Comment from a previous thread by Kate Fulkerson:

First some history. I admit to having some personal issues about the current AKC standard. The standard and the way it was put in place alienated many, many breeders of long standing who HAD been breeding to the previous standard. The backlash, resentment and legal battle over the current standard led some to ignore the standard and encourage others to do the same. Some breeders who started shortly after the new standard was approved were advised to breed what suited THEIR eye (or their early mentors) without regard to the new standard .....or ANY standard. I believe that has been a major factor in the widening gap of style and even TYPE in Labs in this country.

So, now we seem to have a variety of "camps" who follow their own ideas without any regard for the history or the standard(s) for the breed. In addition, we have added so many diverse competitions (because humans love to compete!) in which Labradors participate. All of these factors have left our breed and future breeders without an acceptable blueprint for planning the future. It reminds me of the old TV show where they say, "Will the REAL xxx please stand up." Where is the REAL Labrador of today in THIS country?

While I agree that it is time for a new standard that is developed with cooperation rather than animosity, the sort of standard propoosed in the quote above would be a disaster! We already have way too much diversity because the written standard has been ignored for so long. How could a standard that is LESS specific and promotes BROADER diversity in what is desirable possibly HELP our breed????? A document that dismisses the unique special functions on which the breed was developed in order to promote more versatility is just the OPPOSITE of a standard! It isn't a blueprint or goalpost, it is a blank check to build whatever sort of dog one likes. Haven't we had about enough of that?

Those of us who compete in dog shows need to consider occasionally that the name of the sport is CONFORMATION. It is designed to measure how well our dogs CONFORM to the STANDARD for the breed. If breeders and exhibitors won't conform to the current standard AND judges reward that non-compliance, then the breed is already in trouble. Changing the standard to further broaden the variety of TYPE as well as STYLE based on promoting versatility would broaden the divide between various "special purpose" dogs. It would also further divide Labradors in this country from those in most of the rest of the world which ARE bred to a standard.

Yes, it is a dilemma. The resolution is not going to be easy. So many established breeders have not used ANY standard for over a decade and will surely resent a new one cramping their style. Breeders who have been in the breed 15 years or less have never been encouraged to even analyze the standard, much less apply it to their breeding choices. How do people with such diverse visions of what the breed COULD be/do come to a consensus on what the breed SHOULD be/do? The defining issue is whether we choose to PRESERVE the unique, special-purpose breed as it was developed in Scotland a century ago or ignore history and PROMOTE the breed as it is used today.

Being an anthropologist myself, I strongly support preserving the breed for its UNIQUE combination of traits - even though we no longer hunt Labradors as was done in coastal Scotland in the 19th century. While some may think of Labradors as sort of a "generic" dog. Nothing could be further from the truth. The specific, special proportions and physical traits selected by those Earls and Gamekeepers who built this breed are not like any other breed. The various standards over the years have recognized and encouraged this specificity. Even though the USE of the Labrador today is so diverse, I feel the STANDARD should celebrate and encourage the breed as it was originally intended.

Kate's comment quoted above clearly encourages the opposite solution for the dilemma. Compared to the use of Labradors in 19th century Scotland, hunting in this country is different. Terrain is different. Dog sport competition is different - and extremely broad in range from field trials to agility to dock diving to flyball to ...... Each of these activities favors a different structure and function. The dog that is great in water is probably not so fast in agility and (as Kate pointed out) not necessarily good at jumping. The dog that excels at US field trials probably does not have the build or coat for quiet waterfowling in freezing temperatures. How can we WRITE a standard that embraces so much versatility? If it is broad enough to even vaguely describe dogs that do well at every sport or diverse use, how can we use it as a guideline for breeding? We will no longer have a standard that describes what is UNIQUE and ESSENTIAL in our breed, but one that rubber stamps any deviation or (worse yet) generic representative as being "typey."

Old Timer, I think the AKC Standard is irrelevant and am very bothered by the fact that there does not seem to be any well accepted standard that is currently guiding the breeding of Labs in the U.S. I am NOT in favor of creating a new standard that is so watered down that it allows for all the variety we see in labs in the U.S. today.

Do you think that the FCI standard is broad enough to allow for "appropriate versatility" as well as our modern/evolving understanding of physiology, yet specific enough to maintain the historical integrity of the breed? I did not ask whether adopting the FCI Standard is realistic. I am asking an ideal question.

PS I am not sure Kate is advocating anything in particular. I think she was asking a question in response to another post (which was me). Although she certainly may have been Socratically leading me in a particular direction (which is fine by me). Either way, it is a good question to ask. Especially since it resulted in you starting this new thread. I think your post above is fantastic and gives us all a lot to think about. Very well thought through...thanks.

You are correct. I am not advocating any position, primarily because I don't have any good answer to the issue myself. I'm not even leading anyone in a Socratic dialogue to a particular direction--unless the direction is that we need to be addressing the issue of having a Standard that seems relevant to a lot of breeders.

If anything the Standard seems to allow for considerable diversity. So my question was poorly phrased. What I observe is that people are sometimes talking about the Standard as if it doesn't allow the diversity it allows. For example, many people talk about the primacy of Labs as a "water dog," but the section of the Standard that provides guidance about movement is all about movement on land. People discuss the primacy of the hunting abilities of Labs, but the Standard allows for many uses of Labs.

