The AKC standard covers items in a different sequence from the UK (FCI) standard. To keep things relevant to the AKC standard, I am taking the topics in that order. The section after General Description is Size, Proportion and Substance. Although it is only slightly longer than the GD section at 203 words, the contents have spurred angry shouting matches, destroyed long friendships and given rise to lawsuits. So the various issues don't get lost in the rhetoric, let's just look at SIZE.

With the exception of the two disqualification sentences, this section of the standard has not changed since 1957. The way the size range was developed involved actually measuring dogs that were in competition and considered overall "good" representatives of the breed in the late 1930s. Weights were for dogs in working condition. The UK standard gives an ideal size of 22-22.5 for males and 21.5-22 for bitches. It is clear that by the middle of the 20th century, the differences in hunting conditions, terrains and style between the US and UK favored a somewhat larger dog in this country. This was not something brought about by the standard, but simply REFLECTED in it. Many feel the US standard should give an "ideal" size like the UK standard, rather than such a broad range of sizes.

DQ:Personally, I oppose ANY disqualification for size except for breeds where SIZE alone is a defining feature (toy breeds, Great Dane, etc.) . Wicketing in the ring is hard on exhibitors, dogs and judges alike. Size disqualifications have become more and more used over the last 25 years in Sporting breeds, but I don't see that it has had a positive effect on either quality or working ability. This discussion is not about my personal view, but in reality, most of the contention about size for Labradors is really just that - personal opinion.

Just because the UK standard uses an ideal size and has no DQ, that does not mean that a wider range of size is encouraged! The UK standard considers any deviation from the points of the standard (including size) "should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree" So, while the UK standard does not have any disqualifications, dogs over or under the ideal are to be "faulted" in proportion to how much they deviate. This puts an equal "extreme prejudice" on males that are 21" or 23.5" or bitches that are 20" or 23.5". While avoiding the disqualification, this alternate sort of enforcement for the ideal would actually NARROW the size range allowed in the US standard. Any changes in the size portion of our current standard must be developed to encourage conformity, but recognize that a slightly larger (or taller) dog has been the norm in the US for MOST of its history here.

Like this part:

DQ:Personally, I oppose ANY disqualification for size except for breeds where SIZE alone is a defining feature (toy breeds, Great Dane, etc.) . Wicketing in the ring is hard on exhibitors, dogs and judges alike. Size disqualifications have become more and more used over the last 25 years in Sporting breeds, but I don't see that it has had a positive effect on either quality or working ability. This discussion is not about my personal view, but in reality, most of the contention about size for Labradors is really just that - personal opinion.

Well, it seems like nobody has any complaints about the size portion of the standard, so I don't expect rabid foaming at the mouth comments when we move on to the next section

Well I don't think it is a matter of complaint, I think everyone is so used to ignoring the size/weight portion of the standard that there is not much to discuss.

I have only witnessed two recent wicketings. At the first occasion, to be honest, the dog deserved it. At her age, she was much to small. She looked like a stocky 8 month old at 2½ years old. The second instance was almost laughable. The judge wicketed a 6 month old puppy. When someone brought it to the judge's attention that it was a puppy, she pointed right to the standard and showed us that there was no age exception on the wicketing. Luckily, there was a bystander who was a fast reader who found the exception clear at the end of the standard. It wasn't obvious to the judge that there was an exception to puppies.

You missed the whole point of this discussion. If people are ignoring the standard, then we need to figure out what has to change to make it relevant to today's breeder. Also, I know many breeders that do not and never have ignored the size portion of the standard. They are the ones who grasp the concept of breeding to a blueprint, not just their personal taste. In other words, they place the breed above their personal egos.

No, I didn't miss the point, I answered your statement "Well, it seems like nobody has any complaints about the size portion of the standard"
On your statement "Also, I know many breeders that do not and never have ignored the size portion of the standard." For some reason I doubt that. All I can say is anyone who breeds to the size & weight of the standard would be non competitive in the show ring. If you are speaking of height only, I think most breeders try to stay at or above the minimum.

