After being at shows over the week end and seeing the thread on long coats, I have got to say they do not look good in the ring. All of a sudden we have these really big dog and bitches and all this strange coat. Meaning strange for a Labrador. Long, open, fluffed out. My opinion only, but think the sizes are getting out of hand also. Not talking type or bone, just big in size.

Trust me - the coat you are seeing in the ring that is somewhat longer and more open/less wrapped looks NOTHING like a true long-coated Labrador. There's no mistaking it, there is no way you could step into a ring with one like in my litter (shaving would not give anything close to a proper coat texture), and I would not ever have thought the difference would be so dramatic in overall look in addition to the huge, long coat.

If you actually measured the dogs you thought were so large, you might get a shocking surprise. Some of the biggest in appearance are still below the middle of the standard (23.5 in) - but they have so much body and bone on shortish legs that they look gigantic. They "appear" so big because they have the body and bone of a Labrador that should be 24-26 inches tall - but the short, heavy legs make the measured size much smaller. I am not defending the size or appearance of these dogs, but just making an observation that the dogs may not be oversized as much as overdone!

Take a yard stick with you to a show sometime and prepare to be amazed.

Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!

The dogs may be the right height in terms of the standard but if we put a scale outside the ring many would not make it through the gate to get judged.

I have seen one long coat puppy. It was a yellow and if I didn't know that it was a Labrador I would have sworn it was a Golden Retriever. Like Patty said it was nothing like any coat I have seen in the show ring (unless I happened to be near the Goldens).

Toni

If I ever saw a dog in the ring as tall as the standard allows at the weight the standard suggests, I would expect it to be excused for lack of merit or come in dead last in any class.

We all know which people tweaked the standard to add the height requirements and weight suggestions.

I think that today's stud dogs are in many cases much too big (tall, not fat). I went to Potomac a few years ago with a list of several dogs I wanted to see for my girl and was shocked at the sheer size of some of these guys.

The height and weight guidelines in the standard have not changed since the 1940s. Maybe YOU know those people who tweaked the standard back then, but even I (older than dirt) was only a babe when it was done. Recommended size and weight have been a consistent item in the AKC breed standard. The only change in the most recent revision was to enforce the height guideline with a 1/2 inch leeway for disqualification. The size/weight guidelines have always been there and have not changed in 70 years. The difference is in how readily we violate them today.

I do not like disqualifications of any kind, so didn't vote for the latest revision. Whether you agree with it or not, we will have to live with it until another revision is passed. This has nothing to do with the topic.

As to size in recent years, I have already given my opinion. We don't have oversized dogs, but they are frequently overdone. I have personally shown (and easily finished) dogs measuring 25 inches in the "old days" and bitches that would measure out on BOTH ends of the standard. However, I do remember that dogs which were over the weight guideline were generally near the top of the height guideline as well. That is not true today. Dogs that measure 22.5 (bottom of the standard) will frequently weigh over 90 pounds. This sort of "overstuffing" is not consistent with the TYPE described in all of the AKC standards from the beginning of the breed in this country. Wake up and realize that it is not SIZE, but MASS, that is the issue. I guess that an easy way to look at it is our Labs BMI is too high

Okay, just have to chime in here... I remember being at Potomac many moons ago (Gwen Broadley was judging) and listening to Mary Swan and a few other old-timers who were ringside and who were around when the standard was written.

I was told that all (heights and weights)were decided at a fun match at Helen Warwick's home. It was also stated that no one had a scale present and no one had a yard stick or wicket present. They were guess-timates and done after cocktail hour. :)

Now all these years later, we are still going back and forth about what was written as if it were "The Ten Commandments". I don't think that was the intent of those present that day. I think it was to get something on paper to get the AKC recognition taken care of so that a National Club would be licensed to hold specialty shows. I'm sure it was supposed to be tweaked in the future, but back then they relied more on common sense than the letter of the law. They also depended upon judges to know what was too big or too small, or too over-done or too weedy, to do the job correctly.

Looking back at pictures from long ago, yes, the breed has changed. There are pictures of Potomac BOB winners who couldn't finish a Championship now with a top handler in Nome, Alaska... Having said that, the basics of type were still there. We have sounder dogs now than then, too. The extra substance included extra muscle mass to support hips and elbows. Prior to that time (when most dogs had substaintially less second thigh)20+% of all Labradors had hip dysplaysia...and those were the ones that had x-rays that went to OFA.

