For those who have read their new LQ, did anyone else think the above referenced article seemed odd.

Very curious as to what it said as I use to compete with and breed "field" type and now do "show' with field abilities". Could you please summarize?
TIA

It seemed like it would discuss the differences between the 2, but turned into something about bad breeders. I didn't follow it. Thought maybe I had a few too many glasses of wine.

So I wondered if it was just me...

The article seemed to be based on personal observation and opinion rather than on any research or historical understanding of the breed. While I try not to be critical of people who volunteer time to contribute articles, it was odd.

I have not read the LQ article as I have not received my magazine yet, however, this subject really hits a nerve with me. Just ask Jill...

I am so tired of people calling and asking if I breed the American or English Labradors. At times I get testy to the ignorance of the general public.

I plainly state, all Labradors have an origin of Newfoundland. They were imported to England in the 1800s and from there eventually made it to other countries. So all Labradors are basically English. I then go on to state that an American Labrador does not equate to a "field" dog, nor does an English Labrador equate to a "show" or "bench" dog. They are simply SHOW DOGS or FIELD DOGS. Here is the zinger for me...

I tell them I breed an "AMERICAN" product (so to speak). So my dogs are American, hence American bred. While their roots are from England, so is every other Labrador that exists in the United States and around the world today.

No offense to my friends across the pond, but it reaches a point where enough is enough. I have an English wife, half English children, drove an English car (I loved that convertible MGB and should have never traded it in for that damn American minivan!), and live in an area that frankly looks like England. My dogs are American with an English heritage. Plain and simple.

Written with respect,
Michael

I also get testy with CONFORMATION dogs OR FIELD dogs - they should not be either or. If performance people would breed with correct conformation in mind and show people would prove their breeding stock has a decent work ethic and breed with the work in mind, I think there would be less of a gap and the general public would be less confused.

Well Confusion, you will never see that happen.

This issue did seem to have some nice articles on the folks that are seriously working for that dual purpose dog.

I thought the article was going to touch on the differences or even personal opinion about what the differences are would have been OK.

I kind of wondered if someone's kid wrote the article. It seemed to lack the structure that an outline could have provided.

I do understand what Michael means though. I try not to use the terms English/American, Show/Field. I try to breed to the standard....my goal is nice Labrador Retrievers. Sometimes if I am out with the dogs and someone asks me what kind they are and I say Lab, they look at me funny. If I am feeling nice, I might say they are "english" and it's humerous how they'll nod and say "Ohhh" like that explains it for them. If I am feel a bit grumpy, I might say something like "This is what a lab is supposed to look like, not what you are used to seeing around town!"

I agree with you Michael, but check out the webpages of some of our peers. They freely use "English Labradors" to describe their "type" of dog even though their bloodlines are related to yours, mine and even some Canadians. Until they change their terminology, the people looking for puppies, J Q Public, won't change their terminology either.

Amen!!!! I agree with Michael too!!! I get calls like that and it hits a nerve too. I always tell them I breed to the standard. They (public) will ask, well, my labs were taller then the English that some breeders have and that is what I want. The English labs are the short ones-Right?

Ok, I agree with Michael but on the other hand there is a difference in today's Labradors and how do we explain that to the typical family looking for a wonderful Labrador? In my area where there are some outstanding Field trial dogs, many families phone me and say, "I don't want the super hyper type bred for speed like in field trials." How do you respond to this?

Even though in my heart of hearts, I believe in one Labrador standard, I cannot get away from the fact that some are bred for pure speed and retrieve drive while others are bred for conformation and hopefully working ability. There is a huge difference in today's Labradors bred by serious field trial vs. conformation breeders. Try going to a field trial one week and then a specialty the next week - as my hubby says, "they look and act like two different breeds!" When speaking with the public how do you explain this? What terminology do you use?

I hate to hear the terms used also. I breed to standard and try to explain to them. I also try to keep the lines working lines also, not just show. Looking for stud dogs don't think alot of us don't look for an Obedience title, JH or Therapy in pedigree. If not sire and dam then next generation. I think alot who use "English" on web pages are the ones trying to sell pups for profit only !

I agree with" For the Sake's" comments. Much as you may not like the "terms" that people are using, the reality is, our breed is pretty radically split into different groups at the current time in history.

I guess for now you just need to ask the potential puppy buyer what what kind of plans they have for the dog? Those that want a Field Trial Dog or FTCH are likely NOT going to purchase a puppy from a Breeder that is currently successful in breeding puppies that do well in the Breed Ring. Just as someone that has designs on showing a puppy to a Breed Championship is not going to purchase that puppy from a breeder who specializes in Field trial dogs.
Not sure why you would get miffed at the terms people use.. they are really just trying to understand all the variety out there and frankly not their fault we have this split in the breed.

