All breeds are "manufactuered" to some degree or another. Some breeds have a much longer history than others. Labradors have been an established breed for over a century now. The early years of the breed are well-documented. Before the breed was registered as a Labrador, it was simply registered as a variety of the Retriever breed. There were 4 varieties of Retrievers recognized at this time in the UK-the Labrador, the Golden, the Flat-Coat and the Curly Coat. Each breed was registered based on either coat and/or color type at this point.

As for which breeds were used in developing the Labrador/Retrievers are still open to much debate and speculations. We do know that there may have been other retrieving/pointing breeds possibly used, but some may also now be extinct. After the breeds were separated, breeders continued to select certain traits in which to "improve" in structure and maintain a certain look/style to the breed. The early 1917 British standard for the Labrador compared it to the "wavy coat or flat coat" retriever and said that it should be wider in head, wider through chest and ribs, wider and stronger over the loin and hindquarters. This is in comparison to the flat-coat. As the standard evolved and was re-written over the years. The comparison between the flat and the Labrador was removed and just left us with, "the head should be broad". Each breeder interprets that different and so the contest on who could breed a broader head (among other things) begun. Most breeders do not like the Rottie look and therefore do breed for a moderate head that gives a soft, pleasing expression.

I strongly believe that structure should never interfere with function. I have a dog with a muzzle shorter than my preference. He is constantly being complimented on his beautiful head, and I am telling people that the muzzle is too short. The dog is a Master Hunter, getting his title in five straight tests, so I forgive him his little failings in conformation (he is AKC pointed). But my trainer uses bumpers for water blinds for all his other advanced dogs, and he always has to put a duck out for Jake because he takes in so much water while swimming back with a bumper in his mouth that he has to throw up when he gets back to the line. He doesn't have that trouble with ducks, as they fill his mouth up, and the water doesn't get in, so one could say that it doesn't matter, since we dot encounter bumpers at hunt gets, nor do we hunt them. But I still believe that it shows that a short muzzle is not as functional as a longer one. From the standard: " The skull and foreface should be on parallel planes and of approximately equal length." Jake's muzzle is shorter than his skull. The standard wins this one on functionality.

Stick to duck hunting and stop hunting bumpers

I always laugh at the argument about not being able to fit larger game in a shorter-muzzled dog's mouth. When I was training one of my dogs in the field for hunt tests a couple years ago, my friends who have field-type dogs would all want to come watch. Most would comment that he (a shorter-muzzled type, full dentition) was the only dog they had seen who could/would consistently bring back 2 full-sized bumpers in his mouth when doing pile work. We were trying to work on that behavior, LOL, since it obviously was NOT what we wanted. 2 full-sized bumpers is a lot of girth for any retriever to fit in their mouth. He did it virtually every time early on in training. We DO hunt with him, both waterfowl and upland game (I don't hunt rabbits- just geese, ducks, pheasant, quail, chukar, and doves), and he does an outstanding job. He has an amazing ability to scent/track as well.

"Stick to duck hunting and stop hunting bumpers "

Cute answer, except that I already mentioned that I do not hunt bumpers. It's true that we never have a problem at hunt tests either, since bumpers are not used, but it is a pain in training multiple dogs on the water, as Jake must either be run first or last so that the duck can be placed out specially for him because if the duck is out there with a pile of bumpers for any other dog, guess what they're going to take! And you want to avoid getting the ducks wet as much as possible to keep them in good condition to use for longer periods, so you don't use ducks for blind water retrieves.

And to reply to another poster, are we breeding and judging to the standard or what we like the looks of? If you say the latter, do you understand what conformation means? It's called that because our dogs are supposedly being judged for how they conform to a standard. It is not just a beauty contest. I didn't like the changes that were made in the standard (disqualifications added, for instance) over a decade ago any more than most other breeders, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the entire document. Most of it did not change, and it originated as a description of a dog that could best do the job that a Labrador was originally expected to do, written by people who knew that job well.

To Standard- read your post after I posted this one- right on!

I am actually glad you brought this up. Heads are in serious trouble in our breed right now. People keep saying that heads are the easiest thing to fix and can be done in one generation. The problem is if there are no more correct heads left to breed to you have put yourselves in the position of other breeds that have lost the classic heads. Not enough attention is being paid to heads when breeding. Having judged all over the country I can tell you correct Labrador heads are getting harder to find.

Has anyone noticed that rottie type looking labs usually look more correct as a youngsters? They are beautiful type-y looking babies with wonderful expression, as young dogs these type of puppies are hard to beat at a dog show. After these dogs fully mature their heads grow quite large and their expression changes to what was described earlier as a strong head and not so type-y IMO.

I don't think breeders are aiming to get a strong head but instead end up with one because they are drawn to the puppies with the biggest heads. Judges have to take some responsibility here too, they are the ones awarding this type. Dog shows are where we learn what we should be striving to achieve.

