Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    Senior Dog Labradorks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanked: 2421
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelley View Post
    No where in the Breed Standard is there mention of "Intensity", they are supposed to be a calm gentleman's hunting companion, not an overly energetic Border Collie type temperament.

    Taken from the Breed Standard:
    "Temperament: True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the breed as the"otter" tail. The ideal disposition is one of a kindly, outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards man or animal. The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog. Aggressiveness towards humans or other animals, or any evidence of shyness in an adult should be severely penalized."

    This is also in the general comments about the breed, "the character and quality to win in the show ring; and thetemperament to be a family companion." Still no intensity.

    Romeo had/has no extra weight on him at all, he was shown in excellent condition and weight for a working gundog, as described in the Standard.

    Just sayin'.
    I totally am on board with this. Field Labs are not Labs according to the standard, not just conformation but everything. That's not what they were meant to be. If someone likes then, great! Go for it! But to expect that a dog would be better for it, why? Because it's a preference? It's like conformation dogs that are over bred the OTHER way. It's too much. There is a happy medium. Labs are supposed to do the job. They aren't expected to do the job with jazz hands and glitter! They are a working dog, not a flashy dog. Just like with a dog with no drive, too much can be an issue. My puppy's mama is a MH 22 and she is not a field Lab. She is not flashy. She gets the job done. Now, which dog would you rather take hunting when you need to eat? Not saying that's better. If your thing is to watch a dog that is intense, go to a field trial. If you want to eat and have little to no trouble with your dog, get a dog bred to standard.

  2. #22
    Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Greenwood, Delaware
    Posts
    7,348
    Thanked: 7148
    Quote Originally Posted by TuMicks View Post
    PS: Not sure what year of Crufts it was... but there was an Italian bred Lab that won the Sporting group... Loch More Romeo. I think he had a little more fat on him than I'd like (but what do I know!) He took Reserve Best In Show. But I gotta say that his owner handler had him looking really excited and just on the verge of being a little out of control. I liked the way he showed the dog. They were both having a great time.
    Check post #3 in this thread. It was 2013 that Loch Mor Romeo took the Gundog Group and Reserve BIS at Cruft's. I was there and saw him get the BOB, but we left before the Group judging and we were able to watch it on TV. I can say there was some grumbling in the crowd when Romeo took the BOB. But I suppose when you have over 500 dogs competing you're going to get some differing opinions.



    I think many here remember the issues I was having finding a true "dual purpose" Labrador after I lost Bruce. I had offers of a puppy from Bruce's breeders and his sires breeder, but I didn't want to going through the import process again. So I searched and searched, and just could not seem to find what I was looking for. To me, a good number of the conformation dogs just looked horrible, short legged, too much weight, heads like Rottweilers, etc, etc. Many of the field bred dogs are so far from the standard I'm not sure how you can truly call them Labradors. And I'm not a fan of the off the hook intensity many of them display.

    If you go back 30 or 40 plus years the dogs you saw winning in the show ring look almost nothing like they do today.

  3. #23
    House Broken
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mn
    Posts
    201
    Thanked: 147
    Quote Originally Posted by Labradorks View Post
    I totally am on board with this. Field Labs are not Labs according to the standard, not just conformation but everything. That's not what they were meant to be. If someone likes then, great! Go for it! But to expect that a dog would be better for it, why? Because it's a preference? It's like conformation dogs that are over bred the OTHER way. It's too much. There is a happy medium. Labs are supposed to do the job. They aren't expected to do the job with jazz hands and glitter! They are a working dog, not a flashy dog. Just like with a dog with no drive, too much can be an issue. My puppy's mama is a MH 22 and she is not a field Lab. She is not flashy. She gets the job done. Now, which dog would you rather take hunting when you need to eat? Not saying that's better. If your thing is to watch a dog that is intense, go to a field trial. If you want to eat and have little to no trouble with your dog, get a dog bred to standard.
    Well, that is kind of a big generalization. I'd say that many of the field trial dogs of today are the happy medium you are talking about. Not sure how many field trials you've been to, but nutty, spazzy dogs are not whats winning most field trials. Dogs have to be clear headed, consistent, and compliant team players to make it through a weekend trial. I live in the area of 100 dog Opens - spazzy dogs usually take themselves out and consistent/compliant dogs win.

    I think there are some very overdone, dead-head conformation dogs out there - but I do not put all conformation dogs in that bucket. Same goes for the field dogs - many are overdone but this is not the majority.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to indybindy For This Useful Post:

    Annette47 (08-18-2018), windycanyon (08-17-2018)

  5. #24
    Senior Dog dxboon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    867
    Thanked: 824
    Quote Originally Posted by barry581 View Post
    I think many here remember the issues I was having finding a true "dual purpose" Labrador after I lost Bruce. I had offers of a puppy from Bruce's breeders and his sires breeder, but I didn't want to going through the import process again. So I searched and searched, and just could not seem to find what I was looking for. To me, a good number of the conformation dogs just looked horrible, short legged, too much weight, heads like Rottweilers, etc, etc. Many of the field bred dogs are so far from the standard I'm not sure how you can truly call them Labradors. And I'm not a fan of the off the hook intensity many of them display.