An irrelevant Standard with everyone going off in their private directions just seems wrong to me. At the same time, I don't think we can get the cat back in the bag and go back to the past. If we did, we would be breeding for a use (hunting) that is steadily declining in our population. (I do not equate field trials with hunting).

What I see in performance sports is that a more moderate dog (often field bred) performs better than a conformation dog, especially a Specialty winner. Maybe that is because so few Specialty winners enter performance events. Or maybe the people who breed field type dogs are following the Standard better. Honestly, the whole question just makes my head (and heart) hurt. But I think we (especially our leaders) need to be discussing it.

It seems to me that a more moderate dog would perform better in both field events and in real hunting. But I think both the AKC standard and the FCI standard already call for a moderate dog.

It is clear to me that attitude/temperament/drive are more important than conformation in modern hunt tests.

But I think it may be prudent to forgo the question of whether hunting instincts/performance should be part of a championship like in England. I will defer to the O.P. as the guide to this discussion but I think the questions on the table are: "Is it important to have a well respected standard which is actually applied in making real judging decisions at shows and in making breeding decisions? If so, should that standard be written to protect the historical purpose of the Labrador as a water retrieving hunting dog?"

As a side note and risking going too far on a tangent, many people are frantically trying to save antique agricultural breeds/species (animals and plants). Also, I am not sure if anyone uses pure bred sled dogs for competitive mushing anymore. I am not opposed to knowledgeable people experimenting with cross breeding for specific functional purposes. But I think it is very important to save the original breeds as they have been historically, even if some new breed or combination of breeds actually perform better in modern recreational competitions.

OK... so I have asked the KEY question - the one that must be addressed before moving on. Do we want to preserve the breed based on its history or promote the breed as it is diversely used today. It is a simple question to frame, but it requires a lot of thought and a consensus of breeders to accomplish.

The next idea I would like to explore is just how "bad" our current AKC standard really is. How many think it is not remotely relevant? Well.... I think it essentially still gives an outline of breed characteristics as long as the details are examined carefully. It is only the wordy "editorializing" that creates confusion - plus just a couple of glaring contradictions. By and large, the standard is STILL a useful blueprint for breeders, but only if they take the time to explore it and find the important details.

How do you read and apply a standard? The axiom we all hear is "form follows function." This means that we must READ the standard as it relates to function in order to correctly visualize form and type. If that standard adequately defines the unique and essential attributes of a breed (any breed), then it must FIRST be related to the breed history. Historically, how did this breed come about? What kinds of dogs were incorporated into the breed? What part of the world was its home? What were the climate/terrain/living conditions? Did it have a JOB? How was that job done at the time of development? What special abilities were prized and which were discouraged? If we can put ourselves in the place of those Scot gamekeepers who were the real developers of the Labrador Retriever, we can begin to analyze what working and behavioral traits were important and which simply would not be included in deciding which dogs created the next generation.

Beginning from this historic mindset, the details that are INCLUDED and IGNORED in the standard can be explored to reveal a useful blueprint. How? By using the historical original purpose to fill in the missing information. All undefined attributes must be functional! If the exact length of coat is not given, then it must be extrapolated by understanding what is a functional coat for the work. Would long-coated Labs have been as functional in cold coastal waters? How long is too long? How dense must the undercoat be? Is more better? The standard doesn't give us these exact details, but our historical understanding of the use for which they were developed should provide an excellent guideline for what was a functional coat.

The next big hurdle is to get a working understanding of anatomy. There are lots of books on the topic, but not all agree on some important points. How can you decide what is a "functional" shoulder if you don't have a good grasp of HOW a shoulder differs for a running dog, trotting dog, swimming dog, burrowing dog, drafting dog, etc. This is not an easy task and takes both time and study to get a good basis for comparison. Again, each element described in the standard has to be examined for what it reveals about form based on function. Ask yourself this: Why is it so important for the Labrador to be short coupled? Every standard includes this in both the general description and the section on body. How does that change the proportion of the other spinal bones? How does that change the musculature, body, etc.? How do these unique proportional traits affect function? Since that has been a description of Labradors from the beginning, the function that promotes a short loin form must be important!

OK... I have rambled on enough for a Sunday afternoon. I wanted to offer the idea that even our AKC standard is RIGHT about a lot of the unique traits that are essential to breed type. If we just "cross out" all the editorial filler about the versatility, uses, etc., then we STILL have a pretty good description of the important elements. There are a couple of conflicts (of interest and wording) that have to be resolved, but studying the standard for historical function, one can tease out the correct form when two different ones are included in the document. We have already discussed depth of chest - which is the most glaring of the contradictions. I think the current AKC standard - with all its flaws - is still a relevant document for those who are looking for a good blueprint and want a goal for measuring the CONFORMATION of their breeding program.

Good conversation... Can I add another question? What happened to the Dual Ch? About 30-40 years ago we were able to achieve that. Now with how American is going with the idea that "Bigger is Better" how can a dog that is overdone and WELL over the standard's weight limit be able to compete and become a Dual Ch?? I have seen so many "overdone" dogs with to much bone and to much of everything not move very well and have a hard time getting around, win in specialties and in the All breed ring (not so much in the ABs but still). Doesn't that seem backwards when comparing to the standard? Just would like some clarifying? :)

So far it's staying on the standard. Hallelujah! Let it remain so. T.y. Oldtimer.

