My rescued Brockett of Blackamoor that I was showing myself was wicketed today in the Open Black Dog Class at the Rock Creek Kennel Club, Inc. All-Breed Dog Show in Bel Alton, MD by judge Ms. Gretchen K. Schultz who thought he might be taller than 24-1/2". A board was brought out with a rubber mat attached to it and placed on the ground...about the same size as you might find at your vet's scale. My dog walked onto the board with no trouble. The judge asked where I would like the board placed and then asked me to verify that the wicket was set for 24-1/2". I told Ms. Schultz that I did not care where the board was placed and that I had new glasses and could not see the markings on the wicket. Brockett was measured in...well in, I thought. It was a pleasant experience but was a reminder that the standard for a breed IS important.

Thank you for sharing this.
Did the call for the wicket come from the judge herself, or another competitor? How far in was he, close to wicketing out at all? Was he in the ring with the newer "popular" shorter-legged Labs, and therefore looked "tall"? Very interesting.

"The newer popular shorter-legged Lab" Wow what a very unintelligent and biased statement that is!

First of all, there are many many "well-balanced" shorter Labs in the rings all over the country. I myself prefer a 22 1/2" male and if the ring is filled with this size of dog, then a 24" male, perhaps one that is leggier (not saying this is the case with this male) will stand out. I saw Carl Liepman do this at a show once thinking the dog was over standard and he was not, just a real lean and leggy male.

Secondly a 24 1/2" male IS WITHIN the standard!!!! There is a 1/2" leeway so a 25" male would be out!

Gretchen Schultz is a very knowledgeable dog person coming from a sound background in dogs. I've seen her judge Labs a few times and she's always put up nice type.

Thanks for sharing your experience with us H. Price. I know you were one of the breeders who tried to sue when this new standard went through.

Great brain stimulation . . . thanks to Price for posting.

I happen to be there today and know for certain, that the judge called the wicket, not a competitor, so no need to go there.

Price had a beautiful dog, a nice specimen of the breed who wicketed with room to spare. He and his competitor acted like true sportsmen should and took it all in stride.

It was a fun day today, comraderie among the exhibitors, nice weather (although cloudy, at least cooler than its been).

In the end, its good to know that the judges are paying attention to the Standard.

what a difference from the days when Price was calling for the wicket....and then brought a devisive lawsuit!

Since we are talking about brain stimulation and also the Standard, would it be considered "unsportsmenlike" to call for the wicket if there are dogs in the ring that don't measure up or down?

Would adhering to the standard trump "causing waves"?

What is the consensus out there?

I remember the first National Specialty after the new standard was put into effect. It was in California. A well-known breeder (now judge) decided to call the wicket for undersized dogs during the Best of Breed class. She was trying to prove a point that many of our specials were undersized. I beleive out of about 20 specials only 2 were DQ'd and both were bitches. My special was just on the borderline and rather than take an extra second to be sure, he was marked measured in. But it was really close. This was the only time I've ever had a wicket called by an exhibitor.

If a wicket is called, it must be specified whether it is to measure a dog for being under or over the standard.

I've only seen a judge wicket twice. Once for being under and once for being over. Both dogs measured in.

In my opinion, having a height DQ is ridiculous! I've been very successful at showing 19-20" bitches-mainly because they are beautifully balanced and lovely in every other way. When in a class with other smaller girls, they do not look tiny.

Some more food for thought!

A 19 inch bitch is 2 inches below the standard for the breed, the tolerable parameter has a range of 3 inches, from 21 to 24. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of having a written standard to exhibit any dog that far off? Why not have 17 inch dogs as well, where is the line drawn? If the standard is not held as accountable, what is the difference between the "designer" dogs, cockapoos and labradordoodles and a breeder "choosing" their own sizes as a criteria?

The standard should state the height of a lab.
Any differance above or below should be a
FAULT NOT A DQ!
Pure and simple. Only a fault.
Good heavens, when will the LRC go along with the rest of the world!

"Excuse Me", I think you must have misunderstood, I was neither criticizing nor applauding the current trend toward shorter legged Labs. It was truly a question of pure curiosity, no hidden agenda or bias. I have not yet seen a call for a wicket, and was curious if the dog in question looked big(er) in relation to the rest of those in the ring, to better understand the posted event. I am also not casting any doubt on Gretchen Schultz' judging ability. Just to be clear.

I do find it interesting that you would read so much into my post, and jump to calling it "unintelligent" though?

Have a wonderful Sunday everyone.

