(Jill gave permission to post this.)

FYI, YGRC is Yankee Golden Retriever Club. The hunt test site is in CT, but their members live throughout southern New England. Questions may be directed Judith-her contact info is below. Permission to crosspost.






Greetings, all,



For those of you who do not know, there was an incident at YGRC's hunt test. An animal rights person ignored the signs to use an alternate route through the property and rode her bicycle into the area of our test. She saw the ducks in their crates and was horrified that we were going to shoot them.



This person wrote to the Hartford Courant and the Bulletin in Norwich about our test, and how "Live Kill Trials" should be ended. She also wrote to her legislators & to the management of the West Thompson property. Senator Lieberman would now like to know what was going on. Let's tell him.



If you are a resident of Connecticut, please write to the senator. If you live in a different state, please write to your own senator and request that your input be sent to Joe Lieberman. The more people who write about this, the better.



If you're a non-field person and wonder why you should help, let me assure you that field people also fight for your rights as breeders. We need you so we can get good dogs. You need us to keep the retriever in the breed. We need to help each other - please.



I have assembled some information on how to contact your legislators and how to write your letter. You will also find some talking points and a sample letter I sent on some Massachusetts legislation.



If you need help, you have my e-mail. Please forward this to other retriever people who use West Thompson. If you have other talking points, please cc them to everyone else. Feel free to post this on Retriever Training lists.



Together we can make our legislators understand what we are doing. This is the first battle. Let's go get 'em.



Guns up! Dog to line!



Judith Erlanger



YGRC Field Committee Co-Chair

YGRC Legislative Liaison

Ticked-Off Retriever Woman



Tips for writing to your legislators



When you write about a specific piece of legislation or issue…

• Address your letter to the legislator

• Indicate if you are SUPPORTING or OPPOSING

• Explain your position

• Keep your comments to ONE page

• Thank them in advance for their attention

• Make certain to include your full name, mailing address, telephone number and email





When writing to Senators or congress reps, USE E-MAIL. They do not want snail mail since the anthrax incident of several years ago.



Use this web page to find your senators’ contact pages:

http://www.senate. gov/general/ contact_informat ion/senators_ cfm.cfm



Use this web page to find your congressional reps’ contact pages:

https://writerep. house.gov/ writerep/ welcome.shtml



Points to cover: pick several of the points below, and add your own if you have others.



Retriever events have been held at West Thompson for 30-40 years


We bring revenue into the area in motel and restaurant expenses.


We treat our game with respect. The ducks were within the permit area, attended at all time, fed, watered and kept in the shade.


We help at the West Thompson Cleanup for Earth Day every year, and we work with the rangers.


We have tolerated interference from public for years. They are allowed to interfere and walk though our events, forcing us to stop. We are not allowed to exclude them from the property


Our costs to use West Thompson have risen and the area we are permitted to use is more restricted every year.


We pay to use West Thompson.


Hunting and hunting retriever events are legal. Hunter harassment is not legal, yet we are forced to tolerate it.


“Animal rights” is not the same as animal welfare. We support animal welfare.


It is disheartening to be forced to defend ourselves against lies told by animal rights advocates.




Here is an example of a letter I wrote to my legislators in the Peoples Republic of Taxahusetts



Dear Honorable Committee Chairs and Members:



I am writing in opposition to Bill HD 3818, "An Act regulating the keeping of swine in the town of Tewksbury."



The people who petitioned for the filing of this bill neglected to communicate an important piece of information that should be used in your committee's evaluation of the bill. The people who bought homes in the vicinity of the pig farm chose to live there, knowing the pig farm was there. The farm has been there for many years, long before the construction of private residences in the area. The people who moved into the area were probably happy to buy a home in "the country." What they failed to investigate is that "the country" is just that: farms, fields, and animal husbandry.



It is not reasonable to expect a farm or any other business to close or change its way of doing business just because private homes are built in its vicinity. The people who are complaining about the pig farm should have done their homework before buying a home in its neighborhood. The phrase "caveat emptor" applies to this situation.



The legislature has more important things to do than enable careless buyers and punish Massachusetts farms. I urge you to send this bill to study.





Sincerely yours,



Judith M. Erlanger



E-mail :JudithPER@aol. com

Sorry, I'm not PETA, but that's pretty sad, ducks sitting in their cages waiting to be shot. If that's what hunt tests are all about, it needs to be looked into. I hope Senator Lieberman asks alot of questions. That's not hunting, that's slaughter. Then using the excuse you need to do this to produce good dogs. Give me a break. Believe me, the natural instincts in animals far exceed natural instinct or commen sense in humans!

To "Sorry". Should we also stop fishing?

I understand the "fear" of PETA getting their foot in the door anywhere, but I'll honestly admit to having a bit of an issue with the hunt test game. I completely understand fishing and hunting...hopefully they're using the things they kill for food. This isn't the case at hunt tests where the birds are killed simply for the retrieve. While some might be taken home and frozen for furthur training, the majority are just disposed of. The fact that the birds are treated humanly- watered and kept in shade- until the moment they're put in a giant sling-shot, thrown into the air and killed is almost laughable.

I understand that it's important to prove that our dogs still retain their purpose, (and I do!) but I've often felt a bit guilty about the birds.

The last I knew we fished to eat. Slaughtering ducks for the sake of a hunt test and, of course, the betterment of the breed (yeah right) is a different story.

In 25+ years of raising, training, occasional breeding and adoring my Labs, I have kept some things in mind; dual purpose and disposition, along with beauty and brains. Form follows function, and the reason for the breed was assisting with fishing (Cod) and retrieving downed game, (birds). Perhaps the show folks don't know we train with dead birds we keep in the freezer. The hunt tests represent a very small number of actual kills. The ducks are raised for that purpose.

I imagine the slow agonizing death of the wildlife starving due to lack of habitat, or being thumped by the speeding vehicles on the road only to suffer slow death in the ditch doesn't even cross the minds of the PETA people and the folks who cry for the loss of a ducks life. I will always support the outdoor sport of hunting. God knows we might someday have to remember how to feed ourselves and our children with wild game. Vegetarians are welcome to their menu, and me to mine.

Duals I am with you.