There are still lovely moderate dogs out there being shown and bred.

Best regards,

Leslee Pope
Huntcrest

"Oldtimer"...as a person new to the breed (and learning), thank-you for the clarification "not SIZE but MASS" - This certainly makes sense to me!

Is it reasonable to say this "mass" applies to labs in the US? Does not seem as evident in labs from Europe (again, from a total novice perspective).

That is also my perspective. I find that the better dogs around the world are a lot alike and fall into a pretty consistent size/mass range - except in the USA. Perhaps it is our own trend toward obesity that makes the more massive dogs look appealing to us

PS. Thanks to Leslie for the history. I assumed it was Helen Ginnel, Sally McCarthy, Helen Warwick and a few of the other originators that gave us those arbitrary guidelines. For better or worse, they defined a dog of good size and type. The problem comes when we start enforcing someone's "guesstimate" with disqualificatios. I hope I live long enough to see ALL the disqualifications removed from our standard.

I really meant big dogs. Not short legged dogs at all. I just mean a dog that could never get in a duck boat. Tall and big all over. Balanced maybe.

Labradors were seldom used from a boat in their native country. That "too big for a duck boat" is strictly an "American" concept I have heard quoted over and over - it has no basis in fact. Study the history of fowling in Scotland in the mid-1800s to get a better idea of what was expected for this breed.

I seriously doubt of you have seen a Labrador over standard in the ring in the last decade (25"+). It would have been measured out since it would have TOWERED over the 22" dogs in the ring. I have seen a few that are quite tall - one in particular that is an English import - but nothing over standard. Again, I invite those who think the dogs are too "large" to actually measure them and recalibrate their "eye" for size.

Here is my concern, and since I "know" Toni and he knows me, I'll respond to his post.

Toni, you are right in saying many labs wouldn't make it to the ring if a scale was put outside. I guess the point that concerns me is (I think) I know when I'm up against more bone than what is correct for the work of a normal lab. I'm only 6 generations into this now though. The problem as I see it is we aren't seeing many show labs that actually *do* the performance work at levels above the novice ones, so it's hard to evaluate where we are really at. We used to have truly athletic labs winning in the show ring as little as 8-10 years ago.

I want my dogs to look good but at the same time, make the breed proud when I'm competing in performance events. I love it when people say "Now THAT is a labrador!". If we continue to add so much bone, coat, etc, to the breed, we're going in the wrong direction.

Not a popular comment, I know.... but since I know Toni used to have field/hunting labs, he'd understand.

Yes, athleticism has become a thing of the past in the majority of Labs in our culture. We have become sedentary, and our dogs reflect ourselves.

But even more concerning is the fact that most Labs receive little or no mental stimulation during each day. Labs are supposed to be biddable. Yet how many of them are trained to do anything--even a lower level performance sport? The lucky ones are those who are at least taught to get off the couch, but too many live out their lives in kennels and crates. I see mental wasteland as even more problematic than the fact that most of them do have the physical stamina or physique to hunt.

I guess this conversation stems from watching Westminster. I watched the video of all the dogs too. Don't get me wrong, they were all beautiful dogs...but the first thing that popped to my mind was why are they ALL so gosh darned big. Over done whatever. My dogs don't look like that. I do well at All Breed but don't waste alot of energy on Specialities other than my own.

Personally, I can't stand what the "specialty" dog look like. Overdone is an understatement. Breeders will say that my dog doesn't need to be able to hunt pheasant all day, or get in and out of a boat, or this or that. But to me it is just excuses, excuses.

These are working dogs and should be able to put in an honest days work. These dogs in the ring can't. Plain and simple. Any breeder trying to say differently really doesn't know what they are talking about.

There are the occasional BISS that can work, but it is remarked on as unusual, not the norm. And that is a sorry state for this beautiful breed. Name me five BISS dogs in the past 18 months that has more than a JH. There are still DC in Chessies, so what has happened with the Labrador?

Not all breeders or owners of labs hunt. Many just love the breed and enjoy other venues with them. That could explain some of the reason there are not as many with their hunting titles.

