Let's talk about the standard. Let's start with General Appearance, Size, and temperament. We'll move on with the rest of the standard later. I'm including the British standard for the sake of a educated discussion.

AKC:
General Appearance
The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion. Physical features and mental characteristics should denote a dog bred to perform as an efficient Retriever of game with a stable temperament suitable for a variety of pursuits beyond the hunting environment.

The most distinguishing characteristics of the Labrador Retriever are its short, dense, weather resistant coat; an "otter" tail; a clean-cut head with broad back skull and moderate stop; powerful jaws; and its "kind," friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament.

Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort. The typical Labrador possesses style and quality without over refinement, and substance without lumber or cloddiness. The Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog; structure and soundness are of great importance.

Size, Proportion and Substance
Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds.

The minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age.

Proportion--Short-coupled; length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper. The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long or tall and leggy in outline. Substance--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat.
Temperament
True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the breed as the "otter" tail. The ideal disposition is one of a kindly, outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards man or animal. The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog. Aggressiveness towards humans or other animals, or any evidence of shyness in an adult should be severely penalized.
------------------------------------------------------
British:
GENERAL APPEARANCE : Strongly built, short-coupled, very active; broad in skull; broad and deep through chest and ribs; broad and strong over loins and hindquarters.

BEHAVIOUR / TEMPERAMENT: Good-tempered, very agile. Excellent nose, soft mouth; keen lover of water. Adaptable, devoted companion. Intelligent, keen and biddable, with a strong will to please. Kindly nature, with no trace of aggression or undue shyness.
SIZE: Ideal height at withers: dogs 56-57 cm (22- 22,5 ins); bitches 54-56 cm ( 21,5 - 22ins).

The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper.

I find this confusing. Most dogs (Champion for this purpose), and definitely what I like, have their brisket come down way below the elbows giving the impression of a rather deeper chest.

Wow - great photo to help illustrate your point. I do have a question? The dog with less front is posting. That causes the chest to look diminished.

I think that when the pro handlers stack a dog - they get them to leen forward over their shoulders - it gets the illushion (poor speller) that the dog has a more disireable front.

My biggest problem with the standard - the english type style and the field style while covered under the same standard look so different. They look like a totally different breed.

The English type seem to be most closely aligned with the standard if you forgive weight and length of leg.

The field bred labs are a long way from the standard - but possess significantly better athletic ability - they fly in the field and seem to handle rough terrain better. The field bred labs, handle marathon days in warm weather in the field better.

My oppinion. I have been in the breed for 4 years - and still don't know what I don't know - really dangerous!

There are myriad things "wrong" with that standard, one is the obvious. The use of SUBJECTIVE words as opposed to OBJECTIVE words to describe the dog.

ie:"--- strongly built", "moderate stop", "---slightly longer", etc etc.


So much is left to interpretation and taste. What one judge sees as moderate, another sees as overdone. The same can be said for the entire standard.

Even the height, which is clearly OBJECTIVE can, and does, cause much consternation. So many breeders have taken bigger is better and taller is equivalent to being better. 23" is the bullseye. We are seeing dogs which are a bit taller and getting bigger all the time.

I do not like the big Labs. Just not what I think of as a medium sporting dog. And today in the ring some are so tall and then the body is big to match. Coats are really off also.

What is the functional purpose of having a brisket extending to or below the elbow? What makes one better than the other besides what is pleasing to your eye? If you don't know why you are purposely going against the standard, maybe you shouldn't??? If you know why, please explain to me so I can learn.

This statement in the current standard is one that is totally out of context with the rest of the standard. It reflects the perception of one group involved in writing the document and is in DIRECT conflict with the description of the chest later in the standard.

How can the chest taper BETWEEN the front legs if it does not extend below the elbow? The chest is never BETWEEN the front legs unless it is lower than the elbow. There are many contradictions within the current standard, but this one is the most glaring. The two descriptions define completely different forms with completely different functions.

I appreciate that this does nothing to clarify the standard. It just points out that there are contradictions that must be interpreted by studying the history, purpose and functionality of the breed. Many standards have these points of contradiction because the people who write them have differences in how they view and use the breed.

Thanks for asking!!! At least you have an inquiring mind rather than an unsupported opinion.
The Labrador was developed as a water dog. Traits that contributed to excellence in the water took precedence over those that favored a primarily land retriever. To be "tireless" in the water, the structure had to allow the dog to "float" easily so that most of the energy expended was for locomotion instead of flotation. Watch a pointer swim and you will see how much more effort is required just to stay afloat.

A deep (front to rear), well-sprung body with some keel below the elbows helps the dog to balance in the water. A short, tubular body changes the balance point and flotation. A long loin also changes the floating center of gravity. All of the elements that have vague, subjective descriptions have to be interpreted as if they were "functional" for a water dog. The first line of the "BODY" description gives a good overview of the desired shape:

What I wonder about the most is the difference in standard between UK and USA! Why can't there only be like one standard for the breed and which standard is most correct? I am guessing the UK standard as the breed was originally from UK?

Each country has its own standard. Most countries follow the FCI standard. If I have to pick one as the correct standard, it would be the Canadian standard. After all that's where the breed originated. I'm not sure if the Canadian standard follows the FCI standard too.

One of the ancestors of the Labrador Retriever, the St.John's Dog (now extinct) was a Canadian breed. The present day Labrador Retriever's country of origin,and the first standard of the breed was developed in Great Britain. While the Canadian standard is a good one, it is not the original standard.

Ok, Good to know.Thanks
So, is the British standard same as the FCI standard?

Although I understand the desire to break parts of the AKC standard down into manageable bits for discussion, the body of a dog is very complex. For example, a dog who appears to have a brisket below the elbow may have a short upper arm or short shoulder assembly rather than a shallow chest or the dog may have a large barrel that spreads the legs farther apart and makes the elbow appear above the bottom of the brisket.