I would like to address several issues.
1. In our hunt tests we do not launch live ducks from wingers, they are hand-tossed in order to give the gunners the best advantage and reduce the number of escapees. Ducks launched from wingers are already dead. The majority of ducks used in hunt tests are euthanized humanely prior to being used.
2. Hunt tests are in effect training. Many participants and members of retriever clubs are avid hunters and do eat what they kill. The hunt tests are one way to keep "meat" dogs sharp, perfect skills and assess previous training. The fact that we can earn titles is great and there are non-hunters that wish to show their retrievers still retain the ability to retrieve game birds, return nicely and deliver to hand a bird fit for the table. Which leads me to my next point.
3. Without utilizing birds, there are no game bird dogs. Yes, our labs (and many other breeds) have a strong prey drive and our labs have been bred over 100 years to have a "soft" mouth and the desire to return with the object they have retrieved, it is amazing to see, however, it is not a "given", training is involved and training with birds is imperative. I have seen too many labs refuse to pick up game birds of all kinds, because they have not been exposed to them, instead only seeing bumpers and Dokkens. I personally hate to see a test with Chukkars because I don't have easy access to them with which to train.
4. Most of the ducks used at our hunt tests ARE recycled. If you are not in line at the close of the test, you don't get birds for your freezer. The birds that are disposed of are pretty well used. We generally also have live ducks which are sold after the hunt test. AKC requires 2 birds per entry for all test levels, but the clubs have no control over scratches, dogs that go out on the first bird, etc. so there are typically nice live birds which are snapped up.
5. Hunters of all game are instrumental in wildlife conservation. One needs only look at wildlife populations gone nuts due to "protection" to see this. In game bird hunting in particular, the use of a good dog greatly reduces the number of birds never found or the wounded that fly off a bit and suffer needlessly.

Hunt tests are not a day in the woods hunting, they are artificial. Certainly not a reason to kill anything for AKC training.

Some of the people on this list are just as extreme as PETA, just another direction, that's all.

All training exercises you mentioned, ie. childbirth classes, police officers, surgeons, etc. didn't kill anything to get their training. Killing ducks for training is wrong and there is absolutely no excuse.[/quote]

No but in earlier times, graves were robbed to provide cadavers to medical schools, such as they were. I suppose you are also opposed to clinical trials on animals for drugs that will, hopefully, treat diseases and conditions in humans?

I have to agree with you on that!!! They have been using ducks that are raised for this for years and years. I'm not sure if you (Sorry) are a member of a "duck" rescue or just a disciple of St. Francis, but this is not a crime to use live ducks for training.
What about the pigeons we use when we train?? Do we stop that too, just because we don't eat them? Give me a break and obviously you have never done any type of Hunt training. If you did, you would realize the importance for using live or dead ducks and pigeons. I suggest you take the time to learn more about hunt training, before you start saving all the "ducks"

As for the person that has a problem with AKC Hunt tests, you need to read the rules on the tests. Guess what, it does mention "birds", it says nothing in the rules about using anything else
So, it seems you need to take this up with AKC

Why would you compare kicking a dog to using live ducks for a Hunt Test?? If you saw this happen, you should have reported it. The Labrador breed was bred to hunt, so maybe if all these things upset you, you should get out of the breed, because the Labrador is a function dog, his function is to hunt! I'll tell you there is nothing more breath taking then to see your dog retrieve a duck and bring it back to hand I'm sorry, our Labradors were bred for this and guess what they can go in the show ring and look gorgeous and do Hunt Tests and love it too!! Maybe you should have given it more time and thought, before you bailed out

I do hope that the people who are against using birds in training aren't Labrador breeders. This is a working breed, and their original job was retrieving live game. I don't care how well it fits the standard; a Lab that can't do that job is not a typy Lab. And there is no way of knowing if it can't do the job if it isn't exposed to birds. Would you sell a puppy to a hunter or to someone who particiaptes in hunt tests? I don't like having to kill the birds either, but if I'm breeding Labs, that goes with the territory. There are plenty of non-sporting breeds to get involved in if you are morally against the work this breed is meant to do. I realize that not everyone has the time or resourses to do fieldwork, but if you are completely opposed to it, you are in the wrong breed.

And I certainly wouldn't have my dogs with a trainer that kicked my dog! That would be grounds for eviction from a hunt test.

We own a hunting breed, and they bring back ducks that hunters shoot. Hunt tests, test the ability of our dog to do so.

THE BIGGER PICTURE... if PETA can shut down hunt tests because ducks are killed, how long is it before they shut down obedience because we "make" dogs do things, or shut down agility because dogs in the wild don't run through tunnels or jump (although mine jump logs all the time)
How long is it before PETA shuts down all dog shows because breeding is wrong and we should only have dogs that are someone else's mistake or castaway or shelter dog.

PETA'S mission is one generation and out. They fluff us up and make us feel bad because a duck was in a cage waiting to be shot.... their REAL mission is NO PET OWNERSHIP.... Don't fall for the bait and switch. EVERY INCH they gain on animals rights, takes rights away from breeders and owners....

Really get to know PETA and what they stand for before you take a stand against those in the fancy, or you may find your self with no dogs at all and no right to own them

Barb

I do hope that the people who are against using birds in training aren't Labrador breeders. This is a working breed, and their original job was retrieving live game. I don't care how well it fits the standard; a Lab that can't do that job is not a typy Lab. And there is no way of knowing if it can't do the job if it isn't exposed to birds. Would you refuse to sell a puppy to a hunter or to someone who participates in hunt tests? I don't like having to kill the birds either, but if I'm breeding Labs, that goes with the territory. There are plenty of non-sporting breeds to get involved in if you are morally against the work this breed is meant to do. I realize that not everyone has the time or resourses to do fieldwork, but if you are completely opposed to it, you are in the wrong breed.

And I certainly wouldn't have my dogs with a trainer that kicked my dog! That would be grounds for eviction from a hunt test.

Why not just take the dog out and hunt, then eat what your dog retrieved and you killed? No title, but the dog is doing something he enjoys and the owner is hunting for food which is the only reason the animal/bird should die.

Perhaps the only people who should be allowed to breed retrievers are people who hunt their breeding stock, because no one should be breeding Labradors (or any other sporting breed) that are not suitable for hunting, and without hunt tests the only other way to evaluate this is to actually hunt the dogs. Unfortunately, the number of people who hunt their dogs on waterfowl and keep the original intent of this breed alive are few and far between these days. Hunt tests, like them or not, allow more people to evaluate their dogs on game so that they can move forward with a breeding program that produces not just a Labrador, but a Labrador Retriever.

While there are other activities that can evaluate a dog’s desire to please, no other activity can evaluate the competence of a dog in the field. To quote Mary Roslin Williams (in "Reaching for the Stars”): “But there are other necessities that cannot be tested in the show ring so that only those breeders who actually train and work ALL their dogs can maintain a strain with these more exotic qualities, without which a dog is no good for work, let alone trials. Into these come tender mouth, complete silence under all circumstances, excellent nose, game-sense, the ability to mark, readiness to be steady and biddable plus common sense, so often lacking in the pure show lines. As to conformation which can be judged in the ring and indeed should be, a day in roots will soon sort that one for you and your judgment in the ring may differ slightly from the pure show judge who has not tested out the faults and virtues for himself in the field.”

I eat meat. I wear leather. I support hunting. I abhore PETA. I still think this kind of "training" is inhumane.