Each breed has a standard as submitted by the parent club of the breed and then approved by the AKC. The Labrador Retriever has a standard with guidelines and disqualifications for unwanted or undesirable traits. It is what it is. The reality is that it is there and no amount of wishing and hoping will alter it.
So the question still stands, should the wicket be called out to ensure that those guidelines not be left for each person to interpret and alter in any way they see fit?

If there is a law and you see someone break it shouldn't you as a good citizen report it?

Since the new standard was sneakily put into place I dont hold much regard for it as far as height goes... and you are comparing apples and oranges when you say that if a law is broken shouldn't it be reported, for goodness sake how can you compare the two? Who will it hurt if a dog is under or over the standard size?
Aloha,
Jackie

Well, then why not allow NBP dogs in as well? Some of them are just lovely, the only problem is their brown pigmentation.

Rules are set in place for a reason. DQs are designated for reason. If we do away with them just because some have perfectly balanced small dogs and then we will start allowing the perfectly balanced big dogs. And pretty soon we can start voting on if we should designate toy, minature, standard and grand labradors in our breed.

I would prefer a beautifully balanced and breath taking 20.75" bitch (who WOULD wicket out as an undersized DQ) over a 23.5" pet quality bitch any day!
BTW...just how many 23.5 inch bitches have you ever seen? ...and would you want to show and breed them?

If the wicket is called on one dog in the ring - Does the judge not have to wicket everyone? It seems rather discriminatory to call out one dog that actually was within standard, when quite possibly others in the ring could be well under the standard.

The wicket was called to see if the dogs were over the size limit..not under. You can't wicket both ways in the same class.

so why does it work in the rest of the world? if you support the height DQ you support it -- but saying the lack of it would encourage a mastiff size Lab is silly-- it would be a fault and therefore judged as one!

Here is where the problems lays and why our breed is so fraught with inconsistancies in type and style. Where each person has their very own interpretation of what constitutes what should be! Then add to that those that go below or beyond the limits of the standard. Voila, you now have itsy bitsy little Labs and walloping whoppers and every variable in between!
Who is right and who is wrong? If you have a standard, those not adhering to it are wrong, if you ignore the standard then everyone is right and we end up with Heinz 57 Varieties Labradors.

*current trend* What is your definition of current trend?? The argument over the height DQ has been going on for ages. And do you think that the Labradors that fall under height for the AKC Standard do so because their legs are too short? What about the perfectly balanced bitch that is just a 1/2 inch under standard? Many of our present day top winning Labradors are no shorter than they were in the day of MSW, and many are taller. AND BTW there are plenty of field Labradors that are out of Standard (both shorter and taller), it is just that no one stands around at a field trial shouting for a wicket. Now wouldn't that be a picture!

Shows how much you know. NBP dogs DO NOT have brown pigment. It's PINK!

NBP = No Black Pigment, Liver is not Black.

A nice healthy discussion . . . just what I like to read. Serious kudos to all the replies.

I will admit that my eye tends to go to a smaller bitch, but I want to increase size a bit within my own program. I am measuring and paying close attention to height, but it is not the only factor I consider.

My question to everyone would be in regards to the current standard set forth by the parent club. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the current standard has been in place long enough, that a revision would be accepted if the parent club were to submit one. Is this correct?

If so, how many would be interested in having the standard changed?

I will be the first to say that I would like to see the standard revised so that is more closely resembles the standard currently set by the United Kingdom Kennel Club (England).

Right, it's LIVER.

The standard was the same as the one used in England. In the early 90s, when AKC wanted the standards to be in a certain format, the LRC added the height DQ. Since many people did not belong to the "parent" club, there was no vote from many long time knowledgeable people and this rule made it through. It has either been ignored by many or been used to reduce the gene pool by some, which is why you don't see the type you saw before all this happened. The judge should be judging to whatever standard is in place, but should be looking at type first and foremost. Look at the whole dog, not the parts.

I for one would be for a standard change back to what it used to be, the English standard which the rest of the world uses!
Aloha,
Jackie

Jackie --

Thanks for responding . . . its good to know that I am not alone in my thinking!

I would welcome the old standard to be reinstated.
Then the USA would be in agreement with the rest of the world.
The reason I feel so strongly about the Height issue is because if a dog is DQ'd three times for the same issue, they are out of the ring for good!
If a judge finds a lab to be too tall or too short, just put them at the end of the line for heavens sake.
Do not DQ them!
I do think it is time for people to join the LRC and get in there and make some changes.
Anyone?

