Splitting the Breed

[dxboon]

No dog is going to be penalized for being fit or well-developed in the show ring. The thing is, the visual impression of a well-developed conformation bred dog is going to look different than a well-developed typical field dog. The proper double coat shouldn't be plush and open, but it is thick, and you are not going to get that same dramatic rippling-muscle-under-skin effect that you'd see in a dog with a closer coat, no matter how much you exercise your dog before putting it in the show ring. However, upon judging, the judge will get to feel the condition of the dog under their hands, and I'm sure they would appreciate examining a fit dog vs. a flabby dog. Having said that, if I were a judge, I'd sooner reward a slightly overweight dog with better structure than a super fit dog with poor structure. Fat can be fixed, and isn't passed down to the next generation. Poor structure is a problem that can take generations upon generations to fix.

There are some overweight Labs, as there are in many other breeds, but it's not all or most of the dogs shown. My dogs are cherished pets first, and competitors a distant second; most people I know in the dog fancy feel the same way. It's a little insulting when people make generalizations that "show" people would sacrifice the health and well-being of their dogs; "porking" them up in order to win a dog show. Are there bad apples out there who will do anything to win, and who don't care at all about preserving the Labrador? I'm sure there are, as there are in every single organized human endeavor.

[Annette47]

I’m not sure that many people are deliberately “porking” up conformation dogs up to win, but it seems as if the definition among conformation exhibitors (around here at least) of healthy weight does differ quite a bit from performance people. Even conformation bred dogs who I see in the Obedience ring tend to be kept slimmer than their (sometimes even littermates) relatives in the breed ring (even if they might not have as good structure, etc., they tend to have similar builds and coats to make for fair comparisons). I was just at a match and a woman came in with her Lab and it was while not what I would call obese, it was about 10lbs more than I would keep a dog that size. I asked someone about it and they confirmed that she shows it in breed - it was obvious from the moment it entered the ring. Yet I know many dogs from conformation breeders whose owners do nothing but Obedience with them who are kept at a lighter weight. I do worry a bit about the heavier breed dogs doing jumping. Sometimes though, it’s not even that they are fat - it’s that they have so much bone and substance that even at a decent weight, it still negatively affects their agility. I do think the trend is swinging around back from that to a more moderate dog - I’ve been much happier with what I’ve been seeing in the breed rings lately, although I would still take 5-10lbs off of most of them, and in some cases more.

Weight though is less a concern to me than structure and body type. I am planning on breeding Chloe this spring and had been evaluating potential sires (the one I chose is a breed CH), and while I was looking at size to an extent, it had more to do with the previously mentioned bone and substance (I was looking for a more moderate dog) than the actual weight the dog is kept at. I can always choose what weight to keep my keeper puppy at when it is grown - I can’t choose to change it’s underlying build.

[TuMicks]

I stipulated that I'm a field person and have confessed ignorance about the "inside baseball" of conformation standards and practices. Thank you for bearing with me. (Really... it can be boring to talk only to your own circle all the time.)

Mostly the injudicious pejorative "porked up" came from having had some acquaintances who were trying to switch hit. (Run HT's while simultaneously trying to get some big conformation distinctive.) And, their dogs didn't move well... seemed to overheat and tire too easily. When asked why are the dogs so heavy,the answers have been... oh, I just need one more blue ribbon and then we'll slim him down. Or we're showing under judge so-and-so 2 weeks from now and I have to keep her heavier for him. That kind of thing.

And the internet... there are just so many pictures and videos of overweight labs in the show ring.

Now... feel free to flame me. I am willing to admit you're right!!! You are SO right. We have some butt ugly dogs running FT and HT's. And some of them are so ugly, they shouldn't be bred no matter what titles they carry. Furthermore, we are losing the coat labs should carry, because we run and train dogs in sometimes warmer climates and seasons. But most of us want a handsome dog.

I think if you look up pictures of NFC, NAFC Super Chief... who had several dual champions in his pedigree, you'd get a good idea of what a field person sees as handsome.

[dxboon]

And the internet... there are just so many pictures and videos of overweight labs in the show ring.

Now... feel free to flame me. I am willing to admit you're right!!! You are SO right. We have some butt ugly dogs running FT and HT's. And some of them are so ugly, they shouldn't be bred no matter what titles they carry. Furthermore, we are losing the coat labs should carry, because we run and train dogs in sometimes warmer climates and seasons. But most of us want a handsome dog.