To top matters off you are only discussing the AKC standard. There are other ones.

I am even reluctant to follow the form/function argument to decide what is the best form. For one thing we are hypothetically deciding what form would best suit a function. Studies of conformation in other disciplines (such as dressage horses) has not completely yielded a description of the horses who actually perform well in dressage. Furthermore, the temperament of the animal profoundly affects how well they will actually perform a function.

In short, the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

One of the typical issues with this sort of discussion is that people don't use common terms to mean the same thing. Anyone who has taken a debate class will tell you that defining terms is the first task

The first thing that we must agree on is the definition of "body". We all know what a body is, but some people use the term to describe an "area" of the dog or parts of the bone structure that are not included in the rib cage and spine. Here is an example from this discussion.

I will guess that the writer derived that idea from the part of the standard that states: These concepts are not the same. The height at withers is derived from measuring the front-end assembly of the leg, humerus and scapula, where the scapula stands up at the withers. The BODY is a separate structure that is suspended from the front end assemblies. So, if the elbow is at half of the overall height, the DEPTH of the body compared to the length of leg is not defined.

To illustrate the text in the body section of the standard, here is a front view.

See how the body springs out from the spine, being widest at about the point of the breastbone. It then tapers in so that it easily fits between the front legs, providing buoyancy without restriction of leg movement. This also allows the elbows to be UNDER the largest area of the body for support on land - not at the widest point of the body like corner posts. The standard later addresses this under LEGS:
This relationship of the front-end assembly and body is one of the more important features defining the functional form of the Labrador as a working water dog.

FCI uses the standard from the country of origin. In this case it is the KC (UK) standard. It isn't very wordy. It was written by people who had spent years working these dogs and understood a lot about form and function in action. It was designed to be "taught" to newcomers by mentoring. In this spread out country, many newcomers to the breed are left to their own interpretations and we have slowly developed a VERY wordy standard to make up for the differences in society. Unfortunately, it is no easier to understand without research, guidance and experience. Oh, well.

Maureen, The body is what is left when you take the head, extremities, and tail off. Many things in the body or front leg can influence the position of the brisket in relationship with the elbow.

Agreed. But the height of the body in relationship to the length of leg is not necessarily a "50-50" proposition. In running breeds, the length of leg to height/depth of body is about 1.2/1 - promomting good running ground coverage with less effort. However, that does not determine WHERE the bottom of the body is in relationship to the leg, just their relative proportions. If the body only extends to the elbow, then the dog appears quite leggy. If the body extends below the elbow, then the dog may appear to be about equal in leg/body. That does not change the actual proportion of body to leg and how the dog performs, just the appearance.

The Labrador is described (in the AKC standard) as having a shoulder assembly that is equal in height to the front leg - the elbow is at the half-way point. If the body extends between the front legs as is called for in the BODY statement, then the BODY is taller from top to bottom than the front leg. The proportion is about 1.1 or 1.2 body to 1.0 foreleg. This is nearly the reverse of the open field running dog. If the body only extends TO the elbow as it says earlier in the standard, then the body to leg ratio is 1/1 - the typical proportion for a "generic" trotting dog. This not only changes the appearance, but the FUNCTION of the forequarters.

The eye has to be educated to accept and prefer the "appearance" that is most functionally proportional for a water dog, not a running dog or generic dog.

As I have been competing in dock diving, I have been amazed at the breeds of the best performing dogs. Bloodhound, Whippet, Boston Terrier, and Border Collie have been some of the best jumpers, retrievers, and swimmers I've seen this summer. My Labs have been strictly the middle of the pack, too big and heavy to jump far or swim as fast as the best performers. Of course, desire does play an important role, and as I have become better at encouraging mine, they have done better.

I hear you! Part of that problem is not just the deep body, but the short legs as well. Totally out of proportion.

1) Sometimes you have a topline where the different parts (neck, back, loin, croup) are in proper proportion to each other. But legs are too short for body length. Body depth may or may not be in proportion.

2) Sometimes you have correct leg length relative to body depth, but the loin is too long.

3) But what I am seeing more often is legs too short for the body AND a loin too long for the topline. Double whammy...looks like a big Daschund.

But here is the key! I see #3's winning majors because of GREAT heads, trendy coats (different discussion to have), beautiful tails, strong and level toplines, beautiful fronts, and well angulated rears.

The issue is one of priorities and we all struggle with this.

I don't have a huge problem with these dogs winning as long as it is not a show where there are properly proportioned dogs who also have correct everything else. There aren't too many perfect dogs around! The problem I have is that the breeders and owners of these improperly proportioned dogs often don't realize it and keep doubling up on incorrect proportions. Unfortunately, I think this is happening all too often.

I have attended many "education" offerings on the Labrador over time. In recent years, the mantra "head, coat, tail" is all that is emphasized. One speaker even said that Labradors are easy to judge - just look for head, coat and tail. While these are certainly hallmarks of the breed, one of the MOST important features of Labradors is their unique proportion for doing a specialized job. The general description gives the overall impression one should get from a correct Labrador. If the dog is not medium sized, strongly built and short coupled, the head, coat and tail will not make it a proper Labrador!

Labs really are quite unique in bone proportion. The work (and standard) calls for a long enough neck to pick up game from the ground easily, a long ribcage for heart and lung room, a SHORT, WIDE loin and a THICK tail. If you stop to consider how the individual vertebrae have to change proportion from one part of the spine to another, you will realize how "special" the desired proportion actually is. The lumbar vertebrae are totally different in proportion from the thoracic - as if they were built for two different dogs!

The short, thick, heavily built lumbar vertabrae extend into the caudal vertebrae, which make up the tail. That thickness and strength can be felt and seen at the base of the tail. It is just part of what creates the "otter" tail - but an important part nonetheless. Dogs with long, thin loins (lumbar vertebrae) will tend to have long, thin tails (caudal vertebrae). So, here is a piece of simple logic: If you really want a great otter tail, concentrate on breeding short, thick, CORRECT loins. It is a "win-win" outcome

And my dogs love to eat bananas. I only like black labs. Is it relavent to this conversation about standard. As much as doc diving is.