Our society has become in many ways all about "Specialization" from the types of education our children get to the Doctors , Vets etc. So of course this specialization has occurred in dog breeding as well. I think that is what folks are trying to figure out.

I too do not understand why it would bother any of us if a person asks if we breed American or English? All the person is doing is trying to find a breeder who breeds dogs that conform to the standard instead of 45-inch high speed demons with long snouts. If you choose that moment to educate the questioner, he won't hear you. He knows what he's looking for. Education can occur once he's made a commitment to one of your pups or has at least stayed in the conversation. The word SHOW requires explanation as does the word STANDARD when talking to the public. ENGLISH does not. It's the easiest short hand we have.

I'll disagree to an extent. I think at Hunt Tests you are just as likely to see a show bred Lab versus field bred. Field trials, now that is another matter. FT's has turned into an extreme sport, super talented and magnificent animals only apply.

One thing is what it should be and another one is what it is. Field people breed to accommodate their needs. Show people breed to accommodate their needs. The ones that show and do field work successfully are the only ones that really breed to the standard.
I breed for show only as I don't do any hunting, but do respect a lot breeders that do and try to have my dogs keep the fetching instinct alive.
There should be only one type of Labrador, and there also should be peace in the world. Not going to happen any time soon. You can discuss this for years and no one is right or wrong.
Breed to accommodate your needs and as close as you can to the standard without compromising your goals and always keep your lines as healthy as you can. But, then if no seasoned breeders come to you for puppies, or you do nothing at the shows (big respectable shows) or field trials, then you know that you are not in the right path.

Why does there have to be such hostility because of the varieties within our breed? Obviously, as the most popular breed of dog for 10 years or so, we're obviously all doing something right. I'm going to try and make an analogy here in hopes of some way disquieting the dissention.

There is ONE breed of an American Quarter Horse- one registry & that's it. And yet within that breed there are Western Pleasure horses, Hunter Under Saddle horses, Reiners, Cutters, Halter, Racehorses and the list goes on. If I am looking for a Western Pleasure prospect do I want to visit the Hunt Seat barns... absolutely not. The style is vastly different and would not be competitive in the venue I was seeking. Do I take offense that it's gotten so highly specialized that the horses are selectively bred to produce the traits that makes them more competitive in one venue than another? Absolutely not. Sure, there a few horses capable of success in competing in the "All-Around" which means multiple disciplines, but the great ones are far & few. I think our Labradors have somewhat progressed to this and I also think this is okay. WE still have one great breed of dog with individuals selectively breeding for the venue in which they compete. In no way does this diminish our breed-nor does it make one person right and one person wrong OR one person better than another- it just makes for a diverse breed and no matter what you want to do to the standard this specialization through selective breeding is going to continue. JMHO

And who is Autumn Westergren???

So many of those "breeding to the standard" are now breeding what one poster in another thread described as "pigadors". What part of "medium-sized" do today's show breeders NOT understand? Just look at the spotlight dogs-so many are WAAAAAAAAY overdone! Their heads look like rot or pit mixes. Where is the gentle, kind biddable expression? These dogs look hard, sharp or covered in wrinkles. If this is breeding to the standard to win specialties, I'll gladly take a field dog any day. Most of them look like the dogs of the early 30s and 40s before the show ring enthusiast began "breeding to the standard" and now we have pigadors. What a shame.

The people who complain about the dogs with good bone and substance that win specialties are usually the ones who can't breed anything with type in their lines. So if gangley field looking labradors with no bone and pointed heads, no stop and snippy muzzles are all you have in your kennel you begin to become accustom to that it. BTW that is not what the standard is describing as a labrador FWIW.

Car tag seen all over the US. Why hunt with an ugly Lab ! Some of the field are so small, not just skinny so they can run fast, but just so small. You just think they are a little black dog. And they are.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen many field breed labs that I would love to have live with me and a few that I would breed to if I had the right girl. I think that before anyone says anything bad about dogs bred for field trial they need to go to a field trial or a master hunt test and see what these dogs can do and ask yourself if your dog could do that. I agree with "Call me crazy", there are many different venues that labradors are in these days, just like quarter horses and what you are breeding might not be what is best for that venue.

I think this forum has become over run by field breeders these days. It is so sad that all of you are dishing the nice dogs in the spot light ads yet I don't see any field bred labs on there being offered for stud. Hmmm why would that be? I think that sums it up. Jealously is not a nice quality to have. Play nice and yes my dogs have breed type are functional and they win in the conformation ring. They do not have to look like gangly field labs to get the job done.