I don't think there will be another Dual Champion in Labradors, even in a moderate, typey, biddable Labrador with a great work ethic. Not only has conformation competition changed (it is no longer about evaluating the breeding stock of working Labradors - it has become a social event where winning ribbons seems to be the main goal), but the standard for field performance events have also changed. Field trials are no longer about evaluating the working ability of standard Labradors. It is a competition where winning is also the primary goal. Any time winning is the primary goal (and it usually is for competitive people), changes will be made to ensure the likelihood of a win (so if speed is a criteria in which dogs finish first, dogs are going to evolve in structure to accommodate that, regardless of the breed standard. Likewise, if longer coats and heavy bone are being rewarded over moderate correctly coated dogs, then people will gravitate towards that to give them an edge). As long as winning in competition is the motivating factor in a lot of people's breeding programs, then the standard will become less and less relevant.

I know several people who feel field trials (and upper level hunt tests) no longer represent a test of a dog's aptitude in the field and are more tests of technical skills than natural heritable instinct. I know several people who feel that conformation dogs have become caricatures of what they once were. However, very few people would risk not producing something that is competitive to produce something correct. Even though in the back of their heads, they know things are moving in the wrong direction on both sides, people will continue to do what needs to be done to remain competitive.

I think what makes it difficult is that just like a lot of us believe that many specialty type breed ring dogs would not make good hunting dogs, many of us are just as concerned that field trial dogs would not necessarily make good hunting dogs either... especially for the conditions the originators of the breed dealt with. But I think that if more of us tried to breed for the historically true Labrador, and judges reinforced this with their decisions, there would certainly be many more dogs who could compete in both venues. I know this would hold true for hunt tests but I don't know that much about field trials.

I do know that my first lab had a pedigree full of field champions and was a phenomenal retriever under artificial conditions. She was sound structurally. I am not sure she ever could have spent an afternoon sitting in a blind though....

So, I think this may be another question for another day, but it seems to me that not only should the breed ring people consider the questions at hand regarding the breed standard, but maybe... either 1) hunt test and field trial people should also make sure that the rules of these events correlate with historically accurate hunting conditions, OR 2) we all may need to realize that modern field competitions are for generic hunting and involve many breeds and that maybe it is perfectly alright that a "true Labrador" would not excel under these conditions (but certainly would still do O.K.). Maybe given the versatility required to EXCEL in field trials, a true Labrador might do well but not necessarily do well enough to be a dual champion??? I know that is a ramble but I think it makes sense....

But more focused...I agree with OldTimer that we all should look at the current AKC standard and maybe we will find that there are many aspects of it that are pretty darn good. Although there are clearly problems with it and I prefer the FCI Standard, the AKC standard may not be as bad as many of us make it out to be. I am hesitant though because this is such a divisive issue. Admitting that the current AKC Standard may have some merit will often turn off many of those we absolutely want to be part of this conversation. Typically, rather than debating the current standard, I often say ..."Hey, let's talk about how the rest of the world does this!" That said, I think it could be quite beneficial to point out what is good about the current AKC standard.

A local friend who field trials says it is an extreme sport. It requires an extreme athlete to compete successfully. That extreme dog is not the historical Labrador Retriever described in any standard.

This is such a profound statement. I can't help but thinking how relevant this is to those of us on Wall Street, or in youth athletic coaching, or in many other aspects of our lives. How many of us have the guts to do what is right even if it means making less money or not winning as many basketball games? I personally think there are a lot of people out there who will do the right thing. I love the positive direction this thread is going and I hope when we finish, I will have learned much about what the right thing is. I have learned a lot already. Sooo...what is it that is good about the current AKC standard?

Very good points. Dual Ch. are very much in the past. It is sad to look at the "field trial" Labradors because of how they look structurally. They are very much all leg and are bred for speed. That is not much at all about the standard.

So what are the good things about the standard and what are the bad? Where do we draw the line on things? Do others feel the same as I about having a dog that has some more leg that is structurally correct with correct angles, correct double coat, correct otter tail, and such? I feel that the shorter the dog the more they have problems with movement. I think that the weight should change as we are becoming more advanced and have dogs with more bone that affect their weight.

I would agree with FCI that the standard with AKC and the Parent club is not the best. And unfortunately the Parent Club had more "field trial" breeders that received this letter about changing the standard.

What do others think about the standard? What is good and what isn't?

What's good and what isn't? That was the last question asked....

I'd venture to say that some 15 yrs ago, in open obed... our dogs had to jump 1.5x their height. Today it's just their height. I was looking over the show line up recently and asked myself honestly, how many in the winners circle could jump their height repetitively. Not many.

Not many have the work ethic I'm thrilled to breed to either.

If you are only doing show, you'd not know what else you're missing.

I think our standard is fine (as is the FCI standard). It's a matter of finding judges w/ the kahoonas to judge TO it.

I agree with what you have said. I also agree with what Motivation said about the way the competitive nature of humans skews breeding.

I find the historical perspective interesting and satisfying, but returning to the past is not possible. We can only go forward, acknowledging that the demands of the culture on Labs have changed.

I'm not terribly dissatisfied with the Standard. It seems to lead to a bell curve of possibilities. At the extreme ends of the curve, I'd put many Specialty and field trial winners.

If a dog is bred for jumping and another dog is bred for trotting, they should have different bone structures. It might be important to discuss this. But a trotting dog should be able to jump its height if in condition. This is an example of a good rule change.