I compete with my labs in conformation and obedience. When I was a kid, my dad taught our labs to hunt without any of this live bird torture. The dogs with hunting aptitude went hunting...the ones who didn't, stayed home.

I'll support anti-PETA measures, but not this one.

OK, so when your dad went 'hunting' with his dogs he didn't shoot the birds? The ducks are not treated improperly prior to the gunners shooting them. So what is the difference between 'going hunting' and a hunt test?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barb
We own a hunting breed, and they bring back ducks that hunters shoot. Hunt tests, test the ability of our dog to do so.

THE BIGGER PICTURE... if PETA can shut down hunt tests because ducks are killed, how long is it before they shut down obedience because we "make" dogs do things, or shut down agility because dogs in the wild don't run through tunnels or jump (although mine jump logs all the time)
How long is it before PETA shuts down all dog shows because breeding is wrong and we should only have dogs that are someone else's mistake or castaway or shelter dog.

PETA'S mission is one generation and out. They fluff us up and make us feel bad because a duck was in a cage waiting to be shot.... their REAL mission is NO PET OWNERSHIP.... Don't fall for the bait and switch. EVERY INCH they gain on animals rights, takes rights away from breeders and owners....

Really get to know PETA and what they stand for before you take a stand against those in the fancy, or you may find your self with no dogs at all and no right to own them

Barb


Obedience, Agility, Conformation are a little different than having ducks in cages waiting to be shot. It's things like this that get the extremists involved in the first place. I'm not for PETA, but I'm not for ducks being raised to be shot. That certainly is not a valid reason for not owning a Labrador. They are a smart, versatile breed that enjoys all venues with their owners, and this owner enjoys them even if we don't hunt. It's certainly not up to someone who does hunt tests to tell anyone they shouldn't own the breed if we're not out killing birds for our dogs.


Get it clear.. I'm not saying that you shouldn't own the breed if you are not out killing birds for the dogs... I'm saying that each step a group like PETA takes against dogs and their sports endangers each next sport.. I personally don't do hunt tests, I've tried some WC's and I don't care to force fetch my dogs... but I will DEFEND the right of other Lab owners to have that opportunity...

ABSOLUTELY agility and obedience are different but its a short step from no hunt tests to no making dogs do anything.... The animal rights people are zealots, they don't make much differentiation between the different things we do with dogs, they don't agree with our right to own dogs

and if we can't hang together as a fancy, we will someday be dogless and separate

barb

This thread is important, it goes to more than the duck issue, but to other ways that we use and consume in our daily lives, like plastic bags.

Please educate me . . . are there not ways to replicate the "fowl" scent for purposes of training? Can we not use duck scent on bumpers/decoys to repicate the "real" thing? If not, are the birds consumed after training? I gotta say if no to the second question, I would have a hard time with ducks waiting to be killed for the purpose of training our canines to compete and carcasses desposed of thereafter. Can we not come up with another way to accomplish the same goal? Side story . . . in an effort to capture rats from eating my tomatoes and burrowing in my compost I set out glue traps to catch them . . . I lost a blue belly lizzard in the glue traps and have caught no rats in three weeks . . .

I think that we should find a way to repurpose, reuse, and recycle as much as possible . . . if raising, caging, and shooting live ducts to train is part of our betterment of the breed then we must find a way to consume their carcass post training. Please forgive spelling errors.

A lot of training is done with bumpers, Dokkens and scented bumpers, but there is no substitute for a live or dead duck. The mouth-feel of feathers, the weight of a real bird, learning to carry it, is all necessary when you are getting ready for a hunt test or advancing training. My young bitch much prefers training with a dead bird, (frozen-thawed-frozen, over and over until it falls apart-recycling at it's best) than a bumper, and we get a lot more done in a training session, because of her enthusiasm. I don't think any one enjoys killing the birds, and I have never seen the birds treated inhumanely, nor have I EVER seen a dog kicked for poor performance at a field training day, or hunt test. No one I know would tolerate that level of disrespect for dog or bird!

By the way, please stop using the glue traps for your rats, those are really not very humane, especially when an unintended victim is stuck in the trap, like your Blue-belly, or a cat, or bird.

Whether you like it or not, PETA is trying to capitalize on hunting as a principle. Hunting is LEGAL in the United States and people (Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney for starters) enjoy the sport of hunting, whether it be for big game (by helicopter!), waterfowl, quail, turkey, or even dove and squirrels. How many dove hunters actually eat dove? Or squirrel?

It's a sport and training with fresh killed ducks is no different than killing a duck that has been 'called in' for sport, except often the shot is better. Perhaps hunting is not a sport that you like, but PETA doesn't like ANY sport that deals with animals, including breeding and showing purebred dogs! Just as many of us don't like the idea of mass breeding and puppy mills, we have to be careful not to fall into these traps of the AR/PETA folks and split on issues as they pertain to our dogs and our rights as Americans. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile before you know it

Concerning training with live birds- I took one of my girls to a hunt test once who had been trained with bumpers and dead birds, never had a live flier, as I don't shoot myself and didn't have a training partner who did at the time. She refused to pick up the freshly shot bird. That would have done me a lot of good had I been hunting, and, of course, she didn't qualify that day at the hunt test, either. I sent her to a trainer for some experience with freshly shot birds, and she was able to get her JH. You can do some of the training with bumpers and dead birds, but you can't do all of it that way.

Concerning eating the birds- They are used over and over again for training the dogs. They are definitely not in any shape to eat after they have been used for training. And if the birds used in training were all kept in a condition to be eaten, many more birds would have to be killed. Live fliers are used to make a retrieve more interesting for dogs that need to be motivated and to test the steadiness of dogs at more advanced levels. The birds are then used over and over for other retrieves. My trainer freezes any birds he doesn't need immediately so that he can use them for training later. Trainers try not to kill any more birds than they have to. Isn't that a more important goal than only killing something you're going to eat?

>>>Trainers try not to kill any more birds than they have to. Isn't that a more important goal than only killing something you're going to eat?>>

No.

PETA is already here folks. Isn't anonymity a wonderful thing?

How many dove hunters actually eat dove? Or squirrel?


where I live everyone does, not uncommon to find squirrels in the freezer! and dove hunts usually end in a plucking session.

Interesting........most people for this practice sign their post and those against don't.

