I thought I would throw this discussion topic out for you long time breeders and judges. In the previous post you all discussed what judges are putting up, but mainly the posts were directed to all breed shows. Now, I for one, am quite appalled at the obesity of the dogs/bitches that are being put up at the specialties.
I have heard the word "substance" being used frequently to describe an obese specimen. So, does substance eqate fat? Have our judges and breeders forgotten what these dogs are actually bred to do? Some of the winners can bearly move around the ring two or three times, let alone hunt for an hour with their owners.
Judges are judging the dog on that particular day and when the dogs are presented more than 20# over their correct weight, are they still the best dog in the ring? Are we wondering why we have so many health and reproductive problems when we look around and see what we are doing to the dogs we love?
Not looking to start any bashing and not a troll, just an observer who would like some other opinions on this matter.

I love a dog with substance. It can even be overdone.
I love the expression you get from these dogs. If you are going to a specialty you had better have one with more than less going on. These are some top dogs being shown. It is very hard out there these days. A moderate dog is not what wins at specialtys
Its not what we go to see. More sound, who knows.

More substance, more bone, more coat...at what point do we stop and realize that breeding for winning is not in the breed's best interests?
We have done little to improve structure, little to improve the incidence of ED, we are breeding TVD and epilepsy into our dogs at an alarming rate, all in the name of winning instead of breeding. We fool ourselves that we need to let structure go for one more generation in lieu of type or size, and justify flocking to stud dogs who carry TVD or epilepsy or who have failed clearances for the betterment of the breed.
I thought that better type, proper structure and correct movement were what separated specialty labs from all breed labs, but I am not seeing this so much recently. I admit I prefer a specialty dog, but I am very worried for the future of the breed.
It is nice to win, but we all need to keep perspective and take a good hard look at where the breed is going and what role we are playing in that

In my area I see a lot of over done Labs at the all-breed shows and Specialties. One breeder made an interesting remark--breeders will breed for bone, substance, coat, tail, etc but few think about work ethic and drive. There are those who do but this breeder admited it was not one of their considerations. May be it should be as well. Over done dogs of whatever breed rarely can perform what they were orgiginally bred to do. Some will drop weight for hunting season and put weight on for shows. Gee, what does that tell you when the standard states that they are to be shown in working condition?

The standard describes a moderate dog with good substance. Overdone dogs are not what is described in the standard so I am curious as to why that would be what people go to specialties to see.

As far as overweight goes, I really do not understand why we are seeing so many of them - dogs that can barely make it around the ring once without gasping. In no way does that represent a true sporting dog and regardless of its structure, coat. etc., if a dog is not in condition to go out and work ON THE DAY, the dog is hardly an ideal specimen ON THE DAY. WE control how much our dogs eat and how much exercise they receive, so it appears that people who continually show out of shape dogs must like a fat dog. To me, that is so unfair to the health an well-being of the dogs themselves.

It is ironic because we try to instill the importance a proper diet and exercise with our puppy buyers, yet we bring poorly conditioned dogs to shows. Just because some people like the look does not make it correct.

Frankly, if a judge has to choose between an overdone/obese dog that has good structure or a moderate dog that is generic, I would rather see ribbons withheld than either one be rewarded, because neither is ideal.

I always wonder, how do you know the dogs put up were 20# overweight?

Everyone tells me my bitch needs to lose weight, but once you get your hands on her, you know that most of it's skin and the rest is muscle, and you can feel ribs easily. OK, so she is 3# over standard, at 73#, but when I drop weight on her, all that happens is her belly sucks up and the rest looks the same.

I am still new, but to me it seems that if a dog runs over the weight standard, but is fit and in working condition, that would be OK. I definately know I've seen quite a few flabby labbies out there that wouldn't last an hour in the field. But for the most part at the shows I've attended, I have always felt that the dogs winning were consistenly good representations of the breed.

