Another take on overweight show dogs

[Sam I Am]

I had my 67 lb girl at a specialty a few weeks ago, and she didn't look out of place (i.e. there weren't many overweight dogs). In my area, most of the labs showing are in pretty good condition (or maybe it's just easier to notice, since we don't get as much coat here in Florida?).

[dxboon]

I think judging dogs via photographs is not very illuminating with regard to condition. Well-muscled and excess fat are terms that people like to take out of context, and pick and choose what they like from these phrases, amongst other parts of the standard (like the suggested weights for working condition which are not a disqualification). I think in considering the words of the standard, you have to keep the original intent and hunting style of the breed in mind. The Labrador was developed to work in cold water, and chilly environs. Well-developed musculature in a properly structured Lab is going to be visually different than in American Staffordshire Terriers, or Greyhounds. Labs should be built like a boat, with a keel, broad in beam, and butt. They shouldn't be a no-fat breed; like the waterfowl they retrieve, they should have some coverage, but not EXCESSIVE fat.

If anyone, the OP or otherwise, feels their dog is a good representative of the breed, there is no reason why they should feel like they have to plump up their dog to be competitive. There will always be people trying to game the system, and succeeding, but there are just as many, if not more people out there showing their dogs with an eye on preserving breed type and natural ability to succeed in the breed's original work.

[barry581]

My posting of this was not to start up the whole fat Lab debate, it was to show that it's not just the breed club here concerned with the condition of show winning dogs, but rather a concern by many people around the globe regarding the condition of "show" Labs.

I do feel Bruce's conformation is quite good, and I think he would be a competitive dog at conformation shows. I do plan to show him in 2016. I've had several Lab people at the trials we've done comment on what a nice dog he is, and inquire as to whether I show him. If I do decide to show him, it will be local shows, and I have no plan to"campaign" him as a professional show dog.

I've had the priviledge over many, many years to meet people who have been very influential in the breed. While my circumstances did not permit me to show dogs here in the US until now, I never stopped trying to learn about what makes a Labrador a Labrador. Tumicks started a thread recently regarding Labs being a jack of all trades........ I think to a great extent the fact that Labs have excelled at so many things, people have bred them to accentuate the traits they needed for their purposes. Guide dog? Check. Assistance dog? Check. Family dog? Check. Hunting dog? Check. Military/Law Enforcement working dog? Check. Competition dog? Check. Check. Check. Check. Are all these diverse interests a benefit or a detriment to the breed? Only time and history will tell.

Somewhere along the lines the basic purpose for which a Lab was bred has taken second place to what a given person want's their Lab to do.

On a side note, I saw the winning dogs from the UK Lab Clubs Open Show on Facebook today. There was only one dog amongst the winners I thought looked remotely overweight. So I think many judges do put up dogs who look to be in working condition. I have always been 100% sure it's not possible to say a dog is fat by looking at a picture. The only way to be 100% sure is to put your hands on the dog. I learned this sitting ringside at many shows watching the judges, and talking with some very good breeders as the judging was going on.

[TuMicks]

A fascinating article. Countess Lorna Howe | Natural History I've been told that Countess Howe was one of the most influential people in establishing the breed standard.

On the one hand, we know that the St. Johns Water Dogs were one of the labrador's progenitors. (Hence the thought that they are necessarily purposed to be cold water dogs.) But then the story of the breed shifts from North America, to the United Kingdom. This is where I got confused.

In the UK, FT's were and are largely upland game affairs. The Water Dog wouldn't stand a chance. But for whatever reason, Countess Howe (and I'm sure others were involved) crossed the water dog with the Flat Coat and produced the world's most popular and versatile breed. Whatever her purpose and vision was, she pretty much defined what we recognize as the breed standard. Visualize the two lines that were brought together. Too thick and heavy, too plush a coat... you're veering back toward the St. John's Water Dog. Too lanky with a longer snout and narrower head, with too whispy of a coat... you're getting more of a "closed coated" Flat Coat.