I think if you look up pictures of NFC, NAFC Super Chief... who had several dual champions in his pedigree, you'd get a good idea of what a field person sees as handsome.

Judging dogs based on photos and videos alone really doesn't give a full and accurate assessment of a dog's condition. If it did, we could just have dog shows via videoconferencing.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Those who find the type of Labrador like Super Chief handsome, have plenty of breeders to choose from, and those who prefer a different body type, equally have many from which to source their dog. Anyone who wants to see a different type of Labrador win in the show ring other than what they are currently seeing, should start showing what they think is correct, and get licensed to judge Labs. Then you can create the change you want.

[TuMicks]

Brings us back to my form-function confusion. I don't think his body type was any different than the breed standard (going by photos and his pedigree.) My sense is that structurally, SuperChief was as appropriate as any lab of his time. Or of this time.

Stay with me here.

If his form fit the standard, and (good-golly-miss-molly!) his performance was legendary, and he was a most potent producer... damn, ya'll! If you could resurrect him and keep him breeding for the next 20 years, he wouldn't have enough sperm to meet the demand on the field side of the game. Why would the bench side eschew him? Structually, phenotypically spot on, world-beater performer...

Do you see why I am confused?

[dxboon]

Brings us back to my form-function confusion. I don't think his body type was any different than the breed standard (going by photos and his pedigree.) My sense is that structurally, SuperChief was as appropriate as any lab of his time. Or of this time.

Stay with me here.

If his form fit the standard, and (good-golly-miss-molly!) his performance was legendary, and he was a most potent producer... damn, ya'll! If you could resurrect him and keep him breeding for the next 20 years, he wouldn't have enough sperm to meet the demand on the field side of the game. Why would the bench side eschew him? Structually, phenotypically spot on, world-beater performer...

Do you see why I am confused?

There is no reason for confusion. You think Super Chief looks correct in your opinion, and in your interpretation of the standard. Others don't find his structure to be reflective of the standard. There is a difference of opinion. You are free to interpret the standard as you see fit, and support dogs that meet your ideals.

[Labradorks]

I know the coat situation is not ideal in a field Lab. A Lab should not have to wear a wet suit when swimming. Other than the coat, which I think is a biggie, I do wonder what other features of the field Lab are not conducive to overall health and function. What are the benefits to following the standard, in the real world, i.e., in the field? For example, in my experience, field Labs get their knees blown out more often than conformation Labs. This may not actually be a statistic, but I personally have yet to meet a well-bred conformation Lab needing knee surgery. Is that a result of structure or the fact that they are generally more energetic (though I'd have to argue with that as Labs in general are VERY rough and tumble through their early teens)? I recently met a guy with a master national champion field Lab and his dog was so broken down, I thought he was 13, not five. Is that the norm?

In my experience, I see that field Labs are a bit more "insane" about their birds, but when I go to Lab Club field events, where the vast majority are conformation style Labs, while I don't see dogs going off the deep end for the most part over wanting a bird, they are birdy enough to get the job done, and pass their tests right along with the field types. Why isn't that good enough? I'm not a real world hunter so I don't know if birds are just falling like rain or if there is wait time between them when you are actually hunting. I imagine there's an argument in pulling a dog into a boat, but I wouldn't know for sure. Water is bouyant (sp?) and most dogs will help by pulling themselves up. I can easily grab my 100 lb dogs by the collar and assist them up a steep bank if they need it.

When I lived in Boston, I had a friend who did field work with her conformation and obedience dogs. I remember seeing field Labs that were not like the typical field types. They looked like conformation Labs that were left in the dryer for too long. But they had the energy and birdiness of a field Lab and people said they were stubborn, from what I can remember. Though I don't really know if that is a fact. I didn't think much about it at the time, years and years ago, but I somewhat recently came across a third "type" of Lab called the New England Water Lab. There's not much about it if you look online, but I came across this. I think they are really just moderately bred conformation Labs with more birdiness than your average conformation Lab.

Similar to the English type is another type which is referred to as the New England Water Lab. These Labs are very short and compact dogs often described as "beer barrels with short legs". The NE water Lab is an off-shoot of English lines, but with lighter bone and less exageration of head and features. These dogs were selected through many generations for their size because many waterfowl hunters in the New England area needed a small, compact retriever that they could drag in and out of the boats easily. Therefore, a shorter leg and topline resulting in a very small, compact type of Lab gave rise to the New England Water Lab "type". Many of these dogs fall below the American standard for height. In regard to temperament, these dogs are great family dogs but are slightly more energenic than the English lines.

