What's the shortest bitch you've shown, and done well with? People show dogs that do not adhere to the standard in other ways, what about height? Now, I wouildn't show a 19 in. bitch, but what about 20-20.5? I've never personally seen a judge get out the wicket.

Would you show a silver Labrador?

I wonder why its ok to smudge the other detail of the standard (read: size) but not color.

BTW I do not condone silvers, just making a comparison. Our standard clearly dictates how large/small a bitch should be. Why challenge it?

Because the standard is idiotic...Do your males weigh within standard????

No, but weight is not a DQ, height is. As is color, altering the tail, and lack of pigment.

Because the revised standard is absurd! A height disqualification should never have been added.

Why do you want to breed your dogs so short? Those short legs make all sorts of working venues very difficult for the bitch.

No one wants to breed a dog that is one inch under the desired height, but it happens. It the dog meets all of the other elements of the standard, the current standard (if enforced) would not allow the dog to be shown. It therefore implies that height is so critical to the function of our breed that dogs outside of that range should never earn a championship. We know small dogs can work birds and have earned their field titles. So while under standard bitches are not desired, most of us believe that a height DQ is completely out of proportion to the fault.

There will always be those who will breed to fads and trends, no standard will stop that. But the current standard is not respected or used as a guide by long time breeders because the revision was badly written and puts negative emphasis on things that do not effect soundness or function.

Remember that breeders write standards. They have created the breeds. They live and work with the breed and know how they should look, move and act. Good breeders maintain the breed in spite of bad standards.

There is a difference between breeding and showing. You breed what you prefer, whether or not it matches the standard. Maybe you prefer something that exactly matches the standard - great! Some people prefer a shorter dog that would be DQed in the AKC standard. It might be perfectly fine under other standards. The difference between breeding and showing is that when you show, you are agreeing to have your dog judged against the applicable standard. If you show an undersized dog at an AKC show, you are agreeing to possible measurement and DQ. But when you breed, nobody is standing over you with a standard and telling you who to breed to (at least, not yet!)

I agree with this, because I breed show and trial my dogs.

Nancy Rudgers

There is a difference between breeding and showing. You breed what you prefer, whether or not it matches the standard. Maybe you prefer something that exactly matches the standard - great! Some people prefer a shorter dog that would be DQed in the AKC standard. It might be perfectly fine under other standards. The difference between breeding and showing is that when you show, you are agreeing to have your dog judged against the applicable standard. If you show an undersized dog at an AKC show, you are agreeing to possible measurement and DQ. But when you breed, nobody is standing over you with a standard and telling you who to breed to (at least, not yet!)

I am curious about the procedure in revising a standard. Who does this, a committee? Is it voted on by a large group? Who decides what the standard is going to be and what are the qualifications required? If a standard is written correctly why would you ever need a revision? Just wondering.

I just read these posts and it mentions a revised or a new standard for Labs, where can I find this?

My question is if the standard is atrocious why has it not been revised? I am amazed at how short, squatty, out of shape and down right chubby most of the labradors in the ring are today. I believe the standard is written for a reason. These are sporting animals and need to be in working condition even if they are in the breed ring.

A small bitch is not necessarily a short legged tub that can't work. Did you ever see Lottie (3X NFC AFC Candlewoods Tanks Alot)? She wasn't much more than 21 inches if she was that.

But I agree that Labs should be shown in working condition. Right now I am showing a boy who is also training for Masters, and he doesn't exactly blend in.

Whatever wrote:
"A great judge once told me 'I think breeders have forgotten that these dogs are intended to hunt from a small boat.' Some of the bohemouth dogs couldn't. . ."

This is interesting, and points out exactly the problem with the revised standard. I believe that what those involved with the revision really were opposed to were the "overdone" Labs being shown. Because doG knows a small bitch is a real asset for certain types of hunting, like from a boat. Seems like a pretty significant oversight to me. I also agree with the comment that an issue with size should be a FAULT like any other, not a dq. It simply is not the most important flaw we deal with as breeders.

And to answer the OP, I think there are lots of 20 and 20.5 inch bitches being shown. Hmmmm, it seems like no matter how hard we try to breed away from it, that's what our gene pool keeps bringing us back to.

If you think "the standard is idiotic", why bother showing at all??? AND, what personal "standard" do you breed your dogs to, if any??

Just curious.

The standard is what it is because that's the way the parent club decided it should be. AND, if you don't agree with the standard as it's written why not write to the parent club or get people to sign a petiton to change it, backing that reason up with evidence to support why it's NOT good now, and how it would be better if changed. To just breed however you want regardless of a long-standing standard makes no sense. It's no different than a silver breeder or a byb in my opinion. YES, we all have our own line or type, and that is OKAY as long as it's within the standard. Faults are accpetable, but not dissqualificatios--not in a champion show dog.

JMHO

I love small dogs. If she has alot of everything else show her. Alot of judges like that type female.
ALot better than some of these small ponys we see in the ring. Wow,some have to be at the top of the scale, big dogs. In shape or not. When we breed these litters, most go to familys. Most do not want a big dog. I breed to the standard and my boys are within the weight and height but mid to shorter not tall. We all have in our minds what we like, we will never agree. Lets just enjoy the dogs and keep them as healthy as we can.

Well put! Thanks!

Well, we have the 2 extremes in our Labrador family. With my Yellow lines, they tend to be 23 to 34 inches at withers and 90 pounds for bitches and 90 to 95 for the boys. My girls would stand out like a sore thumb in the ring, along side all the feminine, 70 to 75 pound girls who are on the shorter side. They often get mistaken for the stud dog when people come out to meet them.