Wow, flocking to stud dogs that carry TVD and Epilepsy. Please tell me who. That would be crazy. I don't know anyone who has and know alot of show people. Maybe its an area. Or maybe you just know alot of stuff. I just don't agree with you about what others are doing for the breed's best interest. If you like moderate dogs, breed them and take them to all breed shows. Don't think everyone is breeding for substance. A ton of us like working dogs, but with substance and soundness. JMO

Just because you might not know what is lurking behind some dogs doesn't mean it is not there.
This is not to accuse people of their practices because it is none of my business who they choose to breed to...I can either use those dogs or not. If you think I would actually name these dogs or breeders on this list, you are nuts!
BUT, it is my business to worry about the direction our breed is going in and I am very excited that they may soon find a genetic test for TVD because it is lurking behind many a pedigree. Nobody goes looking for trouble, but I think that sometimes priorities do get skewed.

We finished a girl of mine a few years back with a nice, consistent record - she was winners at least one day nearly every weekend shown. Almost EVERY judge that saw her made some comment to my handler about her girth. Things like "she certainly doesn't miss a meal" or "she stands too close to the food bowl" or other sly remarks. However, every one of them retracted the comment as soon as they went over her. She was not fat anywhere, but had good spring of rib and short, deep loin. The appearance can be deceptive on a really short-coupled, deep-loined dog that has good spring of rib. It is NOT excess weight, but bone structure...... and it IS called for in the standard!!

Having said that, I also see dogs in the ring that are just plain overweight. Their straight underline is due to a sagging belly and the ribs are so buried beneath fat you can't even tell the shape of the actual body. Weight is being substituted for structure in many cases..... and that is NOT called for in the standard!!

No, did not expect you to name any names. Just did not know about so many stud dogs out there with these problems and have not heard. Know I have heard "things" on some. But you put enough dogs together and you will get something bad after a while. Know that.

another example of the blind leading the blind wearing rose coloured glasses...

I would put a little overweight dog
up If it had everything else, Coat,
Bone,Substance,Beautiful Head and
Expressions,Fat otter tail, Correct
front,Great Hams and Turn of Stifle,
tons of body, Happy go lucky attitude
rather than a "Generic" as you call it,
because it conforms more to the
"Standard"of a working dog...

We do not all work our dogs, that
does not mean they cannot work!!!
My fattest dog in my Kennel has a
SH!!

Sounds like you did not do well
this week-end.

P.S. My dogs NEVER miss a meal

I have to smile when I read this thred. Just today a friend (in another breed) said to me, "your girl could go in the lab ring and kick butt right now"
Yep she could because at 50 days post breeding, she looks like some of the b*tches that are winning locally. I keep her in working condition and even now, she has the same engergy level and stamina she had before being bred. Although I do agree that some dogs that look overweight are not always, and it can be substance, but I believe that is the exception rather then the rule.

There are two issues here--people show fat dogs because judges put up fat dogs. If the judges do not know the standard and that our breed is supposed to be shown in WORKING condition, that is a flaw in the system. We all know that dogs are put up that are too tall, too short, too fat, etc. etc. The judges rarely use the option they have to not place a dog in a class because it does not meet the standard.

If judges place FAT dogs, then people will put extra weight on their dogs to place.

The second thread about paying attention to trainability and retrieivng instinct has been covered before. I am always amazed when someone asks, "what characteristics do you breed for" on this list, no one ever lists retrieving instinct or working ability.

For a breed that has RETRIEVER in the name, we have a lot of people doing it a disservice by breeding dogs that can't do the work the breed is supposed to do.

With that said, I doubt this forum will change the way things have evolved within our breed


MK

Have you ever had a Labrador that
just smelled the dog food bag and
got fat??? Have you ever had a dog
that got fed 2 cups a day and was
still fat? If not, you have not had
enough Labradors. Have you ever left a
40lb dog food bag on the floor and
had another dog eat the whole bag
and not gain a pound?

They are all different, just as
we are.