Clearly, an overweight dog isn't athletic but I think that is a part of AKC and especially FCI that we all agree with already. That is a matter of judges having the interest and guts to enforce. This may be hard to change culturally among breed ring only people but at least it is not genetic. Many of those specialty dogs are not as fat or have as much substance as they look. It is incredible how much the fat and coat together give the appearance of substance, and coat gives the appearance of fat. We do have to address coat. But both the AKC and FCi standards address coat pretty well too.

As far as attitude..... Attitude actually makes a good show dog. Both standards address this too. Many of the show winners do have good attitude which can translate into work ethic. Maybe not for extreme sports and maybe not even to real hunting unless the dog is brought up in that environment. Maybe I am naive but I do think that many current show lines have good hunting instincts and work ethic for real hunting.

So, I think that both standards address substance, weight, coat, and attitude/temperament pretty well. I think we have to be careful with bone structure related to jumping/galloping vs. trotting.

PS I miss doing obedience work very much. I am not sure obedience is a good indicator of physical characteristics but working with the dogs in obedience tells a lot about their willingness to please, intelligence, if they are biddable, etc. A good Labrador should be a good obedience dog but again, the very best obedience dogs may not make the best Labradors.

And you have again expressed the opinion that spurred me to restart this thread. We have examples of this choice to alter the standard - the blueprint - for a breed based on how our US culture decided it liked and used the dog. That is what happened to the Cocker Spaniel in this country. They were so popular, but Americans who didn't hunt them preferred the dog shorter on leg for its body, more teddy bear like in face (shorter muzzle, domed head, round eye) and with a lot more hair. Sound familiar? They became so divergent from the English Cocker roots that the breed was split about 1940 with separate standards. This is what happens when enough people get into a breed for its appealing temperament and then CHANGE it to suit their personal taste, the culture, different uses, etc.

Consider that the AKC standard for the Afghan Hound was last changed in 1948. The Saluki standard is still in its original form from 1929. These breeds are not used for their original purpose in this country, but the US fanciers opted to respect the history and traditions of these ancient breeds and preserve their special form, even though it did not have an applicable function in our culture. These breeds in this country do not differ dramatically from their cousins around the world.

As I said, we have a choice. We can preserve the breed or promote its alteration to fit our society. We can't have it both ways. How can we begin to address a new standard when we can't agree on this fundamental, guiding issue? I prefer preservation of form and function, even though it is not directly applicable to hunting in the US. Kate has again suggested that we should alter the breed standard to fit the diverse use of the breed in our culture. There is the dilemma: Do we rejoin the rest of the world and maintain the form set nearly a century ago or do we establish our own version - the American Labrador - that fits our varied interests?

Maureen, please do not tell me what I am proposing. I am not proposing a change to the standard.

OK... then please explain the statement I quoted in my post. Either you are proposing changing the standard to fit the dog as we use it here today or you are proposing that we IGNORE the current standard and embrace the variety of changes without any regard to the written blueprint. Which is it? Your statement was very clear in supporting the change in the breed to fit the US culture. How would you accomplish that?

Maureen, please reread all my posts. K

As if one had the time Kate, don't try to hide in your fortress of posts. Just explain the one statement you made. How do we (in terms of the standard, which is the topic) go about "acknowledging that the demands of the culture on Labs have changed"? It is a very straightforward question and deserves an answer.

If you have decided instead that you really didn't mean what you wrote, then simply say so. We all speak in haste at times without thinking through the implications.

Nope, Maureen, I was clear and brief. K

Just answer the question, Kate.

I am hoping I am not too much of a wishy, washy boring moderate. I wholeheartedly support preserving the historic breed of Labrador Retriever. One of the things I like about the true Labrador Retriever is that although it was used primarily as a water hunting dog, it was and is quite a flexible breed. If people want to use that natural flexibility and then breed to enhance certain characteristics that suit their modern performance needs, then fine. I just don't think those changes should be reinforced in the breed ring. That is the key for me. What wins in the breed ring should be most representative of the vision of the originators of the breed. The standard should reflect this historical vision and dogs should be judged by it.

The gray part is that the old time dogs were far from perfect and we should improve them to get closer to the original vision. That is what the originators did and we should follow in their footsteps. We should always strive to make the breed better. But leaving the door open to "improvement" does allow for the possibility of "inappropriate" changes.

I don't have a problem with people breeding for what suits their needs. I am quite happy to call them pure bred Labs. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE MODIFIED DOGS SHOULD WIN IN THE LABRADOR BREED RING.

Kate, Maurene... Maurene, Kate... Kate, Maurene...

Why don't you guys just take this private - no one here really cares to read your back and forth, blind leading the blind, conversation.

YOU are the hijacker!

So spent the weekend studying function first hand at a hunt test. Vega finished her JH and Jake acted brain-dead in Masters. He's been training great all week- what happened? We don't know, and maybe Jake doesn't either! I saw a lot of field bred dogs and a few conformation dogs, including 4 or 5 with MH titles. I think that the best thing that could happen to our breed is for more people to get involved with field work, especially the younger breeders who haven't seen the dogs of the past. It allows you to evaluate the functionality of your dogs in ways that cannot be done in the show ring. Jumping or climbing fences or other barriers is not required in American field events is it is in Great Britain, but a dog must be able to negotiate steep banks, jump ditches, run up or down steep hills and, of course, swim. One of the problems with the show ring is that the dogs have to be judged at a trot and on a flat surface. Some physical characteristics, such as a short upper arm, which can seriously affect running down a hill with a heavy weight in the mouth, do not necessarily have an adverse effect on the flat. I have finshed several dogs who had a short upper arm and moved around the show ring like silk. The trait they were most often complimented on was their movement. But you could see the difficulty they had running down a hill with a duck in their mouth when they competed in hunt tests.