I disagree with you. If you care to use your name I would be pleased to supply the names of my Potomac winners and other BISS with advanced titles.

I think that making comments about dogs that are specialty winners not having working titles is just plain incorrect. Note that the BOB last night at Westminster does have a JH (he is also a BISS & BIS winner). If you go through the specialty show catalogs, many dogs do...but don't always have time (or money) to get both titles at the same time. So often they do either field or conformation first, and then follow with the other.

Kendall Herr's "Decker" is an exception in that he had been trained at the same time as campaigned in shows. But he also went on to get his MH.

The economy has hit a lot of people hard that used to train in more than one discipline. When that happens choices have to be made. Many people also, gee, have to work for a living, and do not have the time to campaign and train in more than one area at a time.

Best,

Leslee Pope
Huntcrest

What happened with the Labrador is that it takes more than 15 dogs to make a major in almost all parts of the country. Finishing a Lab is much more difficult than finishing a Chessie! You can have a very nice dog and not pick up any points. If you are running in advanced stakes (and my boy went four for four in MH tests last summer - do I know what I'm talking about?) your dog is on a truck for at least 6 months a year. I have shown in breed and won and had him run in a MH test several weeks later, but it doesn't happen very often- actually once. He came back to me last fall with every rib showing. He was in great shape health-wise, but there was no way he looked his best for the ring. His coat was not good, and he needed to gain a few pounds. By the time he was ring ready, most of the local shows were over. I had to wait several months to get him in the ring. We'll be showing for three or four months, but then it will be back to the field. So he'll probably attend at the most 10 shows while he is in prime condition - and now he's decided to blow coat! It's winter in Wisconsin - why is he blowing coat? I'll consider it a great season if he gets a major - he did get a point at his first show. He beat 8 dogs for one point - that would be a 5 point major in Chessies! With his three wins he'd be close to finishing! Remember that every owner of those dogs that he beat thought their dog was worthy of entering - that they could win points toward their championship. I have been showing him myself but have decided to put him with a handler because I can't go to enough shows myself to hope to finish him. Because of his field work and my work that pays the bills, as well as having a litter, in the 12 months we got to 7 or 8 shows.

So the point of this rambling narrative is that it is tough to fit in a show career with the field work; shows and hunt tests are often scheduled on the same day. You can't go to both. You have to have your dog in top condition for the show ring to be competitive ,and it is tough to do that if they are running in the field every day. And even if they are in top condition, you have to beat a lot of nice dogs to get that championship in Labs. As for BISS, you need to get to more than one or two specialties a year to maximize your chances of going BISS. That's REALLY tough to schedule along with the field work. And you have to have a dog that's nice enough to beat a dozen champions or more. I'm amazed that anyone could manage it.

That right there proves the point. It is remarkable that he is a CH/MH. It's not yep he got his MH too.

Getting a JH is a beginning title, I was asking for those that have advanced titles. Ones that prove a dog can actually go out and mark, run blinds, are bidable enough to be a team player, power through difficult conditions.

Again, I ask for the names of 5 in the past 18 months that have more than a JH. There is a way to do it, economy or not.

Peggy, why should you have to change your dog from a hard working condition to show him? Does not anybody see that as inherently wrong as a working dog, that he has to put weight on to show?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslee Pope
Note that the BOB last night at Westminster does have a JH (he is also a BISS & BIS winner).

Kendall Herr's "Decker" is an exception in that he had been trained at the same time as campaigned in shows. But he also went on to get his MH.



"That right there proves the point. It is remarkable that he is a CH/MH. It's not yep he got his MH too."

What is your point? That Decker got his CH and MH titles during the same time period or that he got his MH at all?

My point is people in the breed ring find it remarkable that he did both at the same time. I would love it to be NOT remarkable.

I agree that it is "remarkable" when Labs have titles at both ends (and I don't limit myself to hunting titles or advanced titles when I make this statement). If you look at the Westminster entries, for example, you will find only four of the 43 dogs entered had performance titles of any kind, and two of the dogs were owned by the same person.

When I go to trials of any kind, I just don't see many Labs competing in conformation. When I take classes, I don't see many Labs who compete in conformation. Where are they?