I have had a to die for bitch,
in full coat, totally correct,
and the 400lb judge had the nerve
to tell me "I can see she has not
missed a meal"

I was thinking after I Left the
ring...Which I would have never
dreamed of saying to that judge,
"Neither have you"

I hear this expression a lot and I am not sure I fully understand what it means.
Please can someone explain "Generic" when describing a labrador?

Thanks in advance

The point is that a fat dog should not be presented as representing type in conformation shows.

We have all had "fat" Labs at one time or another, but we shouldn't show them when they are obese and out of shape--and we shouldn't have to put 10+ pounds on a working dog to get a conformation judge to LOOK at the dog.

MK

You might find some value in reading an article I wrote some years back on the topic.
http://www.nimloth.com/labtype.pdf

Thank you Maureen
Very valuable

Please don't confuse a Lab with substance to an obese lab. If you have your hands on that dog you might realize that they are far from obese, they are just loaded with substance.

I've seen the opposite, dogs that are moderate winning over the dogs with substance because that is what the judge prefers.

Again, don't confuse lots of muscle with fat. Ask if you can get your hands on that Lab, then voice your opinion. Some do have extra weight, one in particular that I know of but few that I see that are "fat" and too many that are way too moderate.

Until you're the judge and actually feel that Lab you may not know for sure. That is just my opinion and I have not been afraid to ask if it's okay to have my hands on a dog I like.

Fat Dog Owner you may have a to die for bitch, but your own temperament leaves much to be desired. Why would you ever make a snide comment about someone's weight,even in jest?

What about the moderate bitch or dog with no coat, too long of a ratty looking tail finishing because the owner goes to every show available with their handler in tow. They rack up the points at mostly all breed shows with a dog or bitch that I would place if mine.

It seems to go both ways and then right where it should be. A good amount of substance, not obese, just alotta dog there. I would rather see that then a rat tail, light coated bland lookin' labrador.

The All Breed judges sometimes read the standard but don't know what they're looking at. I did say sometimes not all the time.

This sport is a person's opinion. What they like & feel is correct is put up.This is the same reason many ask about a judge and don't show to a judge they think won't like their kennel style. If you do your judge research like your pedigree research you won't waste money on entry or handler fees'. Some have it all mapped out and know when to show their type and when not to.Planning goes a long way for some dogs that don't deserve to finish. JMyOp

Skinny---You said it the same way I would. What a nasty, mean comment that person made. It was uncalled for and they need an attitude adjustment. What has happened to this sport?

People like Fat Dog Owner is what has happened to our sport. People need to think before they speak and be kind to others.

Rocheby Royal Oak produced TVD. Most folks know this so it shouldn't be big surprise. stay clear of this boy no matter how far back,
be careful of the west info kept quiet trust your
instincts just cause they're well known doesnt mean they are honest

"What about the moderate bitch or dog with no coat, too long of a ratty looking tail finishing because the owner goes to every show available with their handler in tow. They rack up the points at mostly all breed shows with a dog or bitch that I would place if mine."

Are you saying that if the type of dog a person has is something you wouldn't keep and the owner uses a handler and wins at all-breed shows, that makes the dog or bitch undeserving of a Championship?

A judge is not there to fault judge nor to be unkind to the person handling chubby labby. we should not talk about a person fat genes or fat genes of a dog. The judge didnt think and wasnt very nice. We all know how we love a show dogs!! we are proud to have these beauties. I want a judge to love our dogs, judge them and pick a winner. If I dont ask why I lost or why I won.......... who cares!!!. Four points five points it a win a big one. good advice. The dog weight should fit his or her body. If you have to trim your dog nails... he is not getting good exercises.If he stinks hose him off, or swim him in the lake. if he wags his tail he is happy for goodness sake. Doesnt mean he should win or lose because of it. I have never herd of a judge picking the average dogs for class ribbons,this is imagination going crazy.