Clearly, that is not the fault of the STANDARD - just the current trend by participants to ignore it. I didn't mince my words. Many of us have continued to breed dogs within the size range that has been in the standard since 1957 that are also within the weight range when in hard, working condition. Yes, they are seldom shown in that condition and are no longer rewarded in our non-working show environment. Perhaps we need to revisit the weight section - or simply delete it. The UK standard only gives an ideal size and no weight.

This is just the sort of discussion I had hoped a review of this portion of the standard would initiate. What do breeders want? What is best for the breed? What is the effect on the future of making changes in the standard ---- or of continued use of personal preference? Certainly we can't do any WORSE by finding an historically supported common denominator!

The real problem is not only do most breeders ignore portions of the standard but the judges reward this type of Labrador. If a judge actually decided to actually put everything in perspective and penalized Labs that were not in working condition, their future assignments would be few and far between if ever!

Agreed. It is a double edged sword. Any change in the culture has to start with a willingness by the exhibitors and breeders to converge toward some clear common goal for the breed. The judges LEARN the breed from the established breeders. Some sort of mentorship is required to get judging approval. When breeders teach new judges to ignore the standard because it is not RELEVANT to the breed today, then how are they to learn otherwise? If this problem is to find any solution, it has to be in a written guideline that is supported by breeders and judges alike.

I think we all know the problem, Gregg. Do you have any suggestions toward a solution?

I look at many of the dogs shown in the conformation ring today - and while many are very lovely - I think to myself .. "I would not want to have to haul one of those dogs into the duck boat out on the Great Lakes on the 23 of December (closing day of the season for us).. we'd all end up in the water" .. I am fairly new but one trend I don't like that I am seeing is a field type lab, and All Breed show Lab and a Specialty show Lab ... there is only one standard, not three. Just like anything in print, it is open to interpretation by the person reading it ..

I can think of three specific things that are NOT open to interpretation:
A, Size Weight, pretty specific
B, Working Condition, good thing we have "small rings"
If they were bigger I don't know who would get winded 1st, the Lab or the exhibitor (myself included)
C,The short, straight and very dense coat as discribed in the standard, many Labs today look like they just had a perm. In fact a Labrador with a coat described in the standard is penalized.

I have not seen a problem of oversized dogs but undersized dogs. Breed type is good but a lot of dogs are short on leg. I have judged a lot of dogs that were in very good condition with very good muscle mass.

I think they still need to get bigger. Particularlly the bitches.

I wish I did!!
With most breeds the National Club would step in to get everyone on the right path however in ours due to some past history and the lack of influence anyone other than the old guard in the club, it really has no influence.

The DQ for size was supposed to help with the problem of very small bitches (and dogs). I can't see that it has had much impact because neither breeders nor judges really enforce it. Most judges do not like to wicket and hate the "stigma" of having DQ'd an exhibit. So...... let's get rid of the DQ! That leaves judges open to "fault" size that they feel is not in keeping with the intent of the standard. As I mentioned earlier, that is how it is done in most of the rest of the world.

Many people don't realize that a size DQ does not leave any size preferences to the judge. A 21" bitch has to be considered equal to a 24" bitch and evaluated ONLY on the other points of the standard. Size is either a disqualification or disregarded entirely. Frankly, it seems to take some of the discretion away from the judge, who may not FAULT a dog on size - only disqualify. Again, a double edged sword.

Somehow, someway it would be great if the DQ on height could be removed from the Lab Standard. The judge could consider overly tall or small a fault.
It seems crazy to DQ a dog if there is a 1/2 in off the standard!!!!!!!!!!!

AKC Size:
The height at the withers for a dog is 22-1/2 to 24-1/2 inches; for a bitch is 21-1/2 to 23-1/2 inches. Any variance greater than 1/2 inch above or below these heights is a disqualification.

FCI Size:
Ideal height at withers: dogs: 56-57 cms (22-221/2 ins); bitches: 55-56 cms (211/2-22 ins).

Does anyone think it is weird that a 22 inch dog is considered to be of ideal height per the international standard, but he is not even within the desired height range in the AKC ring? At least with bitches, ideal FCI height is within the AKC range.