How do you measure the loin of a dog to see if it is short or long?

Dock diving is relevant if you are discussing what characteristics make a good water dog. Dogs who excel in dock diving have strength and courage in jumping, they swim efficiently and strongly, and they have very high drive to retrieve. They run a very short distance (less than 40 feet) so they could not really be called running dogs. The running start is not the most important characteristic of a good jumper because a dog who has good jumping form doesn't need to run as far as one who does not. The desire to retrieve is arguably the most important characteristic, but skill in swimming gives dogs the confidence to jump greater distances. I've seen quite a few poor swimmers refuse to jump.

My Labs who most closely match the standard do not do as well in dock diving as a certain little Boston Terrier with which we compete.

What makes a good efficient swimming breed is not the same thing as what is necessary for a good long water entry - there is not much swimming to be done in dock diving, and the dog's swimming ability is not evaluated. Waterfowl retrieving often requires a hunt, which is enabled through a structure that enables efficient swimming technique.

Dock Diving has very little to do with the purpose for which the Labrador Retriever was bred and seems to be the water equivalent of agility competition.

My observations are that my dogs cannot swim as fast or as long as the little Boston Terrier (who is actually swimming quite a distance back from the retrieve because she can jump over 20 feet, she has to swim beyond her jump to retrieve the dummy, and she's a much smaller dog than mine whose best jump has been 18 feet). Not only can she do these feats once but she can do them repeatedly.

The first thing I did when I started competing in dock diving was let go of my fondest beliefs about what made a good water dog--and retriever. The little Boston Terrier snatched those beliefs right out of my heart. As you can probably tell, I am in awe of her.

I sure can understand the desire to hold onto those beliefs about perfect retrieving and swimming conformation. I wish I could have mine back. But there were just too many dogs of various breeds who swam and retrieved well to be compatible with those beliefs. And the best Lab retrievers looked like field dogs, not conformation dogs.

I think I will hold on to my beliefs until I see those dogs swim 100 yards out and bring back heavy game rather 20 feet to retrieve a toy. In hunting tests, dogs tend to be hyped up and more likely to break on a bird that is shot up close (within 30 yards or so). It requires less of them and there is instant gratification. When they are required to make a long swim across a pond or a wide expanse of water, the intensity lessens. I want a dog that can do both efficiently with the same level of desire. Retrievers also have the head/mouth conformation for retrieving game, and other breeds do not.

Desire and conformation are not the same thing, although I would expect a retriever to have desire to retrieve game. I have 3 Labs, all of whom swim very efficiently and love water, but not all of them have spectacular water entries. I prefer a dog that is a bit more careful upon entry as that minimizes injury. I have seen dogs in the field injured by sticks in the water, etc. because they were so crazed to go they were not careful.

That's not what you said before. You're back-pedaling as usual. This discussion was not about dock-diving, it's about our breeds standard, the Labrador, not Boston Terriers.

You did this on another topic recently bringing in other breeds. Give it up, please. You always ruin a good topic.

~Blu-eyes~

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. She jumps over 20 feet. She retrieves a much greater distance because a good throw is well ahead of the jump. She is also able to sit at the far end of the dock awaiting the signal to retrieve from her person who is at the other end of the dock. Pretty impressive little girl.

Her conformation, her coat, her breed would not have led me to conclude that she would be as good as she is. But she is one of many breeds who excel in this sport. You can explain her and the other ones away if you like, but they are out there beating my Labs at our own game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Labs can't be good at this sport; we are also being beaten by the field type Labs.

But since when is dock diving what this breed was intended for? Those other breeds may very well do a great job diving off a dock in clear warm water and retrieving a bumper or other small toy. The Lab should be able to retrieve in heavy cover and ice cold water. They need to be sturdy enough to handle a large bird while powering through brush. Dock diving and hunting conditions are not comparing apples to apples. I am not explaining away my beliefs...I am simply trying to understand your logic??

She is beating your dogs at dock diving, which is not "our game". I have no interest in producing dogs that would be good at dock diving, since it is not what this breed should be bred to do. I also don't breed for agility - I expect my dogs to be agile, but I don't expect them to compete one for one with breeds whose jobs require more speed and agility than is realistic of a dog that meets the standard for a water retriever. Are there Labs out there who are? Yes, because people are breeding away from the standard to get that physique. I know a dysplastic Lab that through sheer heart will out-retrieve many other Labs out there - is that ideal or what we should strive for? No, it is an anomaly - great for the owner but it is not something I would strive for in a breeding program. This is how breeds grow to extremes - people breeding for competitive reasons that have less and less to do with the primary function of the breed.

As far as the Boston is concerned, I suspect her coat would not hold up in cold water and a correct Labrador coat would and should. She is not built to break through cover and her head is not built for hunting/trailing/carrying game. So I highly doubt she would beat a Labrador at its game (which is NOT dock diving!) and nothing you have stated thus far indicates that she could. 20 feet is NOTHING in a hunt. She sounds like a little pistol but not a dog I would ever consider taking into the field on a hunt.

Until Labradors are designated as "Dog Diving Retrievers" (fat chance of that!) I am not too concerned about other breeds "beating" Labradors in this venue. The Labrador Retriever was designed and bred to be a gentleman's hunting companion, our breed wasn't built to repeatedly jump off a dock!

And I would love to see how that little Boston measures up against its breed standard.

Kate, I think you made a great point. Although there are no perfect examples or analogies, I understand and appreciate the big picture idea you have expressed. thanks

Who cares? Maybe you should buy a Boston Terrier and be done with Labs.

Thank you! About time someone said it. I thought this is suppose to be Labrador standard talk?