In the hunt tests, people talk about style, which is one of the criteria on which the dogs are judged, along with marking or memory, perseverance, and trainability. Style is the most elusive of these traits to define, but also the one that relates most closely to the standard because speed and athletic ability enter into it, as well as the sheer enjoyment of the task. I've been thinking about the physical properties that affect the athletic ability. Right now, Jake is carrying too much weight for the field, but not enough for the show ring. He is tired after completing two water retrieves, much less a triple and two water blinds. Obviously he is not going to be as stylish as a dog who is not dead-tired at the end of such a series. But last year when he was in hard working condition, every rib was showing, and I couldn't take him into the ring for literally months after the hunt test season ended. That should not be. Judges should be rewarding dogs that are in hard working condition, not penalizing them as they usually do.

When people say that the requirements of hunt tests are not relevant to the breed standard, what do they think is not relevant? I suggest that they do not refer to the physical skills that a dog must have (swimming efficiently, negotiating varied terrain, penetrating rough cover, carrying heavy game birds up steep banks and through various obstacles) but to the things that the dog must learn (running blinds past previous falls or even past poison birds, in line retrieves, etc). If you want to see the functions the standard writers had in mind, go to a hunt test, not an agility trial or dock diving. If you haven't seen the dogs work in such a situation or in actual hunting, how can you truly appreciate the standard- of any country?

I don't run my dogs in hunt tests but I go to them to help and observe all the time. In fact, one of my pet peeves is that conformation people should volunteer for hunt tests more, and hunt test people should steward at dog shows more. That way we support each other but also learn from each other. There are more people who do both venues that most people realize.

Anyway, I think hunt tests are a GREAT place to evaluate form and function. I don't think that passing a hunt test in itself necessarily tells you much though. So, the observer has to dig deeper that just who qualifies and who doesn't. The biggest example is dogs with high drive and poor bone structure. You just know they would break down if they were hunting hard over time.

What is a "Dual Champion" and how is it different from a CH MH?

A dual champion has a field championship and a conformation championship.

A CH MH is a confirmation champion with a master hunter title.

Hunt tests (JH, SH, MH) are different from field trials. Hunt tests are like obedience in that you can qualify for the title even if you aren't among the best dogs there. You just need to pass the test. Field trials are more about competing, like in the breed ring.

I will let someone who knows more about field trials than me explain more if you want.

Interestingly, the conformation dogs I watch at hunt tests usually swim efficiently without extra splashing. The field types are more likely to have poor swimming technique. But I have wondered if this is a result of physical structure or of extreme desire to get the bird. I was taking birds for the judges in the junior stake yesterday and had plenty of opportunity to study the swimming technique of junior dogs, many of whom are very young. Most of the dogs you see in Masters are strong swimmers- I guess they have to be to get that far. There weren't many conformation bred dogs in junior yesterday- I think there were more in Masters - unusual, but Ellison Armfield was there. A pleasure to meet someone who has owned three Ch MHs!

Field trials are designed to pick the best dogs, as FCI indicated. To do that they must very long distances which allow the retrieve to include more factors like changes of cover, terrain elements that would throw the dogs off line, water entries and exits from water, poison birds or scented areas that they dog must pass, etc. The people throwing birds must be clearly visible and are in white coats, totally unrealistic for hunting, but necessary to allow the dogs to spot them at those extreme distances (could be 300 or 400 yards). Hunt tests not competitive. Dogs are judges against a standard of performance and could theoretically all pass the test. Set-ups are supposed to mimic real hunting scenarios, with hidden gun stations, handlers dressed in dark clothing, no distances much over 100 yards, blinds and marks combined in the same series, more emphasis on steadiness, but less on the ability to carry a straight line for long distances. The junior stakes consist of single retrievers, senior of double retrieves and fairly simple blinds, masters triples or quads with more complex retrieves and blinds. In field trials the Derby is for young dogs, no handling, only marks. Qualified is for dogs that handle and are running the long distances more complex situations. You have to become Qualified All Age (QAA) by finishing 1 or 2 in a Qual to be eligible for most of the stakes that lead to titles. Amateur stakes entrants must be handled by an amateur, sometimes restricted to the owner. In Open anyone can handle and most of the dogs are handled by pros. Many of the Masters dogs are trained and handled by pros, too. It takes a lot of training, good facilities, and usually other people to help with bird throwing, to get to the MH or QAA level. The JH is not too hard; I've titled several dogs with no professional training at all when I had a compatible training partner. The two of us got five titles in one year with very limited use of birds and almost no live fliers. But the advanced titles are hard to get without more infrastructure.

Field champions and Master Hunters are obviously remarkable animals. Both events are a blast and have many passionate and knowledgeable participants. The question is, if I breed dogs specifically selecting for the qualities to make them competitive at field trials, are these the labs the originators of the breed envisioned? Are modern specialty winning labs what the originators of the breed envisioned? Should the official Labrador Standard describe the dogs that are winning field trials, the dogs that win at specialties, or the dogs as envisioned by the originators of the breed? Which of the three come closer to the current standard?