In answer to Kate's question - (I do obedience and some field work and quite a bit in conformation) - I think what part of the situation could be - is that it expensive and time consuming, to do lots of obedience training at the higher level. Lots of breeders do not keep all of the show potentials that were selectd from litters - they just don't work out. So, to start at a young age and work obedience, it would be very disappointing to have to place these dogs because they can't keep what they can't show. Once I determine that I have a good obedience potential - I keep in mind the show ring, but would not place the working obed. dog if it wasn't competitive in the show ring.

Kudos to those who prove their dogs in more than one venue. Sporting dogs (we are a sporting breed, not a working breed...there is a difference) need the proper type of mental stimulaton, conditioning and exercise beyond what is required for the show ring. Titles at both ends are what we should be looking at, not merely who wins at a particular show. These dogs, and their breeders and owners are out there if you are interested and will look for them. I've seen Potomac winners, BIS BISS & Group winning dogs who have done well in Rally, Obedience and Hunt Tests - even at the more advanced levels. It can be done. It takes dedication, money and above all else, TIME! It does not happen overnight.

Not sure what list you were looking at but there were 38 Labradors entered at Westminster.

"Peggy, why should you have to change your dog from a hard working condition to show him? Does not anybody see that as inherently wrong as a working dog, that he has to put weight on to show?"

Because he looks better with a little flesh on his ribs! I also think it is healthier to have a reserve of fat - he was positively anorexic looking. And it certainly would serve as insulation in the duck blind. These field people often have to put wet suits on their dogs for hunting. Isn't that as much a joke as being fat for a breed that worked in the ocean off Newfoundland? Jake is NOT fat at the present time. He is all muscle - my obedience instructor went over him a few nights ago on a stand for exam. She wanted to do a conformation exam, and I let her. She had a wow moment- it's all muscle. Jake has a big head, too. His balance is better if he is not skinny. That said, most of the dogs we compete against are too fat.

We are doing obedience of the "off season". He got his RN and RA last year and is now almost ready for the RE and CD. Our problem for both titles is the stand. He is so ingrained with SIT, SIT, SIT, that he tends to deal with a tense situation by sitting. He's getting better, and I hope to have both titles before he goes back to the trainer to get his last MH leg. He likes to jump, and retrieving is obviously not a problem, so eventually we'll try for a CDX. I've never liked the signal exercise in utility- hate training for that and don't see the usefulness (actually, the broad jump fits into that category, too), so we probably won't go that far. I'd love to try agility, too, but he may be getting a little old to start that. A litter brother has his AKC novice title and some CPE titles and has won at least half the classes in which he's qualified (he gets a little wild and sometimes knocks down one of the first jumps before he settles into his run.)

Excuse the bragging, but I do think that some conformation dogs can do it all. I have been trying to breed a dog with Jake's potential for years. I've had one MH, but she was too big and had too many failings (light eye, longish ears, etc.) to finish in conformation. She did have points and a major reserve. And I've had several champions, but, although they got their JHs, they lacked the drive or in one case the smarts, to go on to the advanced titles. It is tough to get it all in one package, and the people who have Ch MH dogs deserve the admiration that they get! I have found that breeding to a stud with a JH title is not a guarantee of getting dogs with the ability to do the advanced work. Jake is sired by a Ch MH.

I *prefer* to see hunt test titles since this is a hunting breed, but I'd be ecstatic to see more CDs, and especially CDXs if the hrt titles are out of the realm for folks. Rally just doesn't do it for me-- nice little starting point to get your pup onto the show grounds, but almost any youngster should be able to do the RN and RA exercises if their handler can read and follow directions.

Do I understand why people don't do more w/ their dogs? Absolutely... it's tough to get motivated w/ 7 + a puppy here currently. Just crating them all so I can have 1 on 1 training time is a pita. Realistically, training for obed thru CDX is quite inexpensive and one of the least time consuming as compared to hunt tests and agility especially (which I also do). I can do all the foundation obed training in my own backyard and 3 trials at roughly $28 a piece is a pretty doable thing even though I live in the sticks and am generally burning a tank of gas each time too. Does every dog love it? No, but at least if you do need to place them at some point, they have some good foundation training there and you have some real knowledge of how they think and what they may be capable of. I learn a lot about not only their trainability but their ability to handle stress while working independently. Some dogs are fantastic in the backyard but look like slugs in the ring because they are soft tempered. That's all good info for future breeding, imo, but when we know so little about the studs out there (because they aren't asked to do anything but bait for liver and wag their tails), then it becomes pretty challenging to breed for the whole package.