Why does *Kate Ph.D.* always get away with messing up a good conversation frequently talking about other breeds? Now it's about Dock Diving and Bostons. As someone said, the Lab was not meant for dock diving. If breeders want to participate it's fine but it has nothing to do with the standard.

The OP breeder began the subject as *Let's talk standard ~ General Appearance, Size, and temperament.*

Kate it doesn't include Doc Diving and Boston Terriers! Geez is right. Who cares and maybe you should buy a Boston Terrier and be done with Labs. Bye Kate. I will not read your jibberish anymore.

Fed-up breeder: Argue with what someone writes. That is fine. But to attack a person directly is what ruins great threads. Debate ideas and not personalities.

This is an area the modern breed needs improvement. Angulation and/or length of upper arm are definitely problems for many labs.

Yes and this is useful, informative and relevant to the original post.

Michelle, I think your question got lost in all the personal bickering. I was told when I started out that the loin was about one hand wide. If you put the side of your index finger where it meets the hand so it just touches the last rib, the side of your little finger should just touch the iliac crest - the part of the pelvis at the front of the hip. In other words, your hand should fit into the slight "hollow" between those two bone markers.

This is not a very accurate way to measure, however, because it depends on the size of your hand and the size of the dog You could probably interpret it to be somewhat like the "hand" measure for horses - 4". Again, this would really depend on the size of the dog.

Thanks, yes it did get lost in the bickering, thanks very much, I had heard fingers before so I am glad you cleared that up.

Why do people jump all over Kate?

We were discussing how labs are built to SWIM. What better sport than Dock Dogs to actually SEE exactly how your lab is performing in the clean water of a swimming pool?

Yes. Dock Dogs has long-jump and high-jump. They also have a timed retrieve which involves fast SWIMMING at which one would think that labs would excell.

I think Kate's perspective is very pertinent.

Bummer about the Boston!

Are water dogs supposed to swim FAST or swim EFFICIENTLY - they are not the same thing. There are dogs that run fast but they are built for speed - a hunting dog is supposed to be built for a day's hunt, not for a quick sprint or two. Swimmers who excel at distance swimming are not necessarily the same ones who excel at sprints.

If the anatomy of dogs that excel at dock diving is relevant to how a Labrador does its work, I am not getting it from the posts thus far - I am not seeing more connection than the inclusion of water.

I would really like to see more breeders interested in observing a Lab doing its primary job rather than observing dogs in performance sports - yes, they should be able to hold up in various situations, but they should not be expected to move the same way as other breeds given the conditions under which they are expected to work.

This is the precise question I have always had about hunt tests. But the thing is, none of the artificial tests we invent are really like a day/weekend in the field. I agree with your point and disagree at the same time. I think dock diving can tell you a lot about your dog. My first dog was a field trial bred retrieving maniac and we spent hours dock diving for tennis balls. Again, your point is valid but you guys are way too hard on Kate. Tracking, the obedience ring, dock diving, and hunt tests are all tools to help us learn about our dogs physical and mental abilities. I have done them all at different times with different dogs just for the fun of it. I am not an avid hunter but want my dogs to have that ability. Should I not own a hunting breed or should I be like so many breed ring people and not even care about ability to hunt? I think the sentiment of many is that too many very successful show breeders are not breeding for dogs who can perform their historical work. Those of us who are not real hunters do what we can to work toward that ideal. And I think many of us know what it takes to do real hunting even though our tools are not perfect....and many of us don't.

Balance...I think this is one of the most important aspects of a good Labrador. But I have noticed that dogs who appear balanced when standing, aren't necessarily balanced when moving. I often see dogs whose rear drive overpowers their reach, or who open freely in front and do not have the drive to match that. So, I would say an important characteristic of a good lab is balance that properly contributes to effortless movement.

My dogs were fairly fit and trim because I work them in my own pond retrieving bumpers. They love both diving and retrieving over water. They are decent retrievers and will work until they are so tired that they can barely keep their heads above water. One of my dogs gets so excited that his teeth chatter and his body trembles when he is waiting his turn.

So last year when I started competing with them, I figured they would do *really* well at dock diving. And don't get me wrong, they have not done badly. They have simply not done as well as field bred dogs or many other breeds that I would *never* have guessed could retrieve in water.

Competing against other breeds was an eye-opener to me. I don't have good answers about why these other breeds jump and swim and retrieve so well given their conformation--though I have tried out many of the answers I have seen posted here.

But at this point if I wanted to win a contest guessing which dog would swim most efficiently, retrieve best, and hold up over time (and even tough terrain and conditions), I would put my money on a particular field bred Lab against which we have competed in dock diving or the Boston Terrier. She's one resilient and tough competitor.

And if I must account for her skill (or the Border Collie and the Bloodhound who beat us last month), I am no longer sure I know what conformational characteristics makes a dog a good retriever over water.

But maybe the issue of "water dog" doesn't matter as much to the Lab Standard as I once believed. I quoted the Standard above because it was one of the things I reread after my first dock diving contest. Given how often I hear (and believed myself) that Labs are "water dogs," I couldn't find the term in the Standard.

In fact all the Standard's section on movement of a Lab concerns movement on the ground, not in the water. The Standard also doesn't limit retrieving to water. And activities AKC says are suitable for Labs are not even limited to gun dog; the AKC website says that "because of his aptitude to please his master they (Labs) excel as guide dogs for the blind, as part of search-and-rescue teams or in narcotics detection with law enforcement."

So maybe when we examine the Standard, we need to be examining how it helps us create the many-purpose dog that Labs have become.

"....the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions..."

None of our artificial tests do a good job with this. The trot used in the show ring is the endurance gait I suppose but that doesn't help with water and I am not sure that dogs trot much when upland hunting. Having said that, the trot is still the best gait to analyze bone structure.