We eat dove.....yum.....slow cooked in an earthenware crock with veggies......the best.
Our club also holds a pheasant shoot for club members and as each team finishes, the shot pheasants are brought to the cook to be cleaned and marinated. The meat is roasted and we have a pheasant feast to end our day. Very good eating.
Your use of the word slaughter is interesting, as that is a highly charged trigger word bringing to mind buffalo and beaver hunts of the early 1900s. To attempt to equate the shooting of ducks at a hunt test with wholesale slaughter is pretty laughable in itself. Slaughter is a term generally saved for those times when animals or people (Germany, Bosnia, Africa) are hunted down and killed for no purpose. Hunters in general neither participate in nor condone slaughter. I just love how PETA and HSUS present the story, unfortunately many unsuspecting individuals fall for it with an emotional response. At the top, PETA is not run by stupid people, just misguided ones with a few mentally unstable ones thrown in to season the pot. There is nothing more frightening than a zealot and those are the minions that PETA recruits. This is not a fight to "win" on a forum, but this should be an excellent case in point of why we, as animal advocates, need to fight back with e-mails and phone calls to local, state and national leaders. AND be proactive enough to see how the ones in office vote and VOTE them OUT instead of blindly re-electing the same names over and over again. This goes for all politicians, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike. Frankly I'm coming to the conclusion that looking for an honest politician in Washington DC would be like Jonah searching for 10 God-fearing souls in Ninevah. In fact "honest politician" may be the greatest oxymoron of all.
But I digress.......for those of you that own labs and have never been to a hunt test, please come out and see what it is all about. Enter your dog in a WC and watch their eyes light up. For those AR individuals posting here, thank you for raising awareness, and thanks for playing.

Barb[/quote]
It's certainly not up to someone who does hunt tests to tell anyone they shouldn't own the breed if we're not out killing birds for our dogs.[/quote]

No one is saying someone cannot own these dogs if they do not hunt them, but for people who care about the breed, it is a fair statement to say that no one should be BREEDING them without having an understanding of their purpose and evaluating them for that purpose. The last time I checked, the breed standard states this breed should function as a working retriever. They can also serve a variety of other purposes, but they are first and foremost retrievers.

It seems like people are ok with breeding a dog for the sole purpose of showing, which is a little backwards - we should be showing the best of our working stock to ensure we are breeding the best quality working dogs possible. Those who do not like the purpose for which this breed was developed should possibly re-think why they are breeding this particular breed. There are many breeds that can do agility, obedience, rally and make great family companions - mixed breeds can serve this purpose very well too. If we are breeding to a standard then we should focus on the purpose of the particular breed.

>>>>mixed breeds can serve this purpose very well too>>>

Mixed breeds can do a helluva a job hunting also. Some "field" Labs look like mixed,(and most likely are) not even close to the standard. Their breeders call them Labs then have the audacity to tell conformation breeders unless they are involved in hunt tests, they shouldn't be breeding at all. Get over yourselves.

The instinct to run down and pick up a freshly shot bird and gently deliver it to the owner, is the ONE THING that makes a Labrador Retriever a Labrador. No other characteristic is responsible for their diversity to become everything from the greatest handicapped assistance dogs to the gentlest and loving of all family pets. The correct Labrador temperament hunts for the love of the owner, not the game. A hound does not bring the fox to the owner, it kills it. Try calling a Beagle off a rabbit chase or a Terrier off a rat!

Shooting birds during training and at hunt tests are absolutely necessary to reveal those characteristics. And that training ensures birds do not suffer or are not wasted when hunted. A cripple does not escape in the brush and live to starve to death.

Birds at hunt tests are dispatched in seconds. The birds do not suffer. They are released and shot in flight as they would be in the wild. They are killed instantaneously.

To my fellow breeders who won't hunt test their dogs, please reconsider. Succeeding in obedience, agility, or any other event does not prove you have produced a soft mouthed Labrador with sufficient prey drive to run down a cripple and bring it back to you fit to eat. How do you know you have kept that "one thing" alive? How do you know that the very essence of the Labrador has been preserved to hand down to those that follow you?

Without the effort to keep the Labrador being the greatest gun dog of all time, the breed will go the way of Setters and Cockers who first became attractive ornaments for families and now are little more than bodies on which to showcase heads and coats.

To my fellow breeders who won't hunt test their dogs, please reconsider. Succeeding in obedience, agility, or any other event does not prove you have produced a soft mouthed Labrador with sufficient prey drive to run down a cripple and bring it back to you fit to eat. How do you know you have kept that "one thing" alive? How do you know that the very essence of the Labrador has been preserved to hand down to those that follow you?

Without the effort to keep the Labrador being the greatest gun dog of all time, the breed will go the way of Setters and Cockers who first became attractive ornaments for families and now are little more than bodies on which to showcase heads and coats.

To Really??

Most of those physical features that conformation breeders are supposedly trying to perfect are chosen because the experience of people who used Labs for hunting indicated that dogs with those features would be better able to do the job. If you don't know the job, you don't really understand the reasoning behind the standard.

Sounds like the same excuse that 'non-show breeders' use for not showing...how many times have you heard 'it's too political'???? So now, 'it's inhumane' is the excuse for not working your retrievers?

If you want to breed couch potatoes, pick a toy breed. What ever happened to the LRC's requirement for all dogs that have a bench championship to earn a WC before using the 'CH' title? When breeders brag that their champion Labrador couldn't give two hoots about retrieving, I am appalled. No thanks, I won't be using your stud. IMO, Ch/JH should be every breeder's goal.

To do obedience, rally, and agility you could chose any number of breeds or a rescue for that matter, but for Duck Hunting - now that has to be a Labrador! Plain and simple.

Their natural ability is in the hunt, not the jump.

So it is better to kill many birds just so that they will be eaten instead of a limited number that are reused over and over for training. I agree - Logic????

I do enjoy the Hunt Tests as much as my dogs do. I do have ducks in my freezer for training. These frozen ducks are used throughout the entire year for training because we never use them on water. We use knobby dummies or dokkens for that. The ducks go back into the freezer after training. The amount of ducks we actually use is incredibly small. We always use dummies on land for the youngsters anyway. Only the seasoned dogs actually get a duck or a bird. I have also been known to stop and pick up a road kill bird or duck if I see one!

Sallie, you bring up a good point with your question concerning who signs their names and those that don't. If someone has a negative opinion concerning the subject of using live birds, etc for hunting they are automatily labled a PETA person. I am not a screwy PETA person but reserve the right to have feelings concerning animal welfare. I have had these feelings since my childhood, it's in my heart, I can't change that. Had I been hard hearted towards animals I would have saved myself thousands of shed tears over the years. I am nearly 70 yrs old and my heart is no different than when I was a little girl.So please don't take it for granted that everyone that has feelings for animals are all dopey members of PETA, that is the reason that people don't post their names on this forum. I do respect the rights of others to do as they wish but I could participate in those activities. Yes I do eat meat, etc but I've always said if I had to do the killing I would be a vegetarian. So please allow those that have a different opinion the right to express themselves without getting beat up. I don't have the right to take away your feelings so please allow me to have mine also. Thanks so much for allowing me to vent a bit.