I'd seriously love to see more of the show dogs to prove they are both physically and mentally capable of doing at least a CDX if field work is not possible. A JH isn't that physically or mentally challenging, but it at least its a way to showcase instinct and basic trainability. It saddens me to see so many disregard the trainability part of the breeding equation. Anne

Not that I am advocating training for Utility if you and the dog aren't into it, as it is a lot of work, but I do have to address the usefulness of the signal exercise - it has been a GODSEND for my almost 15 year old UD dog who is pretty much completely deaf. Having an easy way to communicate with her has eliminated a lot of frustration on both our parts.

When you say that "few BISS winning dogs can work" , you are making an assumption. There's no basis in fact unless you've observed these dogs attempting and failing at the job they were bred to do.
As for the fact that many Labs don't have multiple titles: again this doesn't mean that they can't - more often it is because of the owner's interest or available time.
I work fulltime and have limited time for training and competing. So I choose the competition that I am most interested in and compete there.
I don't compete in hunt tests. Would love to. But time and geography get in the way. Florida, particularly extreme South Florida, has very few, if any, fresh water locations that are alligator free.

The signal for come is certainly useful, but I don't find that hard to teach. It's the standing, lying down, sitting without moving that I find over the top. My problem with old deaf dogs, and I also have had some, is getting their attention when they can't see me. I live in the woods, and they can be 100 feet away and completely out of sight!

And there are those of us who would LOVE to Hunt Test our dogs however, we do not advocate killing hundreds of beautiful ducks in order to do this.
It's a waste, it's cruel and until they start using dummies, I'm out.

The purpose of a non-slip retriever is to find game that has been shot. If a duck has been shot and cannot be found, the hunter is entitled to shoot another one, so working retrievers are conserving wild birds by finding ones that would otherwise get away- and probably die a painful death.

You actually can train a dog to a JH without shooting any ducks- I've done it. You do need to introduce the dog to either live birds or freshly shot birds because if they have had only cold birds or bumpers, they may not pick up a flyer at a hunt test. But the tests are for hunting dogs, and a hunting dog must be willing to retrieve what the hunter shoots. I don't know of anyone who hunts bumpers. I will admit that it is not feasible to train a MH dog without live birds because of the emphasis on steadiness. Bumpers are not nearly as exciting for the dogs as live birds. There is a non-AKC competition that uses bumpers. It is made-for-TV sport, and I don't recall the name.

I understand the objection- it's not my favorite aspect of the sport, either. But speaking only for myself, I would not want to work with a breed if I had a moral objection to the main purpose for which the breed was developed and is still being used. I guess this attitude disturbs me so much because there are already so many factor mitigating against keeping the working ability of our conformation dogs, that it worries me to have the breed in the hands of people who are fundamentally opposed to activities that are necessary for the original purpose of the breed.

My comments (about the "remarkable" nature of titles at both ends) have nothing to do with proving that a Lab is capable of working. I already know Labs are incredibly endowed with potential for performance events. What I don't know is how such an intelligent and biddable creature tolerates as little mental stimulation and challenge as most of them get.

Given the paucity of conformation champion Labs with *any* performance titles, I'm not looking down my nose at any performance venue. Whatever event motivates a breeder to train their dogs is fine with me--and, I'm sure, fine with the dogs. Hey, trick training or freestyle dancing is quite fun for both dogs and people, even if you don't get a title. Dogs will just be happy that someone loves them enough to get them out of the kennel or crate and train them. Ask the dogs; they know the truth of what I am saying.

Kate, I don't think the comment about BISS dogs not being able to work was made in response to your post. Anon has been asking for the names of BISS winners who have advanced working titles. I think this person is not cognizant of what it takes to get an advanced working title AND finish a championship, much less win at a specialty - the commitment in time and energy, and the incredible competitiveness of the show ring.

And I agree that it is too bad that so few labs get to do performance things. I have 10, and while we've earned several WCs, four MH passes, and eight obedience and rally titles in the past two years, I still have several sitting around doing nothing, especially during the winter months. Mea culpa!

