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

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.

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?