THANK YOU, J.O.

I hope that you will be able to make a difference by not rewarding the people who do this to our beloved labs.

Yes - I think you're right there. So I wonder what type of head we should be keeping? I have a CH male whose head I loved when he was younger, but now that he's mature, it's a little too wide, IMHO. I still get comments about how nice his head and expression is from other people (he still has a kind expression, just head a bit too wide).

There is also a popular stud dog (line) out there who stamps a particularly harsh head and I hear people all the time say how nice the heads are on his puppies, but they are not Labrador heads - they are just harsh and I refuse to breed back into those lines.

I agree and I hope more judges start paying attention and stop rewarding fads. I cringe when I hear the classic kind heads described as "old fashioned" as if that is a thing of the past. When did the standard for heads change? Same with coat - I have had a judges' education committee describe my boy's coat as old fashioned because it is short, dense, hard with slight wave - you just don't see that coat much anymore which is a shame because it is the coat described in the standard!

"People keep saying that heads are the easiest thing to fix and can be done in one generation."

Isn't that because people who were trying to fix heads in the past wanted more head, not less? How hard is it to go in the opposite direction?

correct head
square or slightly longer than square
short, dense coat
athletic

yikes.

It is a simple truth that a lot of breeders these days are in it for the competition. They have the Vince Lombardi attitude that says, "Winning is the only thing." If you are showing puppies & youngsters and you want to win, a pup with a nice head at an early age would be the way to go. But that leads to our current problem. When those nice puppy heads mature, they can be too much. This is nothing new. It has been going on for a while. And it is hard to look at these puppy heads and not like them. They are pretty.

Breeders who are in it for the long haul and are more focused on the dogs and the future of the breed have to be prepared to wait. Even plain heads look better in a year or two. You can follow them at the shows. They will bring multiple older dogs, but fewer, if any, puppies.

No, I did not start this thread. It is telling though that it did get started, it is no secret that there have been accusations of Rottie breedings to Labs for some time. What I find particularly fascinating is that regardless of whether a Rottie was bred in to bring about these out of standard traits, or if it was just selective breeding as is espoused here, is the fact that you are all rationalizing and defending your out of standard headed Labs, Peggy excepted! Of certainty I did not expect a forum populated primarily with specialty minded breeders/enthusiasts to admit to this fault, but the rationalization and broad based acceptance of out of standard “Rottie” heads is simply hypocritical. Remember, when you point your finger, you have 3 of your own pointing right back at you.

Overly wide heads, sunken eyes, disproportionality short muzzles, cheeky faces, loose pendulous lips, open coats, long coats and feathering, improper length to height ratios (short legs), too much bone, overly deep chests, excessively loose skin, short necks, lumbering cloddy specimens…all coming to a Labrador Specialty near you! Oh, lest I forget the missing teeth…ironically a characteristic that is also conspicuously Rottie!

Here we go again. For someone who has no clue about proper conformation and someone who is not involved breeding standard Labradors I find you highly unqualified to express an opinion on the subject. We all know that you propagate a cross bred dog. Grey/blue eyes, high set, large round ears, single, slick sparse coats, not to mention a non-native dilute gene, all indicative of cross breeding with a Weimaraner. Tsk Tsk.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Hold it, stop right there. For one you don't know me, nor I you, and you are unqualified to make the assessment you have about me and my Labs...You have no clue what you're talking about.
If you want to talk silvers, and the fieldy characteristics of poorly bred specimens, let’s do that in the other thread that is already spiraling that way. Let's not try to divert attention and change the topic here on this thread. The Rottie-like, and other now common out of standard, characteristics that are taking over the specialty Lab world. You all know it is happening. There are posts about it pretty regularly here on wiscoy. Some of you admit it as out of standard, many of you just bury your indignant heads in sand and keep on breeding out of standard Labs. The Moderate gundog that is the Labrador is at risk of losing its very identity for what it is (or was), through the ongoing preferential breeding of those who should be the breed's most ardent conservators. "Tsk Tsk."

"Sigh" you couldn't have done much better to prove my point of the rampant hypocrisy being displayed here on wiscoy. Thank You.

And you just proved my point. Silvers are beyond the "fieldy" look. Breeders who have studied and have experience in characteristics of the breed KNOW when a dog is beyond fieldy looking and know that there is another breed's characteristics mixed in. Silvers to us SCREAM Weim MIX! I've said my peace. I do not need to continue with your arrogance and lack of knowledge of breed characteristics. You breed silvers, enough said!

PS I emailed you the photo of the "silvers" that MRW was talking about. Hardly the work of a dilute gene. So now there goes your theory of how us conventional breeders "covered" up dilutes of the past. You can stop using that as a reference. Such a good story teller you are.

