Originally Posted by
TuMicks
The hallmarks of the Labrador breed are head, tail, coat. Are there some show dogs who are extreme examples? Yes. That is not correct and they should be penalized. However, a dense, thick, double coat IS a component of this breed.
The opening paragraph of the Breed Standard states: "The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion."
All the dogs in the Sporting Group should be bred to work in hunting season. They are not pulling sleds through blizzards. The density of the coat can... at some point... become a liability for all these breeds. Retrievers' double coat reflects the fact that they are water dogs. Cold water dogs. BUT they are not Newfies. They are an all-around dog and have to be able to work land and water fowl.
Now, if people are choosing to breed for more range, more speed, more endurance based on modern hunting/sporting preference:(I don't know what a "modern hunting preference" is. It's how we've hunted in the US since we've been hunting in the US. It's American... not British. And we have our own breed club. The UK has theirs. Having said that working retrievers and ring retrievers here look identical to their UK cousins); for less coat for better warm weather performance, less otter-like tail, longer head-plane/snout for better vision like a sighthound -- GREAT, but that's not what the standard calls for and it is not reflective of the original formulation of this breed any more than a stumpy-legged, upturned, short snouted, open-coated example from the show ring is.
No, no, no. There are field dogs that meet the standard. They might have subtly different looking heads/snouts than those common in the ring today. But we are not talking about sight-hounds. If you appeal to the original formulation, I think you are stuck. Because the head I'm referring to... the one we see at field events... is more reflective of the early CH's (See Banchory Bob.) I agree we shouldn't be looking to clone the early Dual's, some evolution is inevitable. I'm only suggesting the ring judges should not penalize a subtly more field-type skull. A "throw-back" once in a while would perhaps be a healthy trend.
No. Not range. But yes on the endurance. They should be able to quarter within gun range. Not acres and acres ahead. This is not a polemic for long-legged, out of standard dogs. I'm saying Labs have to be able to keep working the field as long as the hunter does. BUT... let's be honest. That has more to do with conditioning than phenotype. The shorter legged dog in the ring ought to be able to do this as well as a rangy archetypal (and out of standard) field dog.
Speed, yes... but only as a sprinter, not like pointers and setters. When the birds are coming in... the hunter(s) might be dropping them fast. The dead birds have to be picked up and wounded birds promptly shagged down. So it's a matter of moderation. A well balanced lab isn't going to be the fastest dog on the planet. But he ought to be able to turn on the burners (so to speak) for short bursts when necessary. The standard calls for a "strong" dog. I think this would be synonymous with "powerful" and that's the sort of thing I envision.
I think the majority of people with Labradors of whatever persuasion are perfectly content with what they have laying at their feet. There's nothing wrong with that IMO.
And therein lies the absolutely outstanding characteristic of the Labrador Retriever and why they will likely be the #1 choice among all the breeds for the foreseeable future. We are incredibly fortunate to have a dog with such a rich and diverse gene pool. (Thank GOD, we are not like the poor Curly Coat people!!!) But that very depth and diversity is also the reason for our robust discussions (not disagreements.)