I think our tests are mostly about attitude. Of course, a dog without attitude will give up well before "long hours" have gone by. But I would not want to hunt with the "hot" dogs I see at tests. So I think we are left with common sense as the bottom line, unless of course we actually hunt with them for long hours under difficult conditions.

When I go hiking with my friends with field bred dogs, they express surprise how well my "fat" breed ring labs do. My dogs have about the same endurance as theirs. My dogs have better conformation but also are kenneled all day while I am at work. Their dogs are much leaner and have less substance (2 different things), but are couch potatoes all day and more importantly, tend not to have as good overall bone structure. When we do recreational swims or throw bumpers into the water for fun, my dogs swim just as well.

I hate that I feel the need to keep my dogs heavier than I would like. If they were lighter, they would really kick the field dog's butts. :) But paying attention to bone structure matters. And the key is that you can't learn what you need to know about bone structure from the Labrador standard. I am no expert believe me; I love nothing better than to sit and listen and learn from the real old time breeders. But books about dog structure in general, hanging around horse people, watching other breeds, going to hunt tests, watching movement in the breed ring, and thinking about a dog's movement when judging him while standing..... and using common sense like hunting dogs should not be fat, and labs shouldn't look like newfies or big dacshunds.

Actually I have learned more about proper conformation from watching my dogs retrieve bumpers and swim. Remove the drive from the structure part of this discussion...because in the end a dog with tremendous heart is going to push itself until it physically is unable.

We are talking conformation. Have you ever watched a dog with an incorrect front swim or run to retrieve. They exert a good deal more energy to get the job done and more impact is placed on that front assembly.

I have a 7 mos old puppy with a lovely correct front and an 8 mos old with a short upper arm and widely set shoulder. Both have good retrieving drive but the 8 mos old has tremendous heart. Yet the more efficient swimmer and retriever is the 7 mos old...she does not wear out as easily and does not take on as much water.

When you watch dogs gait at the trot in the ring you can quickly see dogs that lack reach in the front whether that is due to a straight shoulder or short upper arm. When you watch them swing their legs or put alot of impact on the front it is not hard to imagine how quickly they would break down if worked regularly in the field. You take those same dogs out and do retrieves and swim along side dogs with correct structure and you can see the difference in the effort that is exerted. I know this because I have had dogs with both and the aha moment was when I watched them running, retrieving and swimming.

I don't see dock diving, agility or the performance sports a useful tool in evaluating proper conformation or breed type. These are performance sports. Do you think that all Boston Terriers are going to compare to this one that Kate brings up? Probably not...we see individuals excel in areas...but that is not a test for the breed's ability or purpose as a whole. Don't get me wrong...I think these are fun and fantastic activities to do with our dogs. But when it comes to evaluating breeding stock and function...it is not a tool.

For me most of my learning has been done watching my dogs do what they were intended to do. Not in a hunt test setting but just everyday running and retrieving. I have had the priveledge of watching 4 generations now and hopefully more to come. That has helped me understand how those incorrect gaits we see in the ring correlate and are important to the actual skeletal structure. I do think hunt tests are also a useful evaluation tool in that we are are evaluating the drive and trainability of the animal...isn't that what this breed is about? I know some look down on basic WC and JH level tests...but those level tests tell me if the dog has the drive to do the job. Those most closely resemble the expectation of a companion hunting dog. I do think that the hunt tests and the conformation go hand in hand in evaluating stock...but they are tools to evaluate two different areas...both in my opinion, equally important to the future of the breed.

Just my thoughts.

Kate is right - the AKC standard took our breed out of the water and defined it as a general-purpose dog. The standard requires the breed to be excellent for very diverse working situations that each require specific physical traits not selected by the originators of the breed. Dog sports –
agility, field trials, etc.—require dogs that can run, jump and perform in ways not expected of the original breed. Service work as guide, assistance and search and rescue dogs each favor specific size, coat and build requirements that differ widely from each other as well as from the original breed. In addition, hunting conditions, practices and climates vary around the world and lead to selection of physical traits that differ from the initial breed outline.

My real concern is NOT that our dogs in this country don't look like the dogs of a century ago, but that there is still so much diversity of type — perhaps even more than a century ago. In many other parts of the world, the type and proportion of the average Lab may not be perfect to their standard, but it falls within a much narrower range overall. As long as our country's official standard envisions such a great diversity of FUNCTION for the Labrador, we will continue to have a great range in the FORM that is the expression of these diverse visions.

"For me most of my learning has been done watching my dogs do what they were intended to do. Not in a hunt test setting but just everyday running and retrieving."

To me, this is an important statement. Just watching the dogs running around and playing can teach a ton. I love to watch puppies and I tend to learn more about their confirmation than when my breeder friends come over and we hand stack them all on the table. Watching pups trot around the yard and seeing them stack themselves. The ones put together most correctly are obvious.

"My real concern is NOT that our dogs in this country don't look like the dogs of a century ago, but that there is still so much diversity of type — perhaps even more than a century ago. In many other parts of the world, the type and proportion of the average Lab may not be perfect to their standard, but it falls within a much narrower range overall. As long as our country's official standard envisions such a diversity of FUNCTION for the Labrador, we will continue to have a great range in the FORM that is the expression of these diverse visions."

This is a deep statement worth much thought. I can see it both ways. I have been critical of lab breeders in the U.S. for having so many "styles" of labs. I have intuitively felt like we should have a more consistent vision. But on the other hand, diversity of "style" is good as labs are supposed to be a versatile breed. I remember reading Mary Roslin-Williams explaining that good judges can see quality within different "styles". She explained how different "styles" of lab were needed for different hunting conditions (which us non-hunters may not have thought of). That said, many of the specifics of bone structure should not vary as much as we see. Good bone structure is good bone structure, and bad structure is bad no matter how "typey" the dog is.