Thank you for the email. Funny that it has finally made it into the hands of a silver supporter after...30+ years, nah, no cover up attempt there. I reciprocated and replied with a photo of an identically appearing dilute Black Lab pup. The purported MRW photo served to strengthen my position, I do hope it is indeed authentic as you have claimed.

As for suggesting silvers scream weim mix, what kind of mix then do most of these field line beauties scream? http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51751
Most silvers have significantly better conformation than these, particularly those that are improving with show lines now. There is one posted here a year or so ago that exemplified this, look it up. Arguing type in such a widely variable breed as the Lab will get you no where, there will always be an example of any out of standard characteristic, on either end of the spectrum, that can be dredged up from the BYC lines.


Breeders who have studied and have experience in characteristics of the breed, and who are honest with themselves, KNOW when a dog is beyond overdone looking and know that there is another breed's characteristics mixed in. Many Specialty Labs SCREAM Rottie MIX!

How's that for trying again to get this back on topic?

Proved my point again, trying to have the last word. Plain and simple NO ONE is buying your BS except those who are unsuspecting and want something "rare". Buyer beware.

Have you been to a few specialties lately?? I've yet to see a Labrador that resembled a Rottie in any way, shape, or form. Some are overweight sure. Some have more loose skin than they should, but Rotties... I don't think so. In the end it really doesn't matter if who outcrossed to what. Any color other than black, chocolate, and yellow are DQs. That's it, end of story.

Why am I ALWAYS hearing that silver conformation needs work (to look like a lab)??? Why are silver breeders always trying to improve them with show lines??? If they are a natural mutation like silver breeders claim (and descended from English lines) why don't any of them look like labs from the get go??? I haven't seen a one that looks like a lab with a different color but just wait, they're working on it.

Sorry, but someone committed fraud against the AKC many moons ago by registering a lab x weim cross. Once those puppies are registered as labs there is no way to prove otherwise. There is no credible historical reference to the color and the first time it ever showed up was in the USA.

Rottie type heads do show up every so often but I have not seen one win. As a judge I've had a couple in my ring and I didn't place them. You would also probably regard me as someone who likes a substantial dog but obviously there are limits and i know what they are.

Back to Silvers. They may get accepted eventually as a legit color but it won't happen in our lifetime. If we ever got to that point then I would hope we accept mosaics as a legit color before silvers. At least mosaics are a naturally occuring color. But that is just me.

Well, am having fun showing, don't care if we pick up a duck or not. Obedience is good. Therapy is good. Ducks take alot of time and alot of money. So I like a beautiful expressvie head and they compete well in the ring, when I sell other pups out of a litter after I have picked mine the first thing they ask is, I want a nice pretty head. Not a long nose that can pick up a duck. Ads show beautiful Labradors. That is the look we think of now. Not a field Lab. So, JMHO

I hope you are kidding. If not, you absolutely should not be breeding!

And I think she absolutely SHOULD be breeding - Rottweilers!!!

And we are not talking about needle nosed field labs. We are talking about Labs with the correct dimensions, as described by the standard.

Not to "look like a lab," but to look like a specialty Lab they need work. Their pedigrees are not heavy with show bred Labs, at least not close up, so they do not look like show Labs...but they look way better then those beauties in the link I shared and most weekend field trial competitors.

Not all are. Every breeder has a preference in their breeding goals. Some prefer the American Field Trial type, some like the specialty type, some prefer the moderate type. Those that like the show look are improving with show lines, no other way to do it. Just as any breeder here that likes a certain look will acquire the lines that will provide that look.
So I can assume you did not check the link I shared. No one is suggesting those field bred labs are not all Lab; but most Silvers have more Lab type than they do. If your definition of "looking like a Lab" is a specialty competitor then most don't "look like a lab." Then again, neither would 95% of all Labs in the world either.

You folks ought to be flattered that some breeders like your lines so much that they have sought them out to breed to them for improvement. I'm looking forward to another AKC CH sired litter later this year, Blacks and Yellows, all silver factored....might even get some with the Rottie head that is all the rage.
Just trying, again, to get this back on topic.

Sorry but silvers do not look like labs at all (field or show, not just specialty winners), they look like what they are, a lab weim mix. Talk about kennel blindness, lol.

Rottie heads, silver coats - they are both incorrect for this breed and are not in standard. No responsible breeder should be breeding for those traits and should remove specimens that are not in standard from a breeding program. What people "prefer" is irrelevant.

that is one of the saddest things I have read in awhile. You don't care if they can pick up a duck? you realize they are Labrador RETRIEVERS, right? Please don't bother to argue back that they retrieve tennis balls all day long, I've heard that song before. Pretty sure a border collie could do that too.

