Very interesting article by an AKC judge -- not sure what breed she has but this is certainly food for thought.

http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Breeder/0901-Preferred-Type_Gammill.htm

Great article. Thank you for bring it to my attention.

Brought back memories of a yellow bitch that I had -oh so long ago. She had both majors from specialties, several BOBs from all breeds and needed two points to finish. I was going over seas for a while, so told the co-owner to take her to an area where there was not much competition to finish her.

I think it was 10 or 11 shows later and she was only in the ribbons if there were only 4 in the class. She did not look like the rest of the dogs.

I can home for a vacation and took her to a specialty and she finished with a 5 point major!

I hope this lady gets labs. I would like to see how she judges.

JanG

Looks like she judges Herding & Working Groups only. Too bad.

Not to get off the subject, but she wrote another article about designer dogs

http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Family-Dog/0811-DesignerDogs-Gammill.htm

The article is certainly relevant to recent discussion on this forum. In the thread about Stud Dogs of the Past, someone wrote:
How many of the winning dogs from the past year that you have actually SEEN, look like this and fit these descriptions?
with links to both the UK and AKC standards.

On another thread I was cautioned that the breed is evolving and one should abandon the "standard" to embrace what is popular as an "improvement". I fear this is a common belief today. I'm not sure of all the contributing issues, but I think a major one is the underlying motivation for conformation breeders.

Some are driven by the EXTERNAL stimulus of competition, winning, setting/breaking records, etc. Some are motivated by an INTERNAL locus of control to breed closer and closer to their understanding of the "ideal" model for the breed. In a perfect world, the later breeder should enjoy the rewards of the former. Clearly, our current US show world is far from perfect.

What thread was that Maureen? Unless you are paraphrasing I missed it.

Standards are no Holy Scripture nor have they been treated as such. The US Standard was changed to conform to trends seen here. We added an inch for height. That size is not found in any other country's Standard. Apparently the LRC decided our Labradors needed (or had) greater height than those in England, Canada, Scotland, etc. and differentiated US Labradors from their ancestors.

I haven't heard one person advocating changing the Standard to fit our current show dogs. If anything, show breeders have doggedly fought to have the US Standard conform to the FCI
Standard or return to the old Standard under which those great dogs of old competed.

I gave the thread - stud dogs of the past.

The US standard has ALWAYS used a size range and the KC standard has always used a "preferred" size. The size portion of both standards has not changed in over 50 years. The US standard DOES define a slightly taller/larger dog - and always has. I suspect this is because the hunting style in the US is quite different from that in the UK and our dogs are used as much for land retrieving as in water. The difference in FUNCTION between the countries has determined a bit of difference in FORM as well.

Unlike you, I HAVE heard some complain that the standard does not reflect "winning type" in this country and SHOULD be changed to describe the current show dogs. I have also heard many suggest that we adopt the UK/FCI standard. I disagree with the former and would support the later of these viewpoints. Neither is likely to happen.

A return to the "old" AKC standard would not change much other than to shorten the standard and remove the disqualifications. It would also remove some of the contradictory descriptions that plague our current document. That isn't going to happen either.

I do feel it is time to rewrite the standard IF whose charged with the task have a clear commitment to both the history and future of the breed - without undue influence by fad, fashion and personal taste. However, ALL standards are a matter of compromise and may represent a variety of conflicting views of a breed. Remember the Ogden Nash verse:
The statement has been made,
It is both true and witty,
That a camel is a horse
That was designed by a committee.

I didn't say the US Standard was changed, I said the US changed the Labrador Retriever's established Standard. They changed it because they wanted something different. If, in some individual's opinion, that difference 'improved' their working ability it was a defensible change. What if it 'improved' their companion status?

The fact is that the vast majority of Labradors do not hunt anymore. Most of the 150,000 bred each year are family companions. It could be argued that a smaller dog would make a better house pet. Couldn't the Standard be changed to allow for an 18" Labrador? Wouldn't that change allow for 'improvement' of form based on the dog's current function? I'm being absurd to make a point, but wouldn't it?

This last revision also changed characteristics. One was by placing a harsh penalty on missing teeth. Unlike the former change, this was intended to allow LESS leeway in the Standard and thereby force 'improvement'. Now that we have a full dentition Standard, would you/should you breed to the old greats if they were missing several pre-molars? There probably isn't enough historical information to even know their dentition status, but the pre-molars are a 'serious fault' after all.

I still contend that the Standard has been changed as desired to make what people thought were 'improvements' to the breed. I also disagree with your premise that the last Labrador should look like the first because it assumes the first met the Standard perfectly.

"I still contend that the Standard has been changed as desired to make what people thought were 'improvements' to the breed."

That is your take on it... not mine. One of the obstacles for the Lab standard is the FORMAT required by each of the governing bodies. Ours has always asked for a RANGE of size and many of the UK standards describe only the PREFERRED size. From the very first AKC standard for the breed, the size was given as a range for the dog whose FORM suited the FUNCTION of the breed in this country. I think I explained that adequately. That was not a "change" to indicate some "improvement" at a whim, the size range defined the breed as it was used in THIS country rather than the UK. The Canadian standard did the same thing. That size range has never changed from the very first AKC standard.

" I also disagree with your premise that the last Labrador should look like the first because it assumes the first met the Standard perfectly."

I presume this was not directed to me, since I never said anything even remotely suggesting that In fact, I suggested that many "breed closer and closer to their understanding of the "ideal" model for the breed" - which should make each generation a somewhat more clear representation of the breed standard. That predicts that the first dogs in any line would have more deviation from that goal than the later ones. Of course, that doesn't always happen and minor flaws picked up along the way can become major ones over time - which then have to be corrected, etc., etc., etc.

Sometimes the "great" representatives of the breed of the past are essentially lost to the future because their genes are not carefully maintained in the next generations. No matter how good a dog is, the challenge is to KEEP the best traits and minimize the deviations from the standard of excellence in the later generations. It is a challenge that many will spend a lifetime trying to meet - and then pass the task to their successors.

In any case, the TOPIC was the deviation from the STANDARD that is often represented in the ring. Whatever standard one uses as a guide, the task is to conform to that guideline and ideal. I don't see a lot of breeders in this country that take that challenge to heart. I hope that the article referenced and discussions like this will motivate some to reassess their goals as well as the standard for our breed.

Katie Gammil started out in Shetland Sheepdogs years ago. I met her over 20 years ago when I would accompany Bette Wynn (Sheltie and Schipperke breeder and handler)to shows. Katie definitely knows a good dog when she sees one and is a very honest and nice person.

Interesting article as well.

Cheryl

There was a lot of fighting and bitterness over the revisions that became the 1957 AKC standard.

My question is why are we not following the standard more.....why should we rewrite the standard. We need to breed to achieve as close to the standard as possible and I think we do but we all may have a different interpatation of the standard.
Like some of those over done dogs are pretty but can they do the joband if the answer is yes then why not just add another class like moderate and moderate plus, not good class names I know but just food for thought. this way those with a lighter more moderate Lab would be able to compete in a seperate class and thosebig boys and girls would also have a class.

I t is just a thought for what it is worth. I love the big bone Labs but also like a well put together Lab who is not so big so if that means we should change the standard well maybe we should but we have to try to be fair to everyone.

Kind of a sticky subject

Good article! Thanks for posting MW Breeder.