The person who started the finger pointing directed his/her comments against people who participate in hunt tests, and there have been several contributors who have said similar things. There was a threat to lobby against hunt tests with legislators. I think the reason you have seen such an outpouring of support for participation in hunt tests (and BTW, many of the comments have been very well-reasoned) is that there are a lot of breeders who are concerned that we are in danger of losing the working ability of our dogs. Not the breed as a whole- there will always be the field lines. But the two populations are much more divided than they were in the past, and the pool of breeders has been flooded with people who don't have much feeling for or interest in the history of the breed. And we see the hunt tests as the salvation of the working Labrador who actually meets the breed standard. Many of us show our dogs to championships and also put hunt test titles on them because we believe that the working ability and the physical properties that make a Lab a Lab are both important. And yes, we don't want to see the breed in the hands of breeders who not only don't understand the job that the dog was developed to do, but actually are willing to lobby (if only to their fellow breeders, much less threaten to get involved in legislative activity) against the activities that allow us to keep the working ability in the breed. Everyone doesn't have to participate- my dear mentor never went to hunt tests because she couldn't stand to see the birds shot herself. But she encouraged her puppy buyers to hunt and to train and test their dogs and was proud of them when they got hunting titles. I don't have a quarrel with breeders who say that they themselves don't want to participate in hunt tests, but with the people who denigrate those of us who are working to retain the retrieving and hunting instincts of the breed. That attitude is not in the best interests of the Labrador RETRIEVER.

I cringe when I think of hunting and ducks. I personally do not partake in the activity but I passionately love the Labrador Retriever and I definitely respect what they are bred to do, HUNT/WORK. I want my conformation dogs to also have the ability to work in the field.

I can understand not wanting to watch or participate but how can someone work with the Labrador and not respect what they do??? Ducks, hunting, working, retrieving, water it's all about the Lab and their purpose.

Close your eyes and dont watch, dont go but it's not fair to ridicule the others just because of the ducks. It's just the way it is.

So many on this thread seem offended by the "you raise them to shoot them" concept. To those who are upset, if you're NOT a vegetarian, then sit down and shush! We raise steers to kill them to eat and get leather; we raise chickens to kill them to eat; we raise pigs to kill them to eat; we raise fish to kill them to eat, etc.etc.

The only difference here is that the birds killed at a hunt test are not eaten, but are re-used (often many times over) to assist in training our dogs so that the birds we DO shoot to eat are responsibly retrieved. And, btw, for those who have never experienced them, wild goose, pheasant, quail, grouse, dove, duck, and rabbit are QUITE YUMMY!

Its my understanding that the AKC parent club requires all dogs to have a WC or JH in order to use the title Champion before their name. Did someone from the parent club write to the senators?

If there were no such thing as AKC JH, SH, MH, etc. would you be raising ducks to kill for training or would you just take the dogs on a real hunt and let them learn that way. The dogs are smart and since it is what they were originally used for why not teach them the way they were taught before hunt tests came into being? Why not put the title aside and enjoy the time it takes in the field training your dogs. Instead, many are sent off with a trainer to get that JH as fast as they can, then onto the next. It doesn't appear to be about what Labs were bred to do, it's about how fast they can earn their titles. It's a shame these same people get on their high horse advising anyone who doesn't wish to do what they do, should not call themselves Lab breeders.

To the people that say just take your dog hunting with out training with live /dead birds.
An athlete needs to be taught from the ground up, proper form, proper speed , the rules of the game etc. They don't just come out of the box knowing the game.
The same with the dogs, green dogs need encouragement to pick up feathers, they need to be worked on getting an injured but running or swimming away bird, the dog needs to practice these scenarios before becoming proficient at the game.
You cannot take a dog that has only picked up plastic dummies to go on a goose hunt and expect Fido to run out there and do battle with an 8-12 pound live goose.Not a realistic expectation BUT would be a great recipe for FAILURE. Just like throwing a 16yr old boy into the NFL .

This breed was developed in the kennels of noblemen in the British Isles and was brought to this country by wealthy people. The dogs were raised and trained by gamekeepers to do the job they were expected to do. They were not expected to participate in a hunt without being trained. Training did not originate with the field trials and hunt tests.

My ex-husband was of the belief that the dogs naturally knew how to hunt, and you didn't have to train them. He took our first Lab duck hunting once- the dog had to be kept on a leash in the blind because if he was off leash he was running back and forth from one hunter to another, flushing any birds that came to the deeks. He retrieved the deeks. He whined in the blind. If I remember correctly, he got to retrieve exactly one bird, which he spit out at the water's edge with a look of disgust on his face. At least he brought it out of the water! Highlights of the trip were when Jim left him in the car while he put on his hunting vest, coat, boots, backpack, etc., and Phoebus barked furiously at him when he went back to the car because he didn't recognize him. And then at the other end of the day, Phoebus was standing in the back seat with his head resting on Jim's shoulder as they drove home and started to snore- he had fallen asleep still standing up. That day was probably one of the highlights of Phoebus's life, and Jim and I have each gotten good mileage out of it as a funny story. But I think Jim took him hunting only one more time. Phoebus was not totally untrained; he eventually earned a CDX. The JH hadn't been invented yet. Maybe if we had had that goal to work for, Phoebus would have gotten more actual field training and would have gotten to go hunting more often. Phoebus's pedigree was half bench and half field.

I think it's very sad that a group of Labrador **Retriever** breeders/owners are arguing over the use of birds in hunt tests. Our dogs were bred to **retrieve** birds.

I breed show lines who are capable of earning titles at both ends of their names. I don't remember why I attended my first hunt test (it was to watch only) but I had to avert my eyes and say a prayer for each shot duck as it was upsetting to me. However the beauty of the dogs doing what they were bred to do is what made me go back to watch again. I was one who said I would "never" touch a dead bird. However 10 years later I have several JHs among my dogs and even more WCs. I do use the help of trainers at times because I work so can't get out to train as often as I would like but I also work with my dogs and usually run them myself at tests. Dogs need to be trained if they are going to retrieve birds just as they need to be trained for any event-- you wouldn't go into Open obedience without having trained the dog to retrieve a dumbbell or into the conformation ring without having practiced so why would you go hunting or to a hunt test without training your dog first?

I am one who cannot kill anything myself and would be vegetarian if that was the only way to get any meat but fortunately I have been able to bring dead birds home from tests to use to train my dogs (and yes, I do touch them now). No one has to go watch the tests or participate in these events but please don't tell the rest of us that we can't or call us names when we are trying to keep the **retriever** in the Labrador. Breeders should be respectful to each other and as kind to each other as our dogs are to us. Let's appreciate that we all enjoy doing different things with our versatile breed rather than undermine those who want to have working dogs be they "show" or "field" working dogs.

PS Call it corny but I still say a prayer for the one or two birds that may be shot for my dog at a hunt test.