I must have met the same judge! He was gasping for air and could not even lean over enough to even get a feel of their structure.
My boy weighs in around 100 lbs. - not an ounce of fat on him, about 1 inch under standard. I have had him at 93 lbs and he looks like he is anorexic. I have never had anyone comment that he is fat although this may have been the all-breed judges thought when he gave him the Reserve vs. the WD that was cow hocked. I will take a well muscled bigger boy over one with poor structure any day!

He can work just as well at either weight.

Everyone must remember that muscle weighs more than fat so do not go by weight alone. Also, I will not even venture to make a comment on a entries fitness or lack of unless I can put my hands on them!

The standard does call for a moderate dog with substance. It also calls for other stuff, much of which is so subjective it defies description. On the subject of substance, it mentions without lumber or clodiness. Very scientific anatomical terms, huh? Exactly what the hell is "lumber"? Eyes should be the color of "burnt sugar". Okay. Burnt for how long? The tail should reach the hock. Which end of the hock? A long hock, or one that is "well let down"? No wonder the all breed judges don't know what to look for in a Lab - all they can do because of the way the stupid thing is written is to fault judge. That one's got this, he's out. That one doesn't have this, he's out. Oh - that one doesn't have anything wrong that I can see, exactly - but I can't seem to find a description of that anywhere. Oh well, it's been two minutes so I better make a choice.

Read the LRC Standard, then go read the FCI standard - the one that applies to everyone else. Compare the number of points in each standard that can be used to mark a dog down. Then tell me you can read the LRC standard and begin to have any idea. That's why so many people on this thread and others like it, as well as so many breeders of "other breeds" who are standing in the middle of the ring, are so utterly clueless about this. It seems to me you saw a whole lot less of what people are complaining about now before the LRC standard became the laughing stock of the rest of the Lab world. Bottom line, don't try to tell anyone about substance or much of anything else regarding Lab type using "the standard" to support your position. The current LRC standard has been a travesty ever since its inception.

Well, I hate that names were mentioned, but there are many pedigrees linebred on TVD producers and I'm sorry, but I do have to question where the priorities lie in these instances. TVD as we know can skip several generations and clearing parents means little.
Is it repsonsible to continually breed back to the get of known producers in this case? I am not saying this to point the finger, rather than to prompt people to take a step back and take a long hard look at what is behind a stud dog, no matter how winning or popular he is, or how many people are using him. We can't breed to clearances alone, but we shouldn't go looking for problems either, especially ones that can rob young dogs of their lives. This is a whole 'nuther league from PRA and HD

Well the way to change that is to join the LRC and get the standard changed. I'm sure you aren't the only one that feels that the standard sucks and yes they should change it. But, reality check, the LRC is the parent club, they rule! So, instead of just complaining, do something about it! The AKC will only recognize the LRC not any other labrador club! Remember the lawsuit!!!

I went to an all breed show recently with two friends, one a judge of Newfies, the other shows Beagles. We were standing by the Lab ring, one asked how come they were showing Basset Lab crosses and the other asked if we should really expect these fat dogs to do a days work in the field. I couldn't defend what they were seeing because because it disgusted me as well.

It is indefenible. No amount of protests changes the fact that the majority of those dogs winning are obese.

I think your comments were hilarious and oh so true. I own those "fat" dogs and have shown under that fat judge too. Those who were offended - don't be so thin-skinned - you should be able to find humour in anything. Try it, life becomes a lot more fun!

When I was looking for my current Lab I talked to a lot of breeders about drive and trainability and they responded that their Labs were smart. Obviously they had no idea what I was talking about. So, if they don't know what that is then they obviously are not breeding for it.

With my moderate boy I have had judges tell me that I need to bulk him up. He is in working condition because he works just about everyday. Have seen judges pass him up for fat dogs who labored around the ring with skinny whippet type tails, etc. So, what does one do? All ready a member of LRC.

Face it--it appears that fatter Labs are here to stay. To win one must get them bulked up. There are a few who win that are not but the majority are. Even one of the breeder seminars at one of the Specialties they admitted that their dogs were fat. These are some of the more respected breeders, too.