With our 2 chocolate foundation girls, who will be 2 in September are more my cup of tea where bitch size goes. 75 pounds with one of the girls under standard..19 to 20 inches tall and her sister has more leg and a tad taller but is more balanced looking.

Both our yellow, taller, bigger girls have nothing over the shorter chocolate girls where athletism goes. The chocolates and those short little legs can outrun our yellow girls when they want that bumper bad enough.

I would never dream of cutting either of our foundation lines just because they are under or over the so called standard. Each line has their own merits to work with and the idea is to continue improving our lines, not toss them out every time a little fault comes along.

Oops, I'm sure you figured out I meant 24 inches at withers and not 34.

Before you throw stones, take a look at whats in your own kennel!
Your statement sounds so self riteous! How many finished champions do you have??
How many pointed?
If none, why not, if yours fit so well into the standard?
Why do you breed?

ooooh boy....
Your post, your philosophy, is what's SOOOO wrong with our breed!!
Yeah, lets collect a few "foundation girls" One color is above standard, one color is below. Now lets breed them. They look totally different from one another but they are going to be my "foundation lines"
Yep....grrrrrr ate!!!
I just want to SCREAM right now!
I LOVE this breed!! People like you make me want to pull my hair out!!

And I very much love this breed to !! What are you talking about collecting foundation girls. You R making a pretty big assumption now aren't you ? After 10 years of going through heart ache, trying to find a Labrador I like or that worked out health wise, I finally found a young adult foundation brood bitch named Jasmine who gave us our next generation with Lola and Maggie. Because I wanted a chocoalte line, I sought out a good working/show pedigree and found my current girls Layla and Angie. Did I need 2 chocoalte girls...no but I know how quickly these young dogs can not make it past their first couple health clearances so to boost my odds in this area, I adopted both sisters as pups.

If you breed such perfect, AKC Standard type pups, how about sharing one in each color with all of us ?

One of these days, I'll learn not to post on this forum where one is sure to be condemned and chastised for doing things different than the next fellow breeder. Your judgementalness makes me sad.

You missed my ENTIRE point and dwelled on a term I used not literally, but figuratively.
My point was about the blatant difference YOU described all of your bitches as being from one another.
YOU said it, not me.
I merely pointed out how THAT is exactly WHY our breed is in trouble. Because of people such as yourself just breeding whatever they "like", not what is correct. You even take it a step further describing that you have 2 distinctly different types of Lab in your home, both that you intend to breed.
So which do you think is correct??? Both?
How can that be?
And if you think one is more correct than the other, why in doGs name are you planning to breed the other??????
THAT was my point, not that you have too many dogs. I could care less how many you have.

FYI, I do have champion Labradors in each color.

Joy

And I very much love this breed to !! What are you talking about collecting foundation girls. You R making a pretty big assumption now aren't you ? After 10 years of going through heart ache, trying to find a Labrador I like or that worked out health wise, I finally found a young adult foundation brood bitch named Jasmine who gave us our next generation with Lola and Maggie. Because I wanted a chocoalte line, I sought out a good working/show pedigree and found my current girls Layla and Angie. Did I need 2 chocoalte girls...no but I know how quickly these young dogs can not make it past their first couple health clearances so to boost my odds in this area, I adopted both sisters as pups.

If you breed such perfect, AKC Standard type pups, how about sharing one in each color with all of us ?

One of these days, I'll learn not to post on this forum where one is sure to be condemned and chastised for doing things different than the next fellow breeder. Your judgementalness makes me sad.

Probably not even worth responding to, but anyway...

I wasn't throwing any stones, just asking a couple questions. Interesting that you felt the need to be defensive about that... If we don't ask questions, we can't learn. Making assumptions doesn't do anyone any favors.

Second, not that I owe anyone an explaination, but while I haven't yet finished a Lab in the states yet, that hasn't stopped me from trying. I keep/buy show potential pups and put the ones that make the cut into the ring when time and money allowes. Many people work hard and can spend a number of years before finally finishing their first champion. Others get lucky and do it faster. I could give you a long list of dogs I had that ALMOST made it, but for one reason or another didn't make the cut and were placed into pet homes. At least I don't take dog that doesn't meet the standard and get upset when it doesn't win. And I do place dogs that don't have something valuable to conrtibute. I respect the written standard and won't show a dog that doesn't meet it. Will I keep a dog that's on the smaller side if everything else is nice and she has something to contribute, sure, many of us would.

Sounds to me like you're the one throwing stones in my direction... hmmm.

I would say our breed's height or lack of it is not why our breed is in so much trouble. I am more concerned about the health issues cropping up.

This idea that you seem to have that all breeder's Labradors should look alike, similar height and weight is not very realistic when there are so many different pedigrees out there to work with.

Jolly for you and your champions in all 3 colors.

FYI...A little humbleness on your part will take you further in life & make your labradors proud

I have one line that seems to throw shorter girls, but I never have any issues placing them. In fact they have been in high demand but Florida hunters that need to move around in canoes or boats, these smaller girls fit the bill perfectly for the environment. I love a short stocky bitch, 20 inches tall.

not saying it is "correct" but sure nice

It can not be stated often enough that we have enough deadly and serious problems in this breed to make it almost ludicrous to make the 'exact' height such a serious disqualifying flaw. If your bitch is healthy, passed all clearances, looks and performs like it was intended to and is a balanced individual then being slightly above or below standard is not that serious of an offense. We have a large enough gene pool to work on that and I haven't seen anybody here post that they are deliberately breeding dwarf or giant Labradors here.

We enjoy this beloved breed because of the dedication and astuteness of all the fabulous breeders that have come before us. I don't think any of them threw every baby out with the bathwater, especially not over height, or we wouldn't have what is here today to work with.