    If you go back 30 or 40 plus years the dogs you saw winning in the show ring look almost nothing like they do today.
    I agree with much of what you've said. However, I do think there are top dogs today that do not really differ (are improved in many ways in terms of coat, front construction, etc. frankly) largely from dog of 30/40 years ago. Ricky, who has been a top winning dog these last few years, is perfectly moderate: MBISS BOSS GCHG Mainland Little Ricky Ricardo, aka Ricky - Union Hill Labradors. His people started in more fieldy Labs. Ricky would be a perfectly good gundog for anyone but the most avid trialer. His sire Boomer was a favorite of mine. His owner only took Boomer to a JH, but he was her personal hunting companion, and had no problem in the ring or doing real actual hunting in the frigid waters of the Pacific Northwest.

    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.

  6. #25
    Senior Dog Labradorks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanked: 2421
    Quote Originally Posted by indybindy View Post
    Well, that is kind of a big generalization. I'd say that many of the field trial dogs of today are the happy medium you are talking about. Not sure how many field trials you've been to, but nutty, spazzy dogs are not whats winning most field trials. Dogs have to be clear headed, consistent, and compliant team players to make it through a weekend trial. I live in the area of 100 dog Opens - spazzy dogs usually take themselves out and consistent/compliant dogs win.

    I think there are some very overdone, dead-head conformation dogs out there - but I do not put all conformation dogs in that bucket. Same goes for the field dogs - many are overdone but this is not the majority.
    Yes, it's an over-generalization.

  7. #26
    Senior Dog windycanyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    C. WA
    Posts
    1,624
    Thanked: 1235
    Agree, the field trial I attended a few years ago was quite educational. The honor dogs could not have given a rip about breaking. There were water dishes right there, and many chose to sip water as the other dog ran. OTOH, I've seen my share of breaking fools at SH & MH tests! And own one that I should have trained further but did not...

    Quote Originally Posted by indybindy View Post
    Well, that is kind of a big generalization. I'd say that many of the field trial dogs of today are the happy medium you are talking about. Not sure how many field trials you've been to, but nutty, spazzy dogs are not whats winning most field trials. Dogs have to be clear headed, consistent, and compliant team players to make it through a weekend trial. I live in the area of 100 dog Opens - spazzy dogs usually take themselves out and consistent/compliant dogs win.

    I think there are some very overdone, dead-head conformation dogs out there - but I do not put all conformation dogs in that bucket. Same goes for the field dogs - many are overdone but this is not the majority.
    Hidden Content
    The WindyCanyon Girls (taken Summer 2018)
    IntCH WindyCanyon's Northern Spy CDX RA JH OA OAJ CC (14.5 yrs)
    IntCH WindyCanyon's Ruby Pink BN CD RA CC (4.5 yrs)
    IntCH WindyCanyon's Kanzi BN CDX RE JH (5 yrs)
    IntCH WindyCanyon ItsOnlyMoneyHoneycrisp BN RN CC (16mos)
    IntCH WindyCanyon's Pippin BN RI CC (2.5 yrs)
    IntCH WindyCanyon's Envy CDX RE JH CC (10.5 yrs)
    IntCH HIT WindyCanyon's Kiku A Fuji Too CDX RE JH CC (10 yrs)







  8. #27
    Senior Dog TuMicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,366
    Thanked: 1096
    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.

  9. #28
    Senior Dog dxboon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    867
    Thanked: 824
    Quote Originally Posted by TuMicks View Post
    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.
    The split in the breed has nothing to do with drive and intensity. It has to do with what is most competitive at the highest levels of field trial work. A traditionally built Labrador is not the most competitive dog for the type of work that is needed. I agree with you that field trialers will run a dog no matter what he looks like. Those dogs will win and perpetuate their style/type. Since Labradors are easy to work with generally and adaptable, they have become the default breed for almost all working tasks. Over time the various types of work they've been selected for has resulted in different body styles, either through purposeful choice for traits or for lack of focus on preserving type. I would add that there are show breeders who also lack focus on preserving type. This is an issue across many arenas of competition.

    Romeo is a great dog, and his bond with his handler is evident. There are plenty of examples of similar Labs putting on a show for the crowd. There are examples of dogs going best in show at sporting group specialties (the sire of my black Lab is one), so Labs can win, but I do think judges need to be confident in themselves because Labs are not meant to be flashy movers and their faults are much more glaring to the eye than similar construction issues hidden under flowing coat and flashy movement. Putting up a Lab over the best of other breeds in the group demands a lot of a person; the judge alone has hands-on all the dogs being judged, but as we know there are plenty of ringside and online critics who know everything, and will question any judgement made.