Good bone structure for an upland game dog is NOT the same as good structure for a water retriever. Some breeds were specifically developed to be all-purpose hunting dogs - like the Weimaraner. They are generally not as good at hunting for upland game as a Pointer nor as efficient in the water as a "proper" Labrador. What they gain in diversity costs them in specific performance of each task. Unfortunately, this seems to be the direction the current AKC standard is taking our breed. If I wanted a Weimaraner, I wouldn't have bought a Lab!

Sorry, but this is a big sore point with me about our AKC standard. The rest of the world has a much clearer concept of what makes a proper Labrador, even though their standards are a quarter of the size of ours.

How do you think this dog would do as a water retriever?
*****
A friendly and lively dog. The breed has an excellent disposition and a high degree of intelligence.
The dog conveys an impression of determination, strength and activity, with style of a high order; carriage easy and graceful. The body is rather short and well knit, the limbs strong and neatly turned...
The length of leg must balance with the length of body to give a striking square appearance. ...a sturdy dog and must not appear to be either spindly or coarse. The bone and muscle must be in proportion as well as an enhancement to the dog's weight and structure.
The chest is deep with good width, ribs well sprung and carried well back to the loins.
The shoulders are sloping and well laid back.
The thighs are strong and well muscled, bent at the stifles and set true. The hocks are short to the feet, turning neither in nor out, with a well defined hock joint.
*****
It has balance, buoyancy, strong quarters and a suitable temperament. Its square build gives it an excellent center of gravity in the water. The strong thighs and rear conformation should make it a good "jumper" as well as swimmer. Yes... you guessed it. This is from the standard for the Boston Terrier.

And now what might be your point Nimeloth? This is a Labrador Breeder Forum, not a Boston Terrier Breeder Forum. I'm sure you can find BT Forums if you look. I'm here for the Labrador breed, not for the standard of a BT.

The first time that little cutie jumped farther than my dogs, I headed for the Boston Standard. And I agree that the Boston Standard looks like a dog who could jump and swim. The retrieving is another matter.

But she's not the only breed that has bested us. We also have the flying Border Collie and the Bloodhound and the Terv. I've taken to bringing my iPad to the Splashes so that I can look up the Standard for the breeds who do well. I am very puzzled. Some of their success can be explained by age; my most successful guy is pushing 8 years old; he would have done better if he had started younger. Some by size/weight/fitness. But age/size/weight/fitness doesn't explain the whole difference. Nor does the Standard of each breed. I think we have not studied enough what makes a dog swim well--fast, far, long or efficiently--to really know the answer about the best conformation for a "water dog."

Most of our trials have been in a pond treated with Pond Black so I can't actually see dogs swimming, but we have also jumped into pools where I can watch their form above and below water. I watch and watch because I am no longer convinced that I can predict from what I observe outside of water what will occur in water. Dogs do not swim as they run. They move their legs in ways that is not the same as a trot on land. Of that I am sure. About most of the rest of the differences between a good runner and a good swimmer, I am unsure.

I guess what I meant is that good/proper bone structure for a lab should not be significantly different between different styles of lab. If you prefer a taller or shorter lab, the proportions and angles should still be roughly the same. If you prefer heavier bone, the proportions and angles should still be within the same range.

I am making the point for discussion and am not arguing the point. I just don't think what I wrote is what I meant. Of course, I do see your point that different breeds should have different bone structures, and unfortunately I see a big variance within our breed. But, I am wondering if I should be less concerned with size/substance differences than with angles and proportions???

Yeah, I see the variance within our breed too. And I like the idea of angles and proportions being a focus.

At the same time, I wonder how one of those Labs my dogs can't beat at Dock Diving would do in the conformation, especially if the angles and proportions did not include as much bone and as much hair as Specialty dogs have.

A few things I've noticed over the years I've been doing field work:

Some of my dogs have had rather short upper arms, but good shoulder layback. They moved beautifully on the flat- some floated effortlessly over the ground, and others really powered along. I prefer the floaters, myself, never tire of watching them! They all swam well (so do the ones with proper angulation). My trainer always makes a comment about how a new puppy of mine we're just introducing to water swims correctly the very first time. Many of the field dogs "puppy splash" for quite awhile before they settle down and swim properly. I have wondered if this is a structural thing or a temperament thing. But the dogs with short upper arms had to be careful running down a slope with a heavy bird in their mouths to avoid going head over tea kettle. There was a dog in training with one of my trainers (field-bred) with poor shoulder lay-back. It was such an effort for him to cover ground that he never did get his MH. It was almost painful to watch him try to cover the ground.

Is the Lab a water dog first and foremost? An interesting question. Certainly the St. John's dog needed to swim to do its job, and the original imports to Great Britain were used for retrieving in the water. They have always been used in the water in this country. But British field trials (and it was the British trialers who drew up the original standard) don't seem to require water work at all, from what I've read about them and the videos I've seen.

Most water retrieves while hunting are more in the form of dashes instead of long distance swimming. Maybe we're talking 200-400 yd dashes instead of 50 yard sprints. Watch an avid Lab do a water retrieve - they are putting everything they have into it like a human running the 440 yd- they aren't pacing themselves like a dog that is covering a field searching for game. But coming back they have a heavy weight in their mouths! I'll bet on my slowest swimmer against a Boston terrier with a mallard drake in its mouth. I've watched national championship dock diving events on TV, and Labs and Lab mixes are usually near the top. But upland hunting would be done at a trot, not a gallop. Most "real" retrieves are short dashes, not 300 yard long field trial marks. A working upland hunter spends most of its time trotting. A hunting dog needs some leg. The standard saying that the distance from elbow to ground is the same as from elbow to withers is good. I personally like to see the chest extending below the elbows a little bit- maybe 1.5 inches in an average-sized dog. And why can't we all agree to show dogs in hard working condition?

Interesting observations about the shoulder Peggy and length of leg.

I don't know what dock diving championships you saw on TV. I know of 3 venues for dock diving--Dock Dogs, Ultimate Air Dogs, and Splash Dogs. All offer titles, 2 offer UKC titles, and 2 have national rankings. There may be other venues, but I'm not familiar with them.