[Annette47]

I know the coat situation is not ideal in a field Lab. A Lab should not have to wear a wet suit when swimming. Other than the coat, which I think is a biggie, I do wonder what other features of the field Lab are not conducive to overall health and function.

I think part of the issue is that conformation dogs are selected to be bred depending on their structure, more so than on their behavior while the reverse is true of field dogs, which is why you see field dogs breaking down. Look at the proportions and especially the angulation of the joints and overall balance. One of the best working Labs (OTCH, MH, etc) I ever knew was from field lines, and while a wonderful working dog, his structure was a hot mess (straight shoulders, uneven top line, rear angulation out of balance with the rest of him, etc.). He died relatively young of cancer, but before that, many of us wondered how long he’d be able to keep jumping without breaking down. A dog with that kind of structure would most not likely be bred in the conformation world, but was sought after by working folks due to his working ability and temperament. Personally, I think folks should be selecting for both, and there are many breeders on both sides who do, but by no means all of them. I have seen good-looking conformation dogs with nasty, non-lab like temperaments, others with no retrieving instincts, etc., but with good structure. I’ve seen wonderful working Labs from field lines who barely resemble the Lab portrayed in the standard. There is no perfect dog, and trade-offs need to be made, but IMO a good breeder is one who looks at the whole dog, not just one aspect.

[TuMicks]

For example, in my experience, field Labs get their knees blown out more often than conformation Labs. This may not actually be a statistic, but I personally have yet to meet a well-bred conformation Lab needing knee surgery.

I can't say you're wrong. On the other hand, think about two cadres of health high school kids. One group are bandsmen and chess team members, the other group plays varsity basketball and baseball. Field dogs are athletes.

I recently met a guy with a master national champion field Lab and his dog was so broken down, I thought he was 13, not five. Is that the norm?

No, I don't think so. I have a 7 year old who is getting a little grey on her belly. Otherwise she looks like a fit 2-3 year old. Lots of field dogs are just filling out fully at 3 and are looking great at 7-8.

In my experience, I see that field Labs are a bit more "insane" about their birds... AMEN! where the vast majority are conformation style Labs, while I don't see dogs going off the deep end for the most part over wanting a bird, they are birdy enough to get the job done. I agree completely.

Why isn't that good enough? I'm not a real world hunter so I don't know if birds are just falling like rain or if there is wait time between them when you are actually hunting.I am not a good one to answer that since I've never been hunting in my life. (Ironic, I know.) But it is indeed good enough for a LOT of hunters. I am a competitive dog-a-holic and I really get a thrill watching dogs perform the extremely complex behaviors of FT's and HT's. Having a dog with "bottom" (a classic FT term for... how to explain... get-the-bird-no-matter-what) really helps them through the full curriculum of training it takes to reach the top.

Interesting information about the smaller NE Lab. I have a 55 pounder (when she's fully muscled out) and folks ask my when I got my "puppy". I tell them 7 years ago

[TuMicks]

I think part of the issue is that conformation dogs are selected to be bred depending on their structure, more so than on their behavior while the reverse is true of field dogs, which is why you see field dogs breaking down. Look at the proportions and especially the angulation of the joints and overall balance. One of the best working Labs (OTCH, MH, etc) I ever knew was from field lines, and while a wonderful working dog, his structure was a hot mess (straight shoulders, uneven top line, rear angulation out of balance with the rest of him, etc.). He died relatively young of cancer, but before that, many of us wondered how long he’d be able to keep jumping without breaking down. A dog with that kind of structure would most not likely be bred in the conformation world, but was sought after by working folks due to his working ability and temperament. Personally, I think folks should be selecting for both, and there are many breeders on both sides who do, but by no means all of them. I have seen good-looking conformation dogs with nasty, non-lab like temperaments, others with no retrieving instincts, etc., but with good structure. I’ve seen wonderful working Labs from field lines who barely resemble the Lab portrayed in the standard. There is no perfect dog, and trade-offs need to be made, but IMO a good breeder is one who looks at the whole dog, not just one aspect.

Annette... I agree with you. Are you able to identify any FC's AFC's or MNC's (who might have photo's on line) who in your opinion trend toward the breed standard? I know there are tons that don't. That was why I brought Super Chief into the discussion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I love his face and expression. But also he had dual CH's in his pedigree. I'd be grateful for any examples of dogs you think have proven field performance and the look/build/characteristics that field people should strive for.