Originally Posted by
TuMicks
Hit a little bad patch and haven't been on line for a while. I enjoyed catching up and reading the comments.
There are field dogs that absolutely meet the LRC standard. Why wouldn't they? At least in terms of objective measures. My dog is so far out of standard I've not looked in to it, but I know there is some certification that lab owners can seek that basically affirms that the dog, though not a conformation competitor, does indeed meet the standards. (I'll bet there are people on this site who know more about this than I.)
I found this comment kind of interesting (thank you dxboon)
Labs are not superstars in conformation. They are plain Janes. I think our standard is a little wordy and demands a lot from judges. You'd have to be very confident to pick a Labrador to win Group over the best examples of other breeds competing against them in Sporting.
I don't work in this area, so am likely to read the standard in a concrete sort of way. But it says in the opening statement that the breed ought to possess "the character and quality to win in the show ring." I think dxboon is stating the simple facts of the matter, but there seems to be a problem if we are not competitive in group, let alone in the larger show titles. (Not my circus, not my monkey... but maybe this is a minor scandal.)
I don't see anything in the standard that says the dog has to be boring. "Moderate" and well-balanced" are mentioned several times. Why shouldn't the Lab be appealing (even exciting) to watch in the ring? I mentioned Romeo because he was the one dog I could find on video that took group. I thought his handler brought out some personality, even some sparkle, in the dog.
I brought up "intensity" because it's a quality that ought not to interfere with the phenotypical aspects that conformation breeders are interested in. I suspect it's a matter of taste, but when you see it, it grabs your attention, and that seems to be something we need in the conformation ring.
I would strongly argue that drive and intensity are absolutely necessary to meet the hunter's needs, and I further believe a Lab should have it to meet the standard. The LRC clearly says the dog must be "an efficient retriever of game". (Barry... I have a question for you... the working retriever should have a gait that enables it to quarter a field for a good day's hunt while finding game. But once the game is down, do you not want to see the dog put on the after-burners to go and fetch it? Is that not part and parcel of the "efficient retriever of game?") Further, the standard states that a Lab must "have the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions." This is not the description of an indifferent, ho-hum dog. To meet this part of the standard, a Lab should have what the old-time field trialers used to call "bottom", sometimes it's referred to as "courage". The dog will bust cover, break through skim-ice, take on stick ponds and weeds, whatever the conditions may be. The dog who will work for long hours under difficult conditions has got to want to get the bird no matter what. This is not a lah-dee-dah sort of hunting dog.
Are we breeding conformation dogs that project that sort of drive and "want-to"? I kinda think this is the source of the split in the breed. Not anything about the heads or length of leg or whatever... (field trialers will run a dog no matter what he looks like. It's not the outside of the dog they find lacking but the inside.)
So that's my question of the day and my further display of blathering on topics about which I am woefully ignorant, but seriously interested.