So then there are 5 different colored labs? Black with black pigment, Yellow with black pigment, Chocolate with brown pigment (these are our traditional accepted colors) and then a Yellow with pink pigment (what you are saying is a NBP) and then a Yellow with brown pigment (which is what is often referred to as a Dudley?). And if you are saying Dudley's are pink, I think you need to have your glasses checked, because standing side by side to a chocolate, the ONLY difference is coat color...lips, gums, eye rims, nose etc. matches.

So for those of us who got into the breed after the controversial change of the standard, can you sum up the basic change? Is the main difference between the English and US standard that we allow taller dogs?

All set
I have a 20 7/8 male who is akc 20 1/2 and I am thrilled since he can jump 16" in most agility venues
as opposed to jumping 20,22, or 26
sure he is a bit short compared to the standard but you know what, I don't care about the conformation standard, i have FINALLY a lab who can have a reasonable jump height for agility

What is MSW?

The parts of this discussion that are tiresome are the ones wanting an explanation of the differences between the AKC Standard and the FCI and/or British Standards. Google them, print them both out, and then read them. Explain to yourself why one standard is five times the length of the other. Then ask yourself how it is that the judges from all of those countries with the shorter standard somehow manage to get it right when they judge here in the US. Then try once more to defend the AKC/LRC Standard. Good luck.

Perhaps it is you who needs their glasses checked. I dare you to tell me that this dudley (eebb) has the same color pigment that the chocolate does?



I'm sorry but this is what I would consider to be pink. Even the skin under the yellow's nose is pink. The chocolate's nose, skin and eye rims are brown, but I can't even begin to see the same color in the yellow's pigment.

And no there are not 5 different color combos. Only 4, the Black (EEBB, EeBB, or EeBb), the Chocolate (EEbb or Eebb), the Yellow with black pigment (eeBB or eeBb) and the Yellow NBP (eebb). However, the shading of pigment can range from pink to a soft liver.

Ok I decided to go one step further. Here are 3 more NBPs. All of which have no where near the brown of a chocolate, so I decided to have fun and look for pictures of raw and cooked liver. Both pics which are included are very close to the color of the chocolate's pigment.



I have nothing against NBPs. In fact several of these dogs pictured are very lovely dogs. I will say that this is the typical pigment coloration I see in the NBPs (eebb). AKC defines a dudley nose as that of being "flesh colored". I think that sums it up perfectly.

Liver anyone?? LOL

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

Mary Roslin-Williams

Not all NBP yellows have pink noses. Here's a puppy that my stud dog produced (he's Byc, mom was Yc).



I find it interesting that there were a lot more Cy/Yc breedings years ago in show lines, than now - I've been redoing my pedigree database and find the breeders seemed to be more willing to mix yellows and chocolates some years ago, than now.

What I think is ironic about all this is the biggest complaint from those who don't like "current" show dogs is they are TOO big. Yet the LRC chose to give us a standard saying size was the most important thing. Hello. Who is saying we aren't doing what we were told? Change the standard, make size deviations a fault not a disqualification so breeders and judges can get back to using common sense in evaluating what is correct.

Great thread! Good points made all around!
I still would like to get a consensus on "calling for the wicket". Would it be considered "bad sportsmanship" if an exhibitor calls for a wicket on an undersized or oversized dog?
What about other disqualifications as dictated by the breed standard?
What if you knew that a certain dog had a prosthesis inserted because it was a monorchid or 2 of them because it was a cryptorchid?
Or you knew a dog had caps or teeth insertions.
Would it be "bad sportsmanship" to report those cases.
What role do we as breeders and exhibitors play in guarding the breed standard?
What do you feel you should do, look the other way or take some type of action as permitted by the AKC rules?

Right, wrong, or indifferent, you are barking up a tree that you won't be able to get down. Do you need to go sit in the Tattle Chair and think about it?

If you want a change in the standard watch out what you wish for !!!
Maybe the height will be changed but weight should be a disqualification !! Labs are to be a sporting retriever. I 100 lb + dog is NOT a correct and is way above the description of the breed.

I agree size should be a fault, not a DQ, although common sense for some is not the same as for others, and some of our bitches were getting tiny and were still being rewarded in the show ring, which perpetuated the problem to extremes in some parts of the country. On the other end of the spectrum, we have some enormous males that look more suited for draft work than for hunting. I think these issues have less to do with the standard than with breeders who prefer to breed what they "like" rather than what is correct, and to the judges that reward this.