I thought it was an illuminating history. The author of the article posits that maybe the Lab will fade in popularity as did the Flat Coat. I don't think so. The genius of the people that developed the breed was that they brought together two breeds that were sort of polar opposites. Therein lies the dynamic and versatile nature of the Labrador Retriever.

[Meeps83]

I too have been to a few lab shows. There were a few specimens that were unappealing to my eyes (fat) but that doesn't mean they are naturally fat dogs. Mostly what I have seen is fit dogs. Not fat, but not thin either. And that seems to be what the judges in this area are going for. Now I have no idea if Maverick would be a good show specimen or not, but if I did show him it'd be in the same condition that he's in now. I think he looks good and I don't feel the need to please other people by making my dog fatter or thinner. I have seen some bench bred labs that have looked on both sides of the spectrum, but I prefer healthy over anything. I want my dog to be able to walk, work, or run with ease and look good while doing it.

[dxboon]

A fascinating article. Countess Lorna Howe | Natural History I've been told that Countess Howe was one of the most influential people in establishing the breed standard.

On the one hand, we know that the St. Johns Water Dogs were one of the labrador's progenitors. (Hence the thought that they are necessarily purposed to be cold water dogs.) But then the story of the breed shifts from North America, to the United Kingdom. This is where I got confused.

In the UK, FT's were and are largely upland game affairs. The Water Dog wouldn't stand a chance. But for whatever reason, Countess Howe (and I'm sure others were involved) crossed the water dog with the Flat Coat and produced the world's most popular and versatile breed. Whatever her purpose and vision was, she pretty much defined what we recognize as the breed standard. Visualize the two lines that were brought together. Too thick and heavy, too plush a coat... you're veering back toward the St. John's Water Dog. Too lanky with a longer snout and narrower head, with too whispy of a coat... you're getting more of a "closed coated" Flat Coat.

I thought it was an illuminating history. The author of the article posits that maybe the Lab will fade in popularity as did the Flat Coat. I don't think so. The genius of the people that developed the breed was that they brought together two breeds that were sort of polar opposites. Therein lies the dynamic and versatile nature of the Labrador Retriever.

Countess Howe was one influential breeder, but Labs are not solely a product of St. John's dogs and Flatcoats. Labradors were estate dogs of the landed gentry. The style of hunting that the 2nd Earl of Malmesbury, who imported some of the first St. John's dogs to England in the early 19th century, the 5th Duke of Buccleuch, from whose letter we learn about his Labrador and that of the 10th Lord Home, did not have need of Labradors built like those winning at the highest levels in modern field trials (or dogs built at the extreme end of the conformation spectrum). Buccleuch's Ned and Buccleuch's Avon, the dogs many feel are the ancestors of modern Labs, were bred for the Scottish style of game bird hunting -- walking with dogs at a heel to retrieve shot fowl. This style of hunting party led to wealthy Americans bringing over Labs in the early 1900s. AKC registered the first Labs in 1917.

[Abulafia]

Attachment 3675 Because the poses are so different, it's impossible to compare the two dogs. But I've put some contrast into this picture to highlight two things. First, where there should be a bulge at the bicepts femoris, there is a somewhat prominent divot. But you can see a roll that begins behind the dog's neck and extends to behind his elbows. I don't think this roll is plush fur. I think it's adipose.

First, as noted, the poses are so different—as the types are different—it's nearly useless to compare these two dogs or photos.

However, in this photo, what I believe you are seeing is actually a well developed biceps femoris, with the "divot" occurring anterior to the edge of the muscle. The fascia lata may form the divot, which would in fact point to a relatively low level of excess fat on the dog; the bulge to the anterior of the divot looks to me like the tensor fasciae latae and sartorius.

Ditto what you see as adipose behind the dog's shoulders. I was conditioning / wrestling with my 6 month old pup today—she's somewhere in the 60 lb + range now—and she's an English Lab built like a Hum-V. But if she's stand in form with her head raised at me, she has a roll like this, and I assure you it consists primarily of a very thick coat and extra skin. She does have some adipose, as she should. She's an English lab, and has some substance. But most of that substance is bone and muscle and coat.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that the dog in the photo does not look remotely overweight to me.