Peggy, I think your dogs are the lucky few who get training--and exercise.

I never thought Anon was posting in response to me.
In fact, I think the whole discussion of how many conformation dogs are too massive to get performance titles is an example of limited thinking.

Limiting the discussion to how many BISS winners have other titles underestimates the whole scope and the nature of the problem of overweight and/or unexercised and/or untrained dogs. It isn't just BISS winners or MH titles. The majority of conformation dogs are competing in only conformation, and their breeders don't see beyond that little arena.

The problem lies not with the dogs. The problem lies with the people who don't train or even exercise their conformation dogs.

Soon enough people who tried performance events would discover that exercise and training would be extremely difficult for dogs who weigh more than they should. The dogs would have to lose weight in order to train and compete in performance, just like it happened for your dog.

Soon enough people would discover that they had too many dogs to exercise and train in their kennel or even afford to hire a handler/trainer to do it. Dogs pay the price when breeders focus only on conformation.

Had my 8 month old pup out last week at supported shows/specialty. She took her class every day BUT both her breeder (a breeder/judge) and the handler told me I had to put more weight on her for her to be competitive.

I've shown obedience/rally for years and trained/sold started hunting (field) labradors in the past. I did up her food a few weeks before sending her out and put about 3 or 4 more pounds on her. She was quite a bit chubbier than I like for an 8 month old pup. But still too lean according to the handler and breeder!

A breeder who does both conformation and field work said she can't go from one to the other b/c there is a 20 lb difference for conformation vs. field condition!

On the other hand, my vet with a Curly Coat Retriever finished a SH title on her dog the same day as it took WB for a major. She ran the dog on the land retrieves, her hubby drove it 2 hours to the show where a handler took her and got WB, then he drove back and she did her water retrieves all in the same day :) It would sadly be impossible to do with a Labrador 1. need more weight for the show ring, 2. Need too many dogs in the ring for majors.

There are some judges who will reward a physically fit dog. I have put points on dogs who were in serious field training a the time they were shown. But you're right. It is harder to get points without porking them up. And that definitely can backfire on you. I was showing a girl a number of years ago who was doing pretty well, but everyone kept telling me she needed to be heavier. So I put about 5 pounds on her and her front movement fell apart. I took the weight off, and she finished quickly.

Peggy,

I think you absolutely nailed it about needing so many dogs entered for a major. It has forced a divide in the breed, because it pushes us to be "specialists".

I have often said that Labs are probably the hardest dog to finish(there are some others that could make an argument), but I have not heard anyone make that point so succinctly.(sp)

Mike

To GG - I hear you . There is no way I would send a dog for a duck in alligator infested water.

Agree 100%. I have 7 that are old enough to train / compete currently and can guarantee you I'm at my limit. I skipped a match last night because it would have made 5 days/nights in a row for training (and that doesn't count the fact that I do obed training here in some fashion daily or that I like to get the group out for a 3 mile run). I can't imagine having 15-20 as many show breeders do. I understand it may take numbers to be a successful show breeder, but in the end, the breed suffers because of the lack of training toward working titles is eventually catching up to us (imo). People can say what they want but just because a lab retrieves a tennis ball doesn't make it a "retriever". And I'm not buying into the argument against hunt tests either. The ducks, etc, used at hrts are raised to be used in training, pure and simple. No different than the cattle or pigs or turkeys, etc. that end up in the supermarket. If the idea of hunting is a problem to so many, I wonder how those folks can be considered a steward for this breed-- a gun dog.

5 pounds maybe...but certainly not 20. Either you are running an emaciated dog in the field or showing that same dog (with the 20 added pounds) in an obese condition. Either way is unhealthy and can cause serious health issues.

Have to agree with the pound issue! I run my dogs in hunt test and show them at the same time IF they are in coat. My girl in and out of coat looks like she's lost/gained 10 - 15 pounds!!

Please note I was quoting another breeder!! Personally I would never do this to my dog, but as my original post said, I added 3 -4 lbs and was told the pup was too lean when I feel she was in perfect condition before the 3-4 lbs!

I would never have my dog gain or lose more than 5 lbs. also. Up and down weight more then that is unhealthy for a dog or person. There is no reason for a 20 lb. difference. The breeder who claims that is nuts.

