I have heard the comments that Field Trial Labs are not considered 'Labs'.

Are they not just different types of the same breed.

What do you think!

We have bred and raised both and Field Labs are Labs thru and thru. They just don't have the confirmation for the show ring. Longer in leg, body, height, head....

Where as bench style Labs do have the confirmation and can also excell in the field hunting.

Our smartest Labs were field bred.

I should say, "some of our smartest" Labs were field bred

While there are a variety of styles within the breed, breed type is defined by the standard and there is only one AKC standard. If breeders are not breeding with the standard in mind, they are probably not breeding for type.

Patty I agree whit you I have a Fiel and a conformation dog and the fild Lab is more smart.

I see the person posing this Q is from the UK but I can only speak to my side of the pond. I am sure I had better put on my flame retardant suit prior to posting this, but I figured what the heck!
First of all there is One AKC Labrador Retriever Standard. If your dog does not meet the standard is it any less loved? Of course not. Should it be bred to continue those particular traits that do not meet standard?? That to me is one of the key questions. The standard is there for a reason. The next question would be can a dog bred to this AKC standard truly be a triple purpose dog as a Lab is supposed to be, and the answer is of course! I would also say that it takes ALOT of work to put CH either end of a dog, never mind on both ends of any dog and my hat goes off to those who have a title on both ends of their dogs. Many have to choose which end to finish for both time and economic reasons. However, again this is just my opinion and I believe that regardless of whether you only run your dog in the field or show it in the ring, breeding to one standard is possible and desirable.

Personnally I breed for
1 - temperment
2 - health
3 - brains
4 - type

Looks are not everything

Ch's are always used as a prefix and go in front. There is no AKC Championship title that is not used as a prefix. AFC, FC, CT, OTCH all go in front. Performance titles, MH, CD, AJX, RN, etc, always go behind the name as a suffix.

I think you must have got me wrong.

I have had dogs bred from some of the top American Field Trial Champions and I have been told that these dogs are not 'real' Labs by American/Canadian breeders.

That is where my initial question came from. I had a nice size on my dogs, with a little slimmer head but 'field trial style'. Very intellegent but not so type.

I am originally from Canada

Dear CH, You are absolutely correct. And while I knew that, you see I did say "titles at both ends," my fingers failed me again! And I am sure that most who read it hopefully will understand that I meant titles at both ends!

My post was not meant to be critical...merely to clarify what some people who not be familiar with AKC titles, etc., might misinterpret.

CH ~ I understood and was not offended. Unfortunately one of the drawbacks of boards like this is that you cannot always judge the way in which something is written. Whereas with the spoken word you get inflection and facial expression. I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and I do try to give every post the benefit of the doubt towards being meant in a positive way.

the only place where one might specifically chose a feild bred lab over over bench dog is if they want to conmpete in field trials here in the United States and win. since style is a great part of the judging as is the task the dog is trained to do,a field trial dog will not win if it lacks style. and so onto the next arguement, what is concidered style?
what about the trained task?
so to answer the question yes there is a difference.
I ran my bench dog in one feild trial and had a ball we made it thru to the third series and i was in no way dissapointed that i did not get any farther
jan

It is clear when one looks at the bench champions and field champions now, they clearly look like "different dogs". It should be remembered though that is because breeders began to interpret the standard differently and breed their dogs accordingly. If you go back 15 or 20 years, and look at bench and field champions, there is not that great difference in "look". The standard has a lot of flexibility in it, and because of this the "correct" look of bench champions has evolved over time.

15 to 20 years ago there were huge distinctions between bench and field type.
At least 50% of the responsibility for the divergence of the breed in regard to "type" should be shouldered by the field trialers for their breeding choices in producing the kind of dog suited for the ever increasing demands of a field trial.
This situation has been in existence for a great deal longer than merely 20 years.

You'd have to go back 30 years to see any similarity between show and field appearances. If all judges do as the LRC wishes ... witness a field trial or Master Hunter test before being approved to judge the breed, they will not recognize the dogs there as being Labrador Retrievers.

As someone said above, the Lab was developed as a gun dog companion, not the canine version of a Thoroughbred race horse. Field trials and now Master Hunter tests are becoming games and competitons for humans, not exercicies to determine hunting ability. They are tests for determining who can train a robot to do a dog's job. Those who successfully participate in field trials are members of an elite group of wealthy men and women who happen to enjoy competing against each other with sky-high priced Labradors. There is little room for a novice to get into the sport unless they have unlimited funds, private training grounds and a good pro trainer. These dogs are wonderful at what they do but their breeders have lost sight of the written standard because of the pressure of their sport. Show breeders are trying hard to produce dogs who can be a gentlemen's gun dog and still look like the breed is intended to look. If Master tests continue to head towards being mini field trials, there won't be any place of us to test our dogs.


-15 to 20 years ago there were huge distinctions between bench and field type.
At least 50% of the responsibility for the divergence of the breed in regard to "type" should be shouldered by the field trialers for their breeding choices in producing the kind of dog suited for the ever increasing demands of a field trial.
This situation has been in existence for a great deal longer than merely 20 years.-

We certainly may disagree on the time line for when the differences between field and show lines became greater, but I think my original point is still valid. There was a point in time, not so very very long ago, considering the history of this breed, where lab confirmation champions, as judged according to the breed standard, did not look terribly different from field lines. I am not saying exactly alike, but not amazingly far apart either.

Put differently does anyone think a champion show lab of today, looks like a champion lab of 20 or 25 years ago? Keep in mind the breed standard has essentially been the same for 50 years. Can anyone say the interpretation of the standard by breeders has not changed over time? Think not!