In the venues in which I have competed, Malinois and BCs are some of the top competitors nationally. I know of a really talented CBR (who is also a MH) as well, but last year a Catahouli and a Pitbull mix were jumping close to the distance of an outstanding Malinois. All the top Lab competitors I have seen have been obviously field bred dogs (maybe they looked like mixed breed dogs on TV). All these dogs are not only excellent jumpers but excellent retrievers and swimmers; they have to be to get to a national ranking.

I'm not saying that conformation type Labs don't participate, but I've only seen one (other than mine) in the Splashes this summer. I know there are more. But the only one I saw this summer had difficulty jumping, wasn't especially motivated in retrieving, and was a slow swimmer. At first I thought the dog might be old but he was not.

I know that Dock Diving is not a wonderfully complete analogy to hunting. But there are probably as many or more dogs competing in dock diving now than hunting, and dock diving offers a comparison point among breeds that hunting does not. Truly no dog is retrieving a Mallard, but they are retrieving. And in the pools we can examine how their physical attributes are used in the water.

Dock Diving been a sobering experience for me, causing me to do a lot of thinking about what it really means to be a water dog and how important that is to Labs, especially those competing in conformation. I've read the Standard again and again, trying to figure out the questions that Dock Diving has caused in me.

So the title of this thread is Let's talk standard, etc. How foolish of me to think that would be the subject of discussion. Should have known better the instant I saw Kate's name. Oh well - I'm outta here. I'll leave this to pet people and newbies. It has stopped being a "great thread". As usual.

Actually, the event I watched (I think it was Air Dogs) also gave the breed of the dog, so they were described as mixes. Believe me, Kate, I have seen lots of field bred Labs! I know what they look like. Also, about popularity, there are 154 dogs entered in Masters at the Island View hunt test this coming weekend, and over 100 in the lower stakes. 208 of those entries are Labradors. Madison, next weekend has 169 Masters entries. Three of the seven other AKC hunt tests this coming weekend in various parts of the US have over 80 entries in Masters, plus almost 100 in the lower stakes, and probably the same proportion are Labradors. There are 5 field trials, each with 60 to 100 entires in Open alone. A conservative estimate is that there will be 1200 Labradors participating in AKC field events this coming weekend alone. There also are UKC and NAHRA hunts tests. Here in Wisconsin, at least half of the dogs I sell participate in hunting. How does that compare to the number of LABRADORS entered in dock diving events? Remember that pointers and setters have their own hunt tests, and Border Collies and Malinois have herding events, so you would need to count participants in those events to get a really meaningful comparison.

The only application I see for dock diving to the original job of a Lab- retrieving- is the preference for a big water entry in field trials. In fact, I prefer that my dogs do NOT develop a big water entry because they are more likely to be injured if there is something beneath the surface of the water. If you are hunting with such a dog, you have to know the water you are using very well to be sure your dog will be safe. Friends of mine have had dogs injured by jumping in on a snag. I have only had one family with one of my puppies who were interested in dock diving. They stopped because they do a lot of boating and realized that they were encouraging a behavior that could be dangerous when they were around the docks. This dog runs in agility and either wins his class or NQs, so he is a hard charger.

If I were going in for dock diving, I certainly would not pick a heavy boned, long coated show Lab as a competition dog. The good dock diving dogs would be longer legged, shorter coated, and lighter boned like the field dogs. I don't find this surprising at all.

Stop it. You're the one who keeps trying to hijack the thread!

Same here. Well said Hijacked again... as it was, by Kate.

If anyone has listened to the MSW recording from 1986 that Carrie Eberhart was selling a few years back, MSW comments something along that lines that the Labrador should have been called the Labrador Water Retriever because that was it's job. I don't have it handy, otherwise I would use an exact quote, but that was her point. It's a great recording, if you have the chance to listen to it, do it. Very interesting at the end when she starts to compare Labs to other retriever breeds and what makes them different.

And I have to agree. This breeds’ ability to work in water is part of what sets it apart from a Golden; look at the emphasis the standard says in regard coat:

Coat
The coat is a distinctive feature of the Labrador retriever. It should be short, straight and very dense, giving a fairly hard feeling to the hand. The Labrador should have a soft, weather-resistant undercoat that provides protection from water, cold and all types of ground cover A slight wave down the back is permissible. Woolly coats, soft silky coats, and sparse slick coats are not typical of the breed, and should be severely penalized.

And we all know an Otter tail is used as a rudder when the dog swims. Not to mention the webbed feet.



Here, here!

You mean Mary Roslin Williams? MRW? I have the CD, it's great. Carrie might be able to get more if you ask. Worth a try.

Probably you don't have time for dock diving given your competition schedule, but from the descriptions of your dogs fitness and experience swimming/retrieving, they could perform well in dock diving. Of course, I could be wrong because I was wrong about my own dogs. But I'd like to see how yours fared because they sound as if they are moderate in conformation and have great drive for retrieving. One of the best retrievers I've seen performing in diving is a MH CBR.

Ultimate Air Dogs and Splash Dogs offer both their own titles and UKC titles. Ultimate Air Dogs also offer dock diving at UKC Premier and UKC Gateway Nationals. But I'm guessing that Dock Dogs was probably the one you saw on TV because Dock Dogs do have national and even international championship competitions, and I think last year the championships were in Dubuque Iowa. Dogs also win money for placements in their jumping categories in Dock Dogs so competition is fierce.

I would not pick this type of Labrador for breed competition either as it does not meet the breed standard. Good solid bone and a short dense coat, yes.

I have to admit. Although remaining open minded, sometimes when I am involved in different threads, I hope the readers may think what I am writing makes sense. If what I write makes sense, then I hope if people do it, I am having some small effect on improving our breed. If what I write doesn't makes sense, then I hope they will respond and convince me to change my mind and therefore my decisions. That way, the breed is improved either way.