Makes me sad when my dog friends who show remark about how fat the Labs are and how terrible they look. That makes me so sad. Some use to be in Labs and they could not stand what was happening to the breed. Sad.

I don't have too much to add, I've enjoyed reading this thread.

I do however have a chocolate bitch who looks fat and may be she could stand to drop 5 or 6 pounds. She might gasp for air once around the ring, but let the dog loose in the field and you won't see her again for hours or miles.

I thought about attempting a point-by-point reply to your post, but then figured out that you had already presented your primary position in the identity you chose... CONFUSED! Unfortunately, you may leave a lot of other people the same way by rattling on about things you clearly do not understand. I think it is best to just leave you in your confused state, because getting informed will probably be a huge task that really doesn't interest you.

Just in case you want to start your journey to enlightenment about this breed, you might try learning as much as possible about its history. Then read 6 or more books on canine anatomy and physiology. After that, you may be ready to consider the original function for which the breed was developed and how that determined the anatomy that was selected.

When you have all that under your belt, THEN you can begin to read the various standards (and there are more than just 2) for meaning. Interpreting a standard is NOT for novices (as your comments demonstrated). Both what is written and what is left out say a lot about the form that supports the designated function. It was written for people who know dogs, anatomy, breed history and function. It must be read in that perspective to even begin to be understood.

Could someone please tell me what TVD is?

Got me thinking. Maybe things are going to go the way of the Quarter Horse association. Back when I was into showing QH in halter (conformation), back in the 70's, there was "one" Quarter Horse. Been out of showing in halter quite awhile, but now I hear there is a separate halter class for "performance" type horses, which to my thinking would be more the original look of the QH I remember back in the 70's. When I got out of showing in halter, the Thoroughbred influx of blood was just getting into it's hay day back then with the Appendix registry, and we were seeing the taller QH in the Halter classes.

If a judge made a comment that my dog hadn't missed a meal I would take heed and take it that I should get a couple of pounds off my dog to be competitive not as an insult.

So Maureen,
what type of dog do YOU personally look at in the ring?
The flavor of the year or the truly functional structure type?

I think they needed to encourage the "performance" horse breeding so that someone might actually have a halter horse that could WALK after the age of THREE!! LOL!!!!

But I agree with you. Those halter horses DO resemble our fat labs. No functionality other than standing and looking pretty! .

YUCK!

Uhhh... I hope that's not what I said!!

My point was that eventual divide in type was so much apparently that a separate class for halter (conformation) competition was thought needed. Who would ever have thought, huh, with our good ole American QH?!

If you go to the AKC website, you can easily view my past judging record. It should tell you anything you want to know about what I look for in the ring. If there are times when I seemed to reward dogs you might question, understand that I felt they were the best on the day from what was entered. I can't control what is entered - only what I select from them.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

So Maureen,
what type of dog do YOU personally look at in the ring?
The flavor of the year or the truly functional structure type?

I guess that came out wrong. I didn't mean to sound accusatory.

What I was hoping for was to learn what you liked in a Labrador. As I try to learn with all breeder judges. It's interesting the vast differences in tastes.

So if that question sounded rude, I apologize. It wasn't meant that way.

I really didn't take it as rude and gave you a straight answer. If you would like to discuss what I value as a breeder and judge, feel free to email me privately. I enjoy discussing dogs and especially Labs. In fact, it is often hard to shut me up

"We" are not all breeding tvd & epilepsy into our dogs. Many of us have had the heartache of placing our show (& breeding) potential dogs when these things show up in their parentage lines.
Any responsible breeder considers multiple factors in their breedings.
Can you tell me where it's written that we can't breed for appearance AND health? I must have missed that in my genetics courses.
Beautiful substance, bone & coat, all of which contribute to the dogs' being able to do its job, don't exclude eliminating hereditary health problems.