Do you believe that most show breeders breed to the standard?

Just to be clear, the complaint is not about good bone and substance. The complaint is overweight, short upper arms, long loins, short legs, and long coats. The loose lips/droopy jowels that I am seeing more and more of are fugly!

brdr333

The people who complain about the dogs with good bone and substance that win specialties are usually the ones who can't breed anything with type in their lines. So if gangley field looking labradors with no bone and pointed heads, no stop and snippy muzzles are all you have in your kennel you begin to become accustom to that it. BTW that is not what the standard is describing as a labrador FWIW.

I think the number one goal of any breeder who is involved in competition is to breed something that will win (health is a given) no matter if it is for the field or show ring.

I was approaced at a Hunt Test recently by a very well known highly professional field trainer from Texas. She want's to breed to my Champion Chocolate JH boy to "bring the conformation body style" into her field lines so she will have a good looking hunter. I was honored to accomodate.

I have a pointed SH with MH passes that has also had requests from hunt test people. A field trialer would never look at him.

A moderate dog can show TYPE. We don't have to have WAY OVER DONE DOGS as the only way to show TYPE.

But until we have a few of the old timer judges pass on, we are going to continue seeing this departure from the standard rewarded time and time again. I breed nice, moderate dogs with plenty of TYPE, yet they look skinny and out of coat next to the over done Specialty dogs. In fact, my dogs meet standard, theirs do not. Yet their dogs are rewarded and mine are not. I go to one Specialty a year to support my club. I do not attend others because it's ridiculous what's winning.

Same here I go once a year to my club to support it. Interestingly my dogs do well under the English judges.
Just because the overdone dogs win doesn't mean it's correct,take enough people that think alike and that's what you will see rewarded, regardless of whether it's bred to the STANDARD. The american judge we had last year is an old timer that switched, and she said there is nothing good in England, their dogs don't have the bone we have here. Well no they don't. Thank God they have the reasoning to actually breed to the standard and aren't breeding the elephants with hair that are being shown here. Watching some of the dogs in the breed at Potomac was stomach turning,the dogs plodding around like beef on the hoof.In looking at so many dogs in this country they truly lack the length of leg to body ratio they should have.Add in those way overdone heads and that bone and you have what looks like Angus cattle on the end of the lead,pick a coat color....

And please don't presume to think I'm jealous,I care about breeding to the standard not the fad of the moment.

Do me a favor, will you? Please post two photos of your dog(s). Head shot and stacked profile. Give us your best photos. I really want to see what our Labs are SUPPOSED to look like. Thanks so much!!

One of the worst articles I have ever read! Poorly written, full of misinformation, revealing the author's total lack of understanding of the Labrador breed.

Did we determine above that the article was written by a kid?

Until you know who the author is go easy. This is an obvious fluff piece that would normally be in a generic national dog magazine. Sounds like a generalization in reference to other dogs. And by the style I would say it may be a child writing the article. And by the lack of info on the web tying the name to other articles the child theory might be right. If it is, what a way to tear a youngster down.

If indeed this was written by a youngster, as a former English teacher and editor, I would have to say that the writer would have lost points on her grade for all the reasons I stated. And the LQ should do a better job editing articles.

I agree that no one should tear a child down; however, is anything that submitted to the LQ published or is there a standard that articles be edited, fact checked, etc.? It seems someone dropped the ball on this one.

Generally, criticism of children is done privately. I am glad you are a former teacher.

I FULLY agree with Michael.. I get irritated living in the country and having my friends and even my FAMILY tell me my dogs are to "fat" or to "big"... Sorry but we have bone and substance. We do NOT breed for a "skinny" "tall" dog. My neighbor just the other day said that a GORGEOUS dog (IMO) we are planning on breeding to looks like a Rottie!! I am sorry but I about hit her for being so uneducated. I also hate how people refer to color as being a reason they won't buy a dog... Chocolates are to hyper, blacks are mean, and yellows are perfect... GRRR... I could rant on!

It works both ways on people not understanding what a Lab looks like. We are fostering a girl. The person who brought it to us, was convinced it was a Labrador Retiever. The dog is a black Plott Hound.

http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/labrador/labarticle6.htm

Here is a chart from another thread that compares the AKC Standard, English Standard, International Standard (pretty much the same as England), and the UKC Standard. Find one that says labs should have short legs relative to body length. Find one that says labs should be big boned with big bodies and big heads. Research standards from other countries as well. Please let us know if you find a single one that describes Labrador Retrievers as being anything but a medium sized, moderately boned and moderately angled breed.