If you have enough money to special a dog, you have enough money to spend at a trainers. I know how much it costs. I think they just don't care.

"Rally just doesn't do it for me-- nice little starting point to get your pup onto the show grounds, but almost any youngster should be able to do the RN and RA exercises if their handler can read and follow directions."

Do you realize that they actually need to know more commands and do more detailed healing for Rally, esp RA, than for a CD? Yes, you can talk to a dog in rally - but rally does show trainibility. My 4-H kids have a lot more trouble training for rally than for obedience and they are more likely to disqualify in rally than in Novice (our county 4-H is run by all AKC competitor leaders -if kids qualify in 4-H they can go directly and qualify in AKC).

I think an RA title means quite a bit - you have to send them over a jump and then they come back to heal, they back up, etc. - nothing of the sort with Novice obedience.

Yes I do know what they need to know for a RA title... Mine are usually doing RA concurrently w/ their CDs at ~12-18 mos. The back up 3 steps isn't until Exc btw, and all you have to do is *attempt* that station and if the attempt/s fail (are allowed 2), you just lose the 10 pts for that station. You don't NQ that day (unless your score is under 70) unlike the traditional obed ring where if you fail an exercise, it's an auto NQ. Since my dogs tend to do better offlead than on (a handler problem lol), I actually like the RA better than RN plus it has some useful pivots for field work later. Again, not a slam, but rally is intended only to be a starting point for training for the traditional obed ring. Too many are just looking at it as a meaningful title, and missing the true intent-- training. What other venue can you fail up to 3 exercises and yet still Q?

I see what you're saying - the thing about obedience I don't like is the finish - I wish I could use hand signal AND command.


On the other hand, with rally, first time I NQ'd by missing a sign :) talk about handler error :( As you can tell from my post, I get confused with rally - we have shown up to RE and I had the exercises mixed up.
So I still find it less stressful to show obedience - the judge tells us what to do and we're just the robots - no thinking involved for the easily confused handler My kiddos always place in obedience, we haven't always placed in Rally. But yes, thinking it over again, I see it's easier to NQ in obedience so it is the more challenging of the two. Still, a RN means a lot more than a CGC which some brag about

Well, I'm just back from a 3-day all-breed show with a large enough entry for majors in Labs. Both Rally and Obedience were also offered and had large all-breed entries.

One of my dogs was entered both in Rally and Conformation. He was the only Lab who competed in both Conformation and Rally. One other Lab who competed in obedience had competed in a few puppy conformation classes in the past but no other Lab had a record on InfoDog of ever competing in conformation.

However, many conformation dogs of other breeds (a great many with conformation championships) competed in both Rally and Obedience.

Arguing about whether obedience or rally is more challenging misses my point that AKC conformation Labs have largely split off from both performance competition. Yes, a few still compete in both conformation and performance. But most do not. Nor do they compete in performance venues in numbers comparable to conformation dogs in other breeds.

Who cares whether obedience or rally is more challenging? I am just thrilled when I see any conformation dog competing in any performance event offered by any registry. When conformation disconnects from performance, we lose perspective about how a Lab should look to function well and about what kind of temperament a Lab needs to perform well. We also fail to provide our dogs with a rich and varied mental and physical life.

Folks I finally found the footage I was looking for. It is a Lab that has short legs and well quite frankly is fat. And it is doing Rally. Despite the short legs and roundness she gives a great performance and run. Take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVwrA5QRyg

Nice, though that looked more like *agility* to me ;) And here's an even SHORTER legged one doing agility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppcS6E9hVqc

Agility Yes- should not type when half a sleep

There is also the Southwest that has seen an increase in Pythiosis. That's enough to keep my dogs out of the water.

You folks have made my day! What extraordinary athletes! So biddable. Moving with fluidity throughout the course. I really would like to know how these guys were trained.

With food??????

Given the hamster's ability to do a long sequence of behaviors without cues or food, I suspect a clicker or other marker, food, and a darn good trainer.

When you click on the link--on the right side are other videos and one shows how to train hamsters to do tricks

Wow, there's a whole subculture of hamster training. So cute! Too bad she doesn't use a clicker because she could get the behavior faster with a clicker. She said she spent a week on one trick. Gosh, that's an eternity in a hamster life. Thanks for sharing this. I found it delightful.