No, conformation champions today do not look the same, exactly, as conformation champions 20-25 years ago. But field champions don't either. Conformation breeders have evolved more substance (arguably too much, perhaps, in some lines). Field breeders have continued to evolve sleeker, faster dogs who they can proudly say run like the wind all day long - ignoring, of course, the fact that that wasn't ever the intended purpose of this breed. In my opinion, the extremists on both sides have highjacked the breed for their own purposes and turned what used to be just a difference into a monumental chasm, suggesting that splitting the breed may be the only solution.

The field people have definitely highjacked the breed for their own purposes. The show breeders are just trying to breed to the standard as well as working their dogs in hunting retriever tests. Field dogs don't resemble the standard and maybe none could get a single point at a conformation show.

you know I don't know how simple this would be but maybe the field type Lab ought to be a seperate breed altogether or a variety so there is a seperation of distinction and then maybe there would never be the need for this question at all because we would all know what we are all striveing for is correct to our standard, such as an English Labrador standard: the AKC standard of today and an American Labrador with a standard that is desired by those who field trial there dogs, leaner, taller and so on.

not sure if this is the answer but is a thought

that is my point, if the field and the show lines look act and are so different maybe there should be 2 standards. It is sad that our breed has come or is coming to this

There could not be a seperation in the breed unless the LRC,Inc. supported this. They are the parent club and they are the rep. to the AKC. This split has been going on for a long time, this isn't anything new.
I'm sure the field people have comments about what we breed, I think the LRC,Inc. was started by a majority of field people. Maybe if more confirmation people joined the LRC,Inc. we can change things?

According to record,the fight to keep the Labrador as a working gundog with a single "type" began at the inception of the breed with the aristocracy who owned shooting kennels of the UK. (c.1860) The first "standard" was finally formulatd in 1916. The Vice-Chairman of the Club reportedly wrote a description in 1910 of the Labrador.

In my understanding, when the world lost L. Countess Howe, (this date I do not know, please help) the division and subsequent rift between the field trialers and bench competitors took a good hold, but had been idling since the onset. I have also researched that this division took a harder turn in the 1960's when more speed and style became of prominent intrest to the UK trialers. Paths of obtaining this were documented in the stud books in England.

This "fight" seems to be about 150 years old. And history repeats and repeats and repeats......

I personally think having a separate variety would be tragic and lead the extremists furthur apart. I firmly believe a dog should should win it's class at the local show in the morning, accompany the hunter in the afternoon efficiently retrieving game, and be the pillow for a child's head at night.

I agree with ol' fashioned! Why does it have to be a versus situation. Why can't you have both types be happy with that. There are some breeders that like good looking performance dogs and interbreed the types. The horse is starting to decompose - let's stop beating it.

I have read all of the posts regarding this subject with an interest I seldom have when skiming the Forum. Everyone who has replied, in my opinion, has done so with apparent thoughtfullness and genuine concern. There is nothing more beautiful, in my opinion, then a Labrador who is attempting to do what it was bred for,....Retrieve! Without meaning to stereotype, some do it more successfully then others, some do it with more speed, and some do it with more intelligence. For some of us, their owners, we want them to look like a blue ribbon specialty winner, and for others we don't care a whole lot what they look like, just that they want to please us! But to me they are all Labradors, as long as they have that melting, warm, see right through you expression. There are plenty of show dogs that do a fantastic days work out in the field,and there are plenty of field dogs who warm their owners rugs and hearts. I agree with Ol'Fashioned! It would be tragic to seperate Labradors into two different breeds.

I have to disagree. Most field people breed only for working ability so they are breeding Retrievers only. The standard is what separates a Labrador Retriever from a flat coat or a golden and most field dogs sport rat tails, single coats, long, roached backs and narrow, snipey heads, which is certainly not correct.
Breeders must have an eye on the standard if they wish to breed Labrador Retrievers, not plain old retrievers.

Why does it have to be Verses? Because the LRC is trying to sway the AKC judges to judge show dogs as field dogs look. Read the Gazette article this month!

A Labrador wasn't bred to win a field trial.............it was bred to be a gun dog!Big difference.

We all lived happily doing our own thing until the LRC decided to change the standard.

I think that field Labs have a beauty of their own. A field lab working is an amazing and stunning sight. And watching a field lab move or sit at attention waiting for a mark is gorgeous. But they do not conform to the AKC standard. I don't need to get into the details.

I support a split in the breed. It certainly is not unprecedented. American/English cockers, foxhounds, etc. The field lab deserves recognition for it's own version of beauty, developed for not only the unique challenges of a field trial, but for the different terrain in the US vs. Britain. The pedigrees are rarely crossed, so essentially it already functions as a separate breed.

That being said, the conformation style Labradors must maintain their hunting instincts. Yesterday I took three of my four Labs (the fourth being blind, but he used to hunt) to a pheasant tower shoot and they had a blast. I've worked shoots with one dog that worked all day with a break for lunch, and she did wonderfully. This is real work - retrieving maybe 40-60 birds in a day. You send the dog for one, and the next thing you know, another is falling.

These are all dogs with very strong conformation pedigrees. And they are all strong hunters.

Most show lines are very good retrievers and are birdy.

Many show people have no interest, no training skills, lack training help and grounds for training, or lack the money for a trainer.For many reasons the dogs do not get worked, but this does not mean the dogs do not have natural talent.

I agree that there is a proportion of Field Labs who remind you of another breed, but I have close contact with some, that if they were 20 lbs. heavier they could compete at a show. Remember, there certainly have been some show dogs, that look a bit like another breed. And I agree with Nancy that watching a field dog on the line and in the field can be breathtaking! But the two lines can and are crossed more frequently then you think, and the results are ending up in loving families doing double duty as pets and hunting companions. They are not in field trials,and they are not in the show ring, but they are sound, attractive, Labrador Retrievers.

I do not support a split in the breed and hope it never comes to that.