I know this is redundant for the people who have been involved since the beginning of the first thread, but I just thought it important to reframe the questions at hand. The O.P for this thread is passionate that the standard should describe the historically traditional view that the originators of the breed had in mind. I tend to agree but it is not a simple issue as many have pointed out. The devil is in the details and in this and another thread, we have begun analyzing specifics of the current standard (which is kind of how the whole discussion started in yet another thread).

That in order to be considered a true dual champion, the dog must be a FC not an AFC (Amatuer Field Trial Champion). I knew of a lovely bitch about 25 years ago that was an AFC/CH, but was not considered a true dual champion. She was from all show breeding.

Being a new breeder, I would like to know which dog would best describe the original labrador. And I hope this discussion continues as I would love to learn more and breed dogs which suit their original purpose. I find it very hard to decide what is correct with all the styles that are out there.

We are all having the same problem!

I think the standard should be very relevant and should describe a dog meant for the original purpose of the breed. We are in our present state of affairs because LRC, in its "wisdom", decided to rewrite the standard and to put people in charge who were no longer mainstream breeders, ignoring the many regional clubs and their members. Disqualifications were added, and some departures from the ideal, such as missing teeth, were given special attention. The changes alienated so many people that the standard was not respected, and people felt free to breed to other standards or even to ignore it. The irony is that the overall effect has been to intensify some of the conformational properties that the people who controlled the new standard were trying to eliminate.

I have a picture in my mind that formed from a combination of reading the standards, old and new, watching dogs perform in the field, and looking at pictures of Labs through the years, and remembering dogs that I admired. I guess it would fall into the general pattern of a moderate conformation Lab, a dog that is slightly longer in body than it is tall, distance from elbow to withers approximately equal to distance from elbow to ground. A bitch might be a little longer in body than a dog. I envision dogs that I have admired for their overall profile and balance, their movement, and various features- not necessarily the same dog for all.

There was a poll taken some years ago about the Lab breeders most felt personified the standard, and as I remember, the winner was Balrion King Frost. A bitch that was outstanding in the show ring was SH CH Covetwood Eloise of Carpenny. I recommend getting issues from 10, 20 and 30 years ago of JB Directories or LQs and look at the dogs in them. Find pictures of dogs like Sandylands Tweed of Blaircourt, Diant Juliet, the last English dual champion Knaith Banjo, Mary Roslin-Williams' Mansergh dogs - there are so many that shaped our breed. Compare them to your dogs with the job they were supposedly bred to do in mind. Compare them to the standards, UK and American. I admit I haven't done this in quite some time myself, but the breed would be better off if we all did it every few years. The history of the breed is important- a picture should pop into your head for each of the dogs I just named. Maybe others could give some of their favorites.

Clearly changing the Standard was an ineffective strategy and should not be repeated on that basis alone.

All Labs represent the Standard to some degree; all Labs misrepresent the Standard to some extent. All Labs (even pets who never show) fit on some kind of continuum regarding the Standard. I sort of hope it's a bell curve with the majority approaching the Standard well enough that can call them Labs, and not some questionable breed. But any continuum will have outliers who still are part of the whole.

No dog is a perfect match with the Standard, whether we are talking about the past, the present or the future. Let's not romanticize the past or vilify the present or worry about the future. Styles change, uses change. The Standard seems a big enough place that we can all find a place that meets our goals but still clearly looks like a Lab.

So far the Standard seems to be working. We all succeed to match the Standard to some extent. We all make compromises based on our own values (be that competition in the breed ring or a field trial or dock diving or obedience or tracking or hunting) that affect how we implement the Standard. We all fail to match the Standard to some extent. But if you look at the whole we are still turning out Labs who achieve in a variety of spheres.

The people who want to breed Specialty champions will make different compromises than the people who want to breed a field champion. That's OK. That doesn't mean that the Standard is not a serviceable blueprint for producing the versatile breed who are Labs.

[/quote]

The people who want to breed Specialty champions will make different compromises than the people who want to breed a field champion. That's OK. That doesn't mean that the Standard is not a serviceable blueprint for producing the versatile breed who are Labs.[/quote]

I do not agree with this philosophy. The compromises that are being made are creating the equivalent of new breeds that look similar to a Labrador (as do several mixed breeds that are part Labrador) but are moving away from any consistency in the breed and away from original function. If that is the case, there is no relevance to the standard at all and people might as well continue to breed silvers (since that is a compromise that people have made for personal taste and income) and anything else that has a Labrador base but is not true to type. If this is the philosophy then there is no point in having a standard.

"The question is, if I breed dogs specifically selecting for the qualities to make them competitive at field trials, are these the labs the originators of the breed envisioned? Are modern specialty winning labs what the originators of the breed envisioned?" ~ I think the ideal Labrador is somewhere in the middle.

"Should the official Labrador Standard describe the dogs that are winning field trials, the dogs that win at specialties, or the dogs as envisioned by the originators of the breed?" ~ I suspect the ORIGINATORS OF THE BREED would not recognize the Labrador today. Many judges today, all breed and Specialty alike, either ignore the Standard, or don't truly understand it.

If you think about it, the originators of the breed bred dogs to catch fish that fell from the boats and to gather the nets. That dog was taken to England where it was bred to retrieve game for the "genteel" hunter. A day in the field was perhaps more relaxed and while it may have lasted the day, there was probably a break for tea. Although I wasn't there in the beginning, based on the history I've read and the pictures I have seen, a day in the field back then is certainly NOT the experience our dogs are put through today for Field Trials or Master level Hunt Tests.