    There are plenty of conformation-bred Labradors who do real-life hunting. There are plenty of breeders who care very much about preserving their lines' working ability. Lack of winning in the group ring and beyond is not a simple matter of having bred out all the good "fieldy" qualities. There's a split in the breed, as there are splits in so many other breeds. The upside is that everyone can buy the Labrador that works best for them. Maybe we should just have an ongoing sub-forum called "What's wrong with conformation-bred Labradors?" since this is a common subject around here.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to dxboon For This Useful Post:

    windycanyon (08-20-2018)

  11. #29
    Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Greenwood, Delaware
    Posts
    7,348
    Thanked: 7148
    Tumicks - You asked a pretty simple question that for me has a pretty complex answer. So here goes. And keep in mind I don't hunt anymore, and haven't for a long time.

    Yes, I would want a dog that could tirelessly work cover for a day of hunting upland game. And yes, I want to see some drive and enthusiasm when sent for downed game. I want to see a dog who will indeed fearlessly and enthusiastically enter and work heavy cover, cold icy water, mud, muck and any of the myriad of things you could encounter during a day in the field. But what I want to see more than anything, is a dog that is completely under control of it's handler. I want to see team work.

    Personally I don't think using the word intensity is a bad word to describe how a dog is working in the field (or show ring, obedience ring, etc). Brooks is pretty intense, he leaves the line like a rocket propelled grenade when I send him on a retrieve. One lady I train with laughs every time I send Brooks, because she can't believe a dog his size can go that hard. Brooks is NOT a big dog, he's well within the standard both height and weight. He just looks big when you see him next to some of the field bred dogs we train with on a regular basis. IRISHWHISLTER has used them "stylish" to describe Brooks working in the field.

    I will admit that I am struggling bit with Brooks intensity, specifically with line manners. He can be pretty vocal when he gets amped up, and has displayed that behavior at the hunt test we've done. He can also be on a hair trigger ready to launch, again worse when he's amped up. Normally not an issue training, but at tests, and live flyers, it can be a problem. All things we are working on, and if you could see how he was even 6 months ago compared to now, you'd be amazed how far we've come. That being said, he's still not close to where I want/need him to be as far as being totally under control, and working with me.

    So in a nutshell, I want to see a driven, motivated, and yes, some intensity in a working retrieve, but I want it controlled.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to barry581 For This Useful Post:

    windycanyon (08-20-2018)

  13. #30
    Senior Dog TuMicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,366
    Thanked: 1096
    Quote Originally Posted by dxboon View Post
    The split in the breed has nothing to do with drive and intensity. It has to do with what is most competitive at the highest levels of field trial work. A traditionally built Labrador is not the most competitive dog for the type of work that is needed. I agree with you that field trialers will run a dog no matter what he looks like. Those dogs will win and perpetuate their style/type. Since Labradors are easy to work with generally and adaptable, they have become the default breed for almost all working tasks. Over time the various types of work they've been selected for has resulted in different body styles, either through purposeful choice for traits or for lack of focus on preserving type. I would add that there are show breeders who also lack focus on preserving type. This is an issue across many arenas of competition.

    Romeo is a great dog, and his bond with his handler is evident. There are plenty of examples of similar Labs putting on a show for the crowd. There are examples of dogs going best in show at sporting group specialties (the sire of my black Lab is one), so Labs can win, but I do think judges need to be confident in themselves because Labs are not meant to be flashy movers and their faults are much more glaring to the eye than similar construction issues hidden under flowing coat and flashy movement. Putting up a Lab over the best of other breeds in the group demands a lot of a person; the judge alone has hands-on all the dogs being judged, but as we know there are plenty of ringside and online critics who know everything, and will question any judgement made.

    There are plenty of conformation-bred Labradors who do real-life hunting. There are plenty of breeders who care very much about preserving their lines' working ability. Lack of winning in the group ring and beyond is not a simple matter of having bred out all the good "fieldy" qualities. There's a split in the breed, as there are splits in so many other breeds. The upside is that everyone can buy the Labrador that works best for them. Maybe we should just have an ongoing sub-forum called "What's wrong with conformation-bred Labradors?" since this is a common subject around here.
    Thanks... very informational. I'm learning a lot. NO... we shouldn't have a sub-forum called "What's wrong with conformation-bred Labradors!!! (As I've made abundantly clear, I am soooo guilty in loving and training and competing a field lab that is really hard on the eyes.) BUT, it might be interesting to have a thread just called "The split... and what we can do about it, if anything." Heck it could be kinda interesting to be able to post pix and video of various dogs and dialogue about their pluses and minuses. (Who do we talk to to get that sub-forum going???)
    Last edited by TuMicks; 08-20-2018 at 05:43 PM.

 



Not a Member of the Labrador Retriever Chat Forums Yet?
Register for Free and Share Your Labrador Retriever Photos

Posting Permissions

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