>PS Call it corny but I still say a prayer for the one or two birds that may be shot for my dog at a hunt test.>>>

It's not corny, it's caring for living creatures that were not put on this earth to be deliberately shot for the sake of a hunt test. Years ago, we had Chessies. I remember my husband working with our dog and teaching her to hunt. She was trained with dummies, but knew what to do when it was time to retrieve what he shot when he took her hunting. There was never anything killed for the sake of training, she loved what she was bred to do. The big difference between a Chesapeake Bay Retriever and a Labrador Retriever is Chessies tend to be hard mouthed, but retrieivng a bird was second nature, she knew exactly what to do.

First, let me say that I have two dogs with MH titles. I have also titled three JH dogs and one SH. I can tell you with great certainty that you can not train a working gun dog without real birds, and real guns for that matter.

I am shocked at the fact that so many Labrador RETRIEVER breeders think that retrieving birds is cruel and should not be allowed. If this were a toy dog forum I wouldn't be so surprised, but this is a forum about Labradors - a dog that is meant to be a working gun dog. The fact that so many breeders think that the retrieving part of a dog's make-up is unnecessary or unimportant is unsettling, to say the least. I hate to think that our labradors are going to end up like Cocker Spaniels or Irish Setters, with all of the working ability bred out of them. I have many times heard labrador breeders state that Labradors are "stupid" and I find this very upsetting. Labradors shouldn't be stupid - they should be smart, and birdy, and trainable. If all we are breeding for is looks, then we are going to end up with a lot of pretty dogs with empty heads.

It is impossible to train a good working retriever without using real birds. Dokkens and bumpers can be used in part, but the dog must be familiar with, and trained on, real birds in order to be expected to pick up real birds in a hunting situation. We who participate in hunt tests have all seen people who come to their first hunt test and are shocked at the fact that their "bumper only" trained dog will not pick up a bird. Thinking that you can train a good working retriever with only plastic is like thinking that you can be the next Serena Williams by playing your Wii Tennis game religiously. It's not going to happen.

I'm afraid that the fact that this issue has been so contentious on a Labrador Retriever breeder's forum is a bad sign for the future of our breed.

You may not be able to train a dog without real birds to qualify for one of your hunt test, JH, SH, MH, but you can train a dog to hunt without using real birds. They are retrievers, retrieving should come naturally whether it's pulling in fishing nets or bringing back a downed bird. It sounds to me like that's what we are losing and rules of hunt tests are just that, rules for a title.

I think that the hunt trials we do for our Labradors, bring out the instincts that are an integral part of the breed.

I would not perform the task of handling live birds or killing the birds for a test, but that's me. I can and have loaded wingers with the dead birds and I'm okay with that.

What occurs to me, with this issue, is that alot of us have never had to kill to eat or run a farm or have grown up having to make these kinds of decisions regarding animals. There is room in this country for its' citizens to live different lives, and we don't have to agree on everything.

No one disagrees with killing to eat.

PETA does....be careful what you wish for!

Then go out and hunt the birds you're going to use. Blasting a duck at point blank range sounds like these people down south that feed deer all year long at a gun club, then during deer season flock there to shoot deer that are actually fenced in and call it hunting. It's a massacre. They use dogs too. Unbelievable.

I have had one MH, have a second dog at the MH level now, and have had 9 JH dogs, plus 3 or 4 others who earned WCs. I'm with you, Susan. You can't expect a dog to hunt successfully unless it has experience with live birds, and you can't expect to field title dogs without using live birds. I posted stories about a dog hunting without training and a dog running in a hunt test without having had live fliers earlier.

I have a friend who now has his third dog from me who does mainly upland hunting. He trains his dogs differently and has different expectations, as he is using them to find game rather than as a non-slip retriever. But he takes them to game farms where they are introduced to live birds, so he uses live birds in his training. He does rely on his older dog to train the puppy during actual hunts. But he is not a duck hunter. I have another dog with a family that duck hunts. They did not do much formal training either, and used to learn-on-the-job approach. It took several years before they were happy with the dog's performance. How many ducks did they lose during those first years- cripples left to suffer in the field? I haven't asked them, but I'm sure there were some. That is the value of a trained retriever, finding and retrieving the birds that otherwise would be lost to the hunter, who is then entitled to shoot another to fill his limit.

{Love to! as soon as the dogs are trained to bring the dead or wounded bird back. I'd hate to leave one in the field or water wounded, but not yet dead - that would be cruel.}

Then maybe the name of the game should be practice, practice, practice so when you shoot you kill. How many deer lay in the woods wounded, not being dragged out so someone can finish it off. Keeping it fair for the hunted as well as the hunter is what I call hunting, an even playing field. After all, the way it is now, anyone who can carry a gun is allowed in the woods calling themselves a hunter..

Regardless of how anyone feels about hunting and fishing, there are valid reasons for establishing a criteria for demonstrating that a Labrador Retriever can and will do what the breed was developed to do. If a dog is unsuitable for the task for which he was bred, then he is not a good example of that breed and there is a valid argument that he should not contribute to the gene pool.

The LRC has established that its members should not use the title of "Champion" on any dog who has not passed a standard Working Certificate or its equivalent in the AKC Hunt Test Program.

"Standards for Use of the Title "CH"
SECTION 1. Restriction. No member of the Club shall use the title "CH" in front of the name of a registered Labrador Retriever dog until said dog, having won a conformation championship, shall also receive a working certificate or the equivalent as defined in this Article.
SECTION 2. Requirements. The minimum working certificate requirements shall be designed to establish that the dog is not gun-shy: accordingly, the dog will be expected to retrieve a shot game bird at a distance of 50 yards or greater on land; further, the dog will be expected to retrieve two ducks from swimming water 1 in immediate succession to establish the dog's willingness to reenter water. Shackled birds shall not be used for a working certificate test. Only shot birds shall be used on land, and only shot birds or freshly killed birds shall be utilized on the water. Steadiness is not required so a dog may be held on line, however the dog may not be released for the retrieve until the bird has fallen. Any reasonable command and gesture may be used to direct the dog to retrieve and return. Nothing may be thrown and no coercion may be used to encourage completion of a retrieve once the dog has been initially released to retrieve."

(The rest of this particular section of the LRC Bylaws goes on to describe how to qualify for the equivalent of a WC through AKC Hunt Tests)

In Great Britain, a "Full" Champion (as opposed to a "Show" Champion which is designated as Sh.Ch.) is one which has passed the necessary working requirements to prove that he can perform the tasks for which he was bred, and for which the breed was developed.

Yes, Marti. However, perhaps that dog just needed proper training and he would have passed his WC with flying colors. Hopefully his owner will make the effort to prove that dog can and will perform the tasks for which he was bred.