I suspect there are very few Field Trial dogs or Master Hunter dogs there were trained without the use of electricity. How is that a measure of the dog's natural ability? It is not. We have turned the Labrador into something much different than what it was intended to be.

Don't get me wrong, I love the general population of our Labs who are our family companions, search and rescue heros, Guide Dogs, assisted living heros, etc. I put CDs and JHs on my dogs, and earn as many champion points as I can, but I am peanuts compared to the "BIG", well-known breeders. I wish there were more who weren't in the sport just for the pure competition and ego boost it gives them.

Just sharing my thoughts...

Well, I guess you could stretch the limits of the word "philosophy" to include what I wrote. But a better word would simply be "reality." What I wrote is a description of what we are doing and what we have been doing for a long time. We have a variety of rationales for our compromises, and some of them include distaste for the current Standard or our competition desires.

Maybe if we lived in a country in which tighter control was exerted by a governing body for breeding, we would be more strictly adhering to a Standard, without as many compromises as we tend to make. But we're a creative lot when it comes to breeding and don't take well to many restrictions.

Before the use of the collar, there were "other" methods used to train dogs that people would not dream of using today – I think the collar is a big improvement in a lot of respects. However, I do not think that the use of a collar (or not) has much to do with natural hunting ability – the purpose of a collar is for training. A dog that has natural instinct should not require training to go out and use its nose or training to have desire to retrieve or training to be birdy. But to be a good hunting partner, a dog does require training - a dog must be trained to deliver to hand, trained to sit on command, trained to take a good line, etc. The collar is merely a training tool, and will be of no use at upper level work if the dog has no natural ability. Both instinct and biddability are required. Upper level hunt tests require a higher level of trainability than lower levels so the dogs are not going to be able to rely solely on natural instinct. That is what makes a finished gun dog finished. Use of a collar is not necessary to train to certain levels, but it typically is faster and often more efficient than other methods, which is why it is popular. I do know several people who successfully train master dogs without the use of a collar. None of them are pros, are training one or two dogs that they personally own, have their own personal goals that are not hindered by client expectations and therefore have the time to use methods that may require more personal effort.

A lot of the early keepers of Labradors who were instrumental in developing the first standards, clubs and shows were involved in field trials, both in the UK and in the U.S. Many of those people were able to judge both venues. Both of those venues were different than what they have become today because the people who were heavily involved showed working dogs. When those events became specialized because people made them distinct and separate events and were interested in only one or the other, things began to change and so did the dogs. I do not agree that the collar has changed the dogs, although the availability of this training tool may have increased the numbers that can be trained to certain levels and therefore increased competition to the point where the standards of competition require a different type of dog to “win”. This is also true of specialty shows – beauty pageants where the eye of the beholder has no perspective based on personal experience on the dog at work.

Thank you for posting what was on my mind

Yes, every dog deviates from the ideal in some point or another. This does not condone breeding for special purposes that result in dogs which lack the ESSENCE of the breed. For example, field running and agility favor a dog with equal length of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. One of the consistent defining traits of Labradors from their earliest times is a short loin. This requires that the lumbar area be shorter than the thoracic. Dogs that deviate from the standard by being long in loin are missing one of the ESSENTIAL traits that differentiate Labradors from many other Sporting breeds. If breeders and judges ignore deviations from the special traits that make the breed unique, then why even have a standard?

So compromises mean that we should have no ideals? Even though all of us lie at times, I am still grateful for the Commandment not to bear false witness.

Compromises are just a part of how we survive. But they are also part of creativity. New interpretations keep ideals alive and relevant.

Adapting is what we do to survive. A compromise is a concession to settle differences of opinion or conflict. Neither is necessary when breeding a specific breed of dogs. If I decided I liked the Labrador but really wanted one that would be a good guard dog, does it make sense to adapt the temperament so it can be versatile in this way? Is this an acceptable "compromise" because I feel this would be a good idea? No, because temperament is one of the hallmarks of this breed. If I lived in a warm climate, would it be ok to breed a Labrador with a different coat (or possibly a hairless)? Adapting the look of a Labrador so that it is built more for speed, jumping, etc. and therefore is more competitive at performance events is no different. It is creating a hybrid and therefore creating something new for a new purpose. It is totally contrary to breeding to a standard. The reason we have so much diversity in styles in this country is because people are driven by personal whims rather than a desire to maintain a breed that was lovely and functional from the start.

It is possible to go out and enjoy various events with our dogs (and because they are already versatile it does not require physical changes) without having to WIN.

Thank you for speaking my mind so well.

You've described only one of the meanings of the word "compromise."

But never mind. What I described is what is already happened/happening. Breeders look at the Standard and decide how to get what they want by compromising on some criteria and focusing on other criteria. Happened/happening/will happen.

How do you propose to stop it?

And you've described the problem - people who breed for what they want rather than for what is correct. Yes, it is what is happening but for many, it is not OK. Believing it is ok is also part of the problem. Yes, we sometimes get things we do not want by breeding for the ideal, but we are never going to get close to the standard if we are not even trying. I cannot stop anyone else from doing anything, but I can stop it in my own breeding program - my goal is to breed a functional retriever with a good work ethic and conformation that meets the standard. I evaluate my dogs in the show ring and in the field, and I try to find mentors whose goals are the same and try to find judges that value a working dog (not easy, for sure). All we can do is lead by example and try to educate whenever possible.