Using "The Standard" to motivate people to reconsider their ways, I find is kind of useless because so many oldtimers have no respect (maybe rightly) for how our standard was developed. Also, many of the younger generation have never developed the ethic of breeding to any standard at all (probably because the oldtimers never instilled that in them). Even trying to get people to pay attention to the English/International standard does not work.

I am not even sure many people will even listen to the rationale of breeding for characteristics that will make the dogs better hunters, even if you never mention any standard at all.

That said, discussions where people respect the concept of having an official standard but are debating what that standard should be... or having reasoned debate as to what qualities make a good hunting dog, even when people have completely different perspectives.... are great discussions to have.

Most provocative and interesting idea. Is the Standard truly relevant to today's breeder? I guess we wouldn't be having this discussion if people weren't interested and trying to breed with the Standard in mind. BUT does the Standard (or breeding to produce better hunting dogs) have the same impact on breeding as success in the breed ring or in field trials?

Kate, By a small chance, have you noticed you're speaking to yourself for the most part? Very few are posting back to you and what you have to say.

If speaking to yourself and putting words in others mouthes helps you get your jollies, keep posting Kate. Otherwise, wake up and smell the coffee that most aren't listening to you.

I post anonymously fully aware of the responsibility to do so civilly. To attack a specific person behind the cover of being anonymous shows a total lack of guts and class. Posts like the one below are just so outright mean and juvenile. I hope Kate has more self control than me and just ignores them. I also hope that Jill doesn't take away the privilege of posting anonymously.

PS Lots of people are reading this thread and not commenting. Do not assume they agree with you. Lots of people are reading and thinking about what is being written. I am sure there are a variety of perspectives among those people.

I guess the ideal that we all should strive for is to breed for better hunting dogs and in doing so, increase our chances of winning in the breed ring or in field trials or hunt tests. The ideal is that the rules of competition in each event, and the judges who apply them, would have the purpose of identifying better hunting dogs. The impact the winners of these events have on the breed is obvious. The winners of these events have more impact on the breed than the non-winners. Which is why it is so important that these competitions "get it right".

Are the best field trial dogs or hunt test dogs the best hunting dogs? Do the best breed ring dogs have the best physical attributes for hunting? Those are the questions we should all always be asking ourselves and each other.

Due to the successful diversity and versatility of Labs, I think we have an increasing dilemma on our hands. Labs may have started out as hunting dogs, but as Oldtimer said earlier in this thread, the Standard and the diversity in the breed now point to a more multi-purpose dog.

I've not been involved with Labs long enough to call myself an Oldtimer but I've been involved long enough to see profound changes in the activities in which Labs participate--and participate successfully! I've seen rally, dock diving, tracking, agility, Frisbee, and flyball added to dog sports that attract Lab owners. I've seen Labs increasingly represented in assistance dogs, search and rescue dogs, and detection dogs. They go to war. They save the lives of people. Hunting is now a small portion of what Labs do. Heck, UKC has recently opened lure coursing to breeds other than sight hounds, and I might give it a try (my dogs might not be built for it but might enjoy it).

Labs are just a very versatile dog. But where does that leave the Standard as guidance for breeding? I just wonder how much people really do use the Standard to evaluate their breeding program.

I love labs in part for their versatility. But being versatile does not mean being the best at everything they do, in fact, it usually means being good (but not great) at many different things. But being versatile also does not mean that you can't be great at something. I have always assumed that the thing the versatile lab was great at was real life water retrieving.

Therefore, we should breed for a versatile water dog. The fact that labs are good at many other things too does not give us license to breed for those things to the extent of breeding away from the characteristics that make a great water retriever.

Off to mow the lawn before it rains....

PS

I don't think that many people use the standard....certainly not to the extent that a standard should be used.

I absolutely wish we had a standard that was well respected. There are certain parts of it that I like and others that I can't seem to understand.

I keep pushing the FCI standard because I believe not liking ours is not an excuse to do whatever you want.

Do you truly believe that people don't use the Standard as they should? And maybe that they can't use it because of disrespect or lack of understanding?

My heart sinks when I read this, but I guess I can see lots of examples of dogs who do not seem to have been bred with the Standard in mind. Of course, it's not like you can order up a dozen puppies who meet the Standard when you bred. But I also see stud dogs and bitches who are bred but are poor representatives of the Standard (at least as I read it, which could be wrong or at least open to other interpretations).

I wish others would post about their perspectives about the Standard and how much they use it as a guide. Would the FCI be better? Do we need to update the Standard so that it more matches the versatile dog that Labs have become?

I don't believe ANY Standard should be changed just to reflect any changes to any breed, especially versatility??? Dogs should fit the intent of the Standard, not the intent of the breeders.

The FCI standard is perfectly accurate as to what a Labrador SHOULD BE. Don't you remember how much divisiveness was caused by the Standard changes in the mid-90's??? The changes made then were to reflect what the 'mucky-mucks' were breeding for and using the dogs for, and what their dogs looked like - NOT what the rest of the world was doing!

I think there are far more people who ignore the standard than those who pay attention to it. I think those that ignore the standard are far more likely to win at specialties than those who pay attention to the standard. But even paying attention to the standard does not guarantee winning at all-breed shows because I think all-breed judges tend to be confused.

I am not sure we should change the AKC standard to reflect what the breed has become. That said, I am not sure how much I like the current AKC standard (although there are parts that are fine). I tend to think we should have historical integrity. Therefore, I advocate for FCI.

I am glad FCI is more general because (as you wrote I think) I am not really sure science has figured out what makes a good water dog. Our understanding of physiology is constantly changing. We need to stay within the type as described by the FCI standard but improve bone structure as dictated by current scientific understanding. Therefore, we must all be constantly upgrading our knowledge beyond the standard. The standard is both the starting point and the limits, depending how you look at it.