>>>Exactly, now you're catching on! Practice IS very important in any sport or endeavor. I practice my hand to eye coordination and aim and my dog gets to practice his natural retrieval instincts and training. Works for me.>>>

Really?? Is that how it's done deliberately killing a duck for training. Hand to eye coordination and aim then your dog gets to practice his natural retrieval instincts & training? You're right, now I'm catching on.

If anyone has issues with the fact that birds and guns are involved in WCs, Hunt Tests, and the training involved, it seems to me that rather than complaining about those who do actively train, they should contact the "Powers that be" and get them to change the testing requirements.

The LRC and the AKC consider the WC and Hunt Test to be a "Fair" way of proving the appropriate qualities of a working retriever. Rather than violate the terms and conditions of participating in this forum, perhaps the people who are so adamently against the established WC and Hunt Test programs should address their concerns to the AKC and the LRC.

Susan, that would be yours truly. Too bad for us all that there are those who seem to think that the guidelines for behavior as well as the standard for the breed do not apply to everyone involved.

One thing not mentioned is the fact that retrievers love ducks!!! Nothing develops/encourages the natural prey drive these dogs have like live birds. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to wait until hunting season for that. Not to mention to train a dog to a very high level can be very hard mentally on the dogs. Using real birds is a great way to keep attitude high and leave something in it for the dog.

For years I've kept pigeons, ducks and pheasants in the freezer. I wrap them in individual baggies and then in foil to keep them "fresh" for retrieving. My children would shriek when they'd pull out a duck instead of a box of ice cream sandwiches when they were youngsters. At 30+, they still laugh about it. Recently, I had an exterminator here helping with a problem in the garage and he came in the house to tell me that there was a huge dead animal out there. When I went out to see what it was, I pulled out a cob-web filled pheasant wing that fell from the shelf and gotten lodged behind the freezer.

I've been field training my Labs for 25 years and it has always been great fun to watch the dogs do what they're bred to do. Obedience, rally and agility must be great fun, too, but spending the day picking up birds is what I have always bred my show pedigrees for and I hope I never have to stop.

It is very simple.
If one is against killing a bird for a RETRIEVER to RETRIEVE, under any circumstance, they have no business owning, or heaven forbid, breeding a "RETRIEVER". If one is an owner and/or breeder of any RETRIEVER breed and they disagree with that statement, they are a hypocrite. If that comment offends, then it is time to reconsider why one owns or breeds a RETRIEVER.
See, it was simple.

If these are the kind of people I would have to be around during a hunt test, I'll stick with the breed ring. Can you believe, they actually tell you what you should or shouldn't own??? Get back to mangling birds, it suits you. After all, it's what our Labs would want you to do, that's why if you don't show them what a dead bird is they will have nothing to do with retrieving it. Do you force fetch with birds too?

I am highly disappointed to see such a disparaging remark regarding another club members dog!

My god, is this long or what???

Duals , I am with you too, I am not an avid hunter but I have trained for field work and done a few hunt tests, my question is what would they have us do with the ducks while gun fire is going off , and by the wayfrozen ducks don't float, as mentionedearlier there is a small amount of ducks actually shot at a for competeing in the field....what about the dogs do you think it is far to drive them crazy with loose ducks ,have some common sence people this test is to simulate an actual hunt, and the way the tests are run is the closest way to do this.....these are farm raised for hunt tests and a very small number.....and as for that peta person she ought to obey the rules and maybe would not have come across the whole thing.

there are many sports that involve the death of an animal.......by the way the ducks shot almost always are taken home by handlers to train future dogs and kept in freezer to elminate the numbers of un necessary shot birds

Thanks Barb. I truly enjoy reading opinions expressed on both sides of the issue. We are all kindred spirits, loving the sporting breed Labrador, and admiring the beauty of the whole breed package. We write poetry, help each other with medical experience and referral, grieve loss, and encourage newbies. I know we all want to be allowed to continue with our chosen disciplines. Can we brainstorm together how to guard and protect our rights to do so as well? I dislike seeing the poultry semi truck in front of me with thousands of chickens packed into crates like sardines on a hot summer day on their way to be butchered. I eat chicken. If we don't manage the deer population we will all be run over by the herds. I eat venison shot by friends. There are so few hunt tests in my area of the midwestern states I am lucky to go to 2 a year just to watch. Not many dead ducks there. We need to focus on preserving the breed, the sports, the fancy of purebred Labradors. Send PETA off to regulate murder of earth worms when lightning strikes the ground. Or, give them more to do with their time at work? Do those people have real jobs?

Do I think that PETA should become involved in this...probably not! HOWEVER, I disagree that in order to have a good field dog you need these tests and training methods. My grandfather was a western director for DU as well as a state fish and wildlife director. He spent his entire career championing for wildlife and conservation, as well as his right to hunt. He was an avid hunter who always had Labs. He would raise a litter a year and those pups went like hotcakes because of their natural ability. In 60 years of hunting, my grandfather never trained one of his dogs in a test. Never used live birds or launchers. He put in his time training and those dogs learned on the job. They started hunting early and often. Some young ones he was lucky with and they picked it up quickly...others took a season or so...but every one of them became exceptional retrievers that could find downed waterfowl under a multitude of circumstances and in any type of weather. So to sit here and tell us "breeders" that we need this in order to keep the drive in our dogs is frankly BS. I watched my grandfather do it my entire life with a smart dog, a willing mind and a lot of hard work. He ate what he killed. He kept a few wings in the freezer for the pups to scent train with. Very simple and very effective. He didn't need any of this any more than I need the Ab Roller...a good old fashioned sit up still gets the job done! I am not saying I am opposed to training with dead fowl, I am not. But, that dead fowl should come from a hunt...not live bait.

I appreciate the methods your grandfather used for training his dogs as I do the same. But I have to ask the question, if some took a season or so to learn what to do as you say. How many birds were needlessly shot and wounded or killed and never retrieved until the dogs figured it out. Yes dogs will learn on there own in real life hunting situations, but speaking from experience the number of wounded and dead birds lost will vastly outway the number of birds lost if trained in a controlled situation were birds are used and reused.

I am sure there were a few. As there are even with fully trained dogs. However, my grandfather always hunted with a few guys and they always had their dogs. Quite often the seasoned dogs would "help out" the up and comers if a retrieve was missed. A perfect solution, no, but it worked.

Your grandfather had the perfect set up to do this type of training. Fully trained dogs who he could take with him to go hunting. Most people don't have that, and some hunting situations would not allow multiple dogs (the tight quarters of a duck blind). While hunting with fully trained dogs is great to show other dogs, but this is not all ways feasible.

Taking a untrained dog out on a hunt is not more humane for birds, less wasteful nor a superior way to train. The wild is not the environment to train a pup. Nothing is controlled. Young Labs can and do eat birds, play with them and refuse to bring them back. If the pup doesn't bring in the bird, you can't walk out and pick it up. Sending another dog out to steal a bird away from the pup could ruin both dogs. Today's training techniques are unsurpassed in their effectiveness and have never been more humane to the dog or the game.