The standard was written to produce a sporting dog, and the best way to evaluate whether the dog measures up to that, both from a structural and work ethic standpoint, is to actually work the dogs. Handlers can mask faults in the ring and make a poor dog look good; structural faults are readily apparent in the field when the dog is working and moving naturally on its own. An open coat, while en vogue in the show ring, is a detriment in the field. Light eyes, which seem to be undesirable in the show ring, have no impact at all on working ability and are nowhere near the problem as some of the faults that are not nearly as heavily penalized in the ring. I don't know anyone who regularly works their dogs who feels a 100 plus pound, open coated, massively boned dog is an efficient working retriever. I am sure some of them can do the work, but they are not built to do the work efficiently. Obviously there are issues with dogs at the other end of the spectrum, but one rarely if ever sees them rewarded with a show CH.

Setting the breed standard aside -- from a health stand point, weight is a concern. I wouldn't want to see a weight requirement in the standard, but I would love to have the standard say ''the weight should be approrpriate for the structure of the dog." Too lean, too fat -- both are not healthy for the dog.

Once again -- what a great discussion!

No need for the Tattle Chair here for in all my years in the show ring dating back to the 1980's, I have seen/heard it all. Myself, never called for a wicket nor filed an AKC complaint on anyone that I knew was circumventing the rules. I figure that in the long run, nothing is really gained by cheating, covering up or not following the guidelines.

Thank you for your response, I will notate that as a "No, you wouldn't call for the wicket."

I would like to see the height be a fault, not a DQ and I agree that I would not ask for the wicket (as a competitor or observer), but in the whole scheme of things - it all equals out - what goes around, comes around. Staying true to your course, doing the best you can with your own breeding program, to try to adhere to what we know is the true Labrador type, is most rewarding.

Could the owner of the RWB or RWD call a wicket on the WD or WB if they felt the winner would be DQ'd for height? Or once the points are given is it too late? Just wondering. I could see that happening.

I would think that if the judging is over and the points awarded, one could not call for the wicket.

I seem to remember that something has to be said while (each) class is in the ring

How about a specialty show where to qualify for BOB you had to perform in the field and and in the ring. The best average score would be BOB.

I was there and it was a terrible day for Labradors. Most of us sat at ringside crying. Dennis Sprung from AKC and Carol Hollands, the AKC Rep, were there.

As I recall, it was not all voluntary.
I'm pretty sure the wicket was called in the Open Yellow Classes by an exhibitor in each of those classes. And I believe it was the intersex judge, George Bragaw, who wicketed all the dogs in his Best of Breed class.

As I remember it, it was 80% of the bitches and 52% of the dogs. Exhibitors and owners were all crying as many of our very best examples of the breed walked out with a DQ on their record. I believe all of them were for being below the minimum height.

If you weren't there, you cannot possibly imagine how absolutely awful this was. Many breeders' entire lines were below.

Years ago I had a bitch, Violet, that everyone called an Amazon because she was so tall. Under the AKC wicket, she measured only 21". The BOTTOM of the standard.

What many of you do not know or understand, was that the numbers used for height in out standard were ARBITRARY estimates. I remember being told that the Late, Great Joan Reed was there the night, over many glasses of wine, they went out, looked at the dogs in ONE person's kennel, and without benefit of any type of measuring tool, guessed at the heights of the dogs. THAT IS HOW THOSE NUMBERS GOT INTO THE ORIGINAL STANDARD.

So, the height was never intended to be an exacting number with DQ's when the standard was being written back in the 1930's. To use them, sixty years later, as a hard and unyielding rule is unjust and NOT in the best interest of our breed.

The judge may be expected to hold to the standard in the show ring, but IMO, anyone else who calls for the wicket on a fellow exhibitor's dog, is doing DAMAGE to our breed. They are just being selfish and trying knock out their competition.
________________________________________________________
Replying to: Memory Gone
Re: Labrador Standard

Quote:
Originally Posted by H. Price Jessup
I would like to add that the judge that wicked my dog this past Sunday was most gracious. Also, when some 400 Labradors were voluntarily measured and weighed at the Potomac Specialty in Leesburg, Virginia some 15 years ago, approximately 70% of the bitches and 40% of the dogs were under the minimum height.
I wasn't at the Potomac mentioned by Price, I guess I wasn't. Does any one else recall those high no.s being wicketed? I never heard about it and sure wasn't there for 400 Labradors ea. being measured. . Wouldn't you think people would have been buzzing about that many dogs (70% bitches and 40% studs) not passing the wicket height at a Potomac? Who was judging?

Please, someone fill me in on the story I *missed*. Is it online somewhere or do you people have good memories? TIA for your help remembering this show that I don't.

Please forgive me if this is a crazy question, but would the "shorter" standard increase longevity in the breed?