"Maybe if we lived in a country in which tighter control was exerted by a governing body for breeding, we would be more strictly adhering to a Standard, without as many compromises as we tend to make. But we're a creative lot when it comes to breeding and don't take well to many restrictions."

Or maybe, just maybe, if we were more ethical or cut from a stronger cloth, we could govern ourselves to maintain the integrity of the breed. It's too bad we need a governing body to tell us what is right and ethical. Kinda like having to post signs that the coffee is hot so we didn't get sued by idiots.

As I have written, I won't lose much sleep if some other person is breeding for their special purposes. I won't pretend I can control them. What I want is a standard, which is respected by enough judges and other breeders, that if "special purpose" dogs are entered in a dog show, they will lose. Conversely, if I breed to this standard, I might win. I want a standard that reflects the historical vision of the originators of the breed but is flexible enough to be modern in the sense of accomodating scientific advances in health and understanding of bone structure.

"Compromises are just a part of how we survive. But they are also part of creativity. New interpretations keep ideals alive and relevant."

Canvas and paint are for creativity. New interpretations resulted in Labradoodles.

One breeder at a time. Starting with me.

AGREED!!! Let the "alternate purpose" Labradors excell in their areas of competition. Let them LOSE in the show ring.

So you are proposing that we develop a new Standard? From what I hear, that approach didn't go well the last time....

And isn't a dog who wins at a conformation show just another version of a "special purpose" Lab?

Am I being told to shut up too? This is my 1st post on in a week and on this subject.

Maureen screws up every thread and inserts her foot in her mouth always. It's nothing new here.

Kate with no Ph.D. has said nothing wrong, Maureen is taunting again. She always finds someone to. Why do you think she doesn't post her name? I'll give you 1 guess . She just doesn't listen or behave.

Take your personal vendettas private if you have the nerve.

I agree with this. I feel obedience should be obedience, not a physical feat. I also do hunt tests, agility and tracking. My point is that I really do hope those who are breeding for much heavier bone (and more weight than the standard calls for AS WELL AS what those on the other side of the pond are breeding currently) will not rally for a 2/3 height requirement like Newfs or Saints get "just because" that's what they like, what they are winning with and what they are breeding now. Just as rallying for a different interpretation of "style" in the field is wrong but it's being done. Labs should run like Labs (athletically), not like Newfs-- and not like Border Collies for that matter either!

I personally have dogs that are well within the standards (both FCI and AKC) and if I put any more than a couple extra pounds on my 60# / 21" girl, I'd not want her jumping any more than 20" repetitively. She, however, looks "weedy" in the AKC breed ring. That's what I find disappointing about the standard, or lack thereof. Also find it getting more and more difficult to find the correct working ability in the conformation lines. The all arounder pool is drying up it seems as more and more breed to the flavor of the month.

[/quote]

At the current time, the answer is absolutely "yes".

However, a conformation show is the only venue where dogs are supposed to be judged per the standard. Obviously they are not because the standard is being ignored. My goal in this discussion is to have in my mind what the standard should look like if it were written to reflect the original purpose of the Labrador Retriever. I want to be well informed on this topic.

Ideally, but maybe not realistically, I would like to see real consideration of possible change to the current standard. But I am not going to waste my time arguing with people as to whether this is realistic or not. A) underdogs win all the time, and B) I am more of an intrinsically motivated person so if I spend all this time helping create a hypothetical standard and it doesn't affect change to the current one, I will still have considered this to be a rewarding and successful process. C) Maybe, as a result of this process, I will realize my bias toward changing the current standard is wrong.

We need to work toward having the AKC standard being relevant. Conformation shows should be sacred as to reinforcing breeding toward an acknowledged, official standard. If I choose to breed for other than that which is described by this standard, then fine. But I should expect to lose in the breed ring.

Maybe that means changing the current standard. Maybe that means changing our attitudes about the current standard. But either way, the foremost things on our minds should be (IMHO) is- "What was the vision of the originators of the breed? What what this breed developed/created to do?"

I STARTED this thread. If you know you won't like the movie because of the cast, watch something else.

Kate, I would like to see the AKC standard improved. I guess improved means changed. But my purpose in participating here is not necessarily to affect that change. There are things I like and dislike about the current standard. But I am not at the point yet where I know precisely what I'd decide if I were appointed King of the Dog World and was given unlimited power (which would include getting everyone to come to consensus without going through a marathon collaboration process). I think it is counter productive to argue about whether changes are or aren't realistic. This forum is first and foremost an educational tool for ourselves and all the other readers. Personally, I am trying to learn and develop a better model in my own mine as to what the originators of the breed intended. If in the process a butterfly flaps its wings and somehow the result is a strong enough breeze in Lab Club Land which blows some people off their asses, then cool.

I hear ya. But I think most people feel the same about the Standard, things they like and things they don't. Then there are the things they can produce and the things they can't. In the end I've just decided to accept the things I can't change and embrace the future, which is on a trajectory that I probably won't even be able to predict if I want to do so.

In another thread I hear people embracing the diversity. I try to show in conformation, rally obedience, and dock diving. I have some success in each, not wild success in any one of them--unless you count the joy my dogs have in participating in sports with me. I guess that will have to be enough.

I agree that is the bottom line!