If you believe training in the wild is superior to the yard work and hunt test, so be it but the discussion is whether we can be sure we are preserving the essence of the Labrador by not exposing them to birds. You seemed to have missed your Grandfather's lesson there.

>>>If you believe training in the wild is superior to the yard work and hunt test, so be it but the discussion is whether we can be sure we are preserving the essence of the Labrador by not exposing them to birds. You seemed to have missed your Grandfather's lesson there.>>>>

Except Jen isn't hunting or testing. She is advocating either hunting or doing nothing. Her dogs have the same great character as did her Grandpa's except she doesn't hunt or do hunt tests. How's does that work?

We are stewards of this breed and have a responsibility to hand down to others the same great dogs we started with. If the character of the Labrador is not tied to retrieving fresh game, then there I have no argument. Test/Hunt or not. Your choice. The dogs will still be 'retrievers'. It follows that you can breed to your taste in size, substance, coat, head, etc. It really doesn't matter. But if I am right, then those of us who choose not to test their breeding stock enough to 'know' what they are made of is doing a disservice to the breed.

I met a puppy shopper and their dog yesterday. Their 5 y.o. bitch was sold as a "Polar" Lab. The very light colored bitch was a mass of unprotected undercoat that flipped in every direction. She reeked of yeast infection and was stained pink everywhere from swimming in the family pool daily. The family had wondered about the stains and just thought that was the way dogs smelled. Their breeder wasn't constrained by showing, hunting or testing. I checked their website. If they are good people then are unintentionally creating unhealthy pets by not understanding the function of proper coat. I'm betting if they hunt tested they'd learn that pretty quick.

You're speaking of ONE dog?? How many off the wall, hyper, thin coated field Labs are out there? To each their own, you preach as if the only people who should own a Labrador are the ones doing AKC hunt tests. You're not stewards of the breed, you just think you are. I own them, love them and will never train for hunt tests (tried it, didn't like what I saw and decided there are alot of other worthwhile activities that don't involve killing for training). What Jen's grandfather did IS what it's all about. He wasn't out for some title he could brag about, his dogs natural ability spoke for him.

Forget about any ribbon, title, or Hunt Test....If you don't train or work or hunt with birds, water and guns, just how on earth do you know that the proper instincts and abilities which make up a "correct" Labrador Retriever are in that dog?

Like it or not, 'we' breeders have a responsibility to maintain the breed and be its guardians. How are you able to claim your dogs can work and not work them? A hunter would never purchase a dog from a breeder who hasn't shot game. The breeder couldn't possible have the knowledge needed to breed a proper dog.

Apparently I wasn't clear. There is a breeder who purposely breeds Labradors to have soft, white coat and coined the phrase "Polar Labradors". They have catered their breeding to meet pet buyer's desires. They have bred for a market. But they have unwittingly or otherwise bred a characteristic into a dog that if hunted in cold water would put it at risk. It wasn't one breeder or one dog. Google Polar Labs.

You have a point about FT coats. I hate seeing warming vests in hunting supply catalogs, but their wrong doesn't make your argument right.

Isn't the "correct" type of Labrador one that is suitable for the purpose of the breed, a working gun dog? Doesn't the standard say that the Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog? How can the true purpose of the breed be evaluated without guns, water and birds?

>>>But they have unwittingly or otherwise bred a characteristic into a dog that if hunted in cold water would put it at risk. It wasn't one breeder or one dog. Google Polar Labs.>>>

So how is it that the Newfy has no problems swimming in cold water with their thick, heavy coats?

Newfies have a protective outer coats as Labradors should. The undercoat insulates, the outer coat sheds. As I said in the first post about this 'Polar' Lab, the bitch had systemic yeast just from swimming in the family pool daily. There was no outer coat. Her fuzzy undercoat doesn't dry and the skin breeds fungus. The family thought the smell was normal for a dog. (Single coats used in the FT discussion don't insulate but they dry quickly.) The fact that the breeder was selecting FOR these coats was troubling. If they were working these dogs they would correct that fault.

And regarding the St. John's dog -- their value to their owners was in preserving food. The fish was not wasted and retrieved fit to eat or market. It was their work ethic and gentleness that attracted those who began refining them. The first breeders knew there was a genetic difference in the 'Labrador' from every other gun dog in Europe. It is that difference that is the foundation for all the other things Labradors do and are.

I understand that some breeders don't want to test their dogs. But to argue it isn't necessary in a breeding program? To claim that birds are not humanely treated at hunt tests? To argue that only hunting is morally right or a superior way to train? To condemn their fellow breeders as bird killers so they have title bragging rights?

I believe that the essence of the Labrador was seen pulling in those nets and since then it has been protected, refined and preserved by those who came before us. Do you think we would have the breed we have today if they had not hunted those dogs and removed the hard mouthed, stubborn and unwilling dogs from breeding programs?

As I said in my first post, breeds have lost characteristics before. The Cocker is no longer a good gun dog AND it is not a good breed for children anymore either. Those traits are connected.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you don't own the breed, nor do you decide what the Labrador Retriever was put on this earth to do. I own Labrador Retrievers and am awe struck how analytical, kind, intelligent, affectionate and truly versatile they are. First and foremost they are not a gun dog, they live and breathe to please their owner, that is the true essence of a Labrador Retriever. If retrieving ducks is what you expect, that is what they will do to the best of their ability, if conformation, agility, obedience, cadaver dog, tracking dog, bomb dog, seeing eye dog, etc., is what you want them to do, that is what they will do. That is why they are called a Labrador Retriever. The name encompasses alot because they are very capable of accomplishing alot.

..To win a Championship in Great Britain and earn the right to have the prefix "Ch." before the name of any Labrador Retriever in Great Britain, that dog MUST have earned a working FIELD title! According to the ByLaws of our parent Club in the USA, any member of the LRC MUST put a working field title on their Champion Labrador before using the prefix "Ch." This working title involves birds, guns and water. In Great Britain, a title in obedience, agility, or any other venue does not qualify any Labrador Retriever in the UK to be a full Champion...only a field working title achieves this.....

Those early descendants of the breed did what came natural, it's all about titles now.

I completely disagree that "it is all about titles now". Doing what comes NATURALLY is just the first step in developing a good working retriever. Proper training refines those natural abilities and instincts. It is immensely gratifying and satisfying to demonstrate the working abilities of our Labrador Retrievers. If it were only about titles, we could be doing a lot of other things in the time we spend training for Hunt Tests, etc.

This is such a shame.

If you're into hunt tests, go do them. No one took your privledge away. What is a shame? That you are unable to direct what should or should not be done with the breed?