I want to admit, at first I was very disappointed about the split venues for Breed and Obedience. I wanted to show at both venues and thought that it would be difficult.

Well, I was wrong. The indoor venue for Obedience was fantastic and if kept there I will be back again and again. Kudos to the progressive thinking on the part of the Obedience Chair and all those we took part in this decision.

It was never a problem shuttling between the two. The building was big, great lighting, heating and air conditioning and bathrooms.

Thanks to all for a successful show.

Can you expand on this? How was the scheduling? What did you enter in both locations? Did many other people do both?

My obedience class was first thing in the morning, I was finished by 9:30 and on my way to watch Confirmation. I had one dog in Open Yellow and he was in the ring on Wednesday afternoon. No problem. I also was not worried about losing my parking spot at the hotel :)

Did many other people enter both conformation and obedience? How long did it take to get from one venue to the other?

You were lucky, Michael. Other people had conflicts and could not show there own dog in breed. People with more than one dog to show, like serious breed people who want to enter in performance and conFORmation would have even more schedule problems. It was a shame not to have a regular specialty.

"He didn't mention his dog NQ'd 4 out of 4 classes. He was able to leave as soon as any of their classes were complete and move on to watching conformation."

Now was that really necessary? Good for Michael to keep trying. It's the only way to learn!

a SILVER was allowed to compete at the LRCP? That is not a Labrador and should have been excused. Just what we need. "silvers are real because the LRCP allowed me to compete in the big dog show" What happened to protecting our breed?

According to the posted results, the High in Trial winner for Tuesday and Wednesday was a black from obedience "royalty," a daughter of Crufts World Cup Winner, National Obedience Champion Tyler MH, out of an OTCH bitch from Champion/Master Hunter lines. Nodin is not a silver by any stretch of the imagination. Her breeder also did VERY well with a bitch from a different line, going multiple High Combined. I am not a friend of hers, but I do know the breeder and the stud owner from local training venues, and as Lab fans, we all should know who Tyler is, even if he is from Field Champion parents. Click on website link below for a photo of HIT Nodin, who is black as she was when she was a puppy.

From Thursday
188.5/1/H
21 SILVER IS AS GOOD AS GOLD CD. SR 61848504. 