly water work. The dogs changed with them, developing into a breed with great potential for American style waterfowl hunting, and taking over a niche that was previously occupied by spaniels, Chesapeakes, and some versatiles.

Here in the U.S., it was a field trial dog first.

Amy Dahl

 

[Swack]

The pet Lab breeders aren't selecting anything other than boy parts and girl parts. Sometimes, they select for color.

And that's a fact Jack.

The people that buy from those breeders, don't know a dog's ass from a hole in the ground. They believe what they read about "Labs" and they absolutely BELIEVE what they read.

And if you think the average show Lab is fat...............................

copterdoc,

No where in the portion of my post you quoted (or in any of my posts on this thread) did I mention the phrase "pet Lab breeders". I'm talking about Lab breeders whose goal is to produce good looking, sensible hunting companions for hunting homes.

If you think there are only breeders of field trial Labs, show Labs, and "pet" Labs, you are missing a big group of breeders.

I'm not sure what you meant to say in that last sentence.

And the name's SWACK, not Jack!

Swack

 

[Mike Tome]

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.

 

[Granddaddy]

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.

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.

 

[Gerry Clinchy]

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.