Me thinks, you are funny. Alot just have the time to work with the show dogs. WC are enough to show they can pick up a bird. If it is one with live birds. Others who like a lovely Lab, want to show, want to breed better each time are just not speaking up. Labs are just not what they were 25 years ago. Face it.

Breeder also is right. The fact is many dogs of different breeds to include mixed breeds can pick up a duck but that doesn't make them a Labrador. The historical reality is Labradors were not developed to pick up ducks in the first place. It was the English who transformed the breed into a gun dog. The virtous idealism towards performance is silly.

I think we all agree, however, Silver is a fradulent color. I know it has to be difficult for some of those breeder owners to accept especially if they were mislead at the start.

That is disgusting and you exposed your ignorance. The Labrador Breed was developed in the UK to pick up birds. You are obviously confusing yourself with the main progenitor of the breed, the St Johns Water Dog that was from Newfoundland. Indeed, the English took it and transformed it into the Labrador Retriever, mixed in some setter, spaniel, and a few other breeds along the way. They did it for performance as a gun dog. That is why this breed even exists, to preform. For a conformation minded individual to ignore that, well it is disgusting to see.

I guess what is most disgusting is that this kind of misdirected "silly" behavior is tolerated by those who claim to be the conservators of our breed.

These people are not guardians of the breed; they are competitors that are out for ribbons and if an open coated, short muzzled, non-retrieving dog is what the judges will reward and shame on THEM), then that is what they will breed. They have no interest in the standard if it does not align with personal preference or lifestyle (probably one that has plenty of time to breed numerous litters but no time at all to prove their dogs' worth as breeding stock). They will create any excuse as to why their dogs do not need to retrieve when the reality is they just have no interest in the standard and are only in it for the social aspect of showing. There are two groups - people who show for status and ribbons and those who show to evaluate what they have against competition.

Funny how the AKC rep didn't think I was so ignorant during my judging interview. I know the history and the origin of the breed. I also know that was over a 100 years ago where dogs were bred and used to work not show, go to Arkansas for some awesome duck hunting or compete in ridiculous field trials that don't resemble normal hunting conditions. The breed doesn't exist anymore just to perform becuase humanity doesn't need it to.

All I want to point out is that a moral high ground based on performance is nothing more than that. The breed is fundamentally different than it was 20, 50, or 100 years ago. It will continue to change so you should get use to it. For the most part everyone is breeding to the standard and if someone is not interested in field work then you shouldn't be so quick to criticize. Breeding silvers....yes...blast away....but take it easy on the other stuff.

AKC seems to be part of the problem these days. What standard are some of their judges reading when they put up 100+# labs w/ the wrong head, coat, movement etc? It's a joke.

If you are breeding dogs that have no interest in birds (and how would you know unless you have proven them) and are not built to retrieve, what do you tell people who are looking for a hunting dog? That the Labrador is just a pretty show dog and no one has any interest in hunting anymore so go away? This is why hunters come to me and I have never had any trouble placing puppies - my dogs are Champions AND hunt. The standard states that this is a working gun dog, not a couch potato. It also describes this dog as active, yet many of the specimens shown today look anything but active. All of my dogs finished their AKC CH very quickly in working weight so no, it is not necessary to add weight to compete. People prefer the look and that is the only reason dogs are kept heavy despite the fact that it is unhealthy. One cannot be breeding to the standard if the dog has no desire to pick up a bird and does not have the conformation necessary for retrieval work.

Breeding for personal preference is how we got silvers!

I have been doing this a very long time. I have produced plenty of AKC hunt test titled dogs and some that were Ch & SH. The Ch MH has eluded me. I have plenty of dogs in family homes that are also weekend gun dogs. But, you are right about one thing. If you call me for a Labrador where the sole intention is for it to be a gun dog, 100% of the time then i would tell you look someplace else.

I really don't care how you breed your dogs and I really don't care what you think of how I breed my dogs. Our peers and colleagues will decide how we are doing by using (or not) our stud dogs, placing us (or not) at dog shows, or passing us (or not) at hunt test and other performance events. I am very satisfied with my results based on those categories.

If you get upset by what others do then you won't be doing this for long. The frustration will be overwhelming.

I agree to a certain extent but disagree regarding stud dogs - which stud dogs are used is not a great measure of anything in this breed. Many people use dogs they have never seen in person and many are extremes that are atypical for this breed. One big win in a Specialty sweepstakes seems to be enough for many that this is the next great thing. Many other studs have no clearances (as they are far to young to have them) and many others are used well before they have proven themselves in any venue. Everyone is in a hurry to "do something different" rather than wait long enough for the dog to prove itself worthy.

The quote below points out a critical philosophical concern that we all must address.

Do we just use what is winning as our main source for developing our personal visions of what is a good Labrador Retriever?

What role do formal standards (FCI, LRC, etc.) play in our self-education?

What do you do if your vision of a correct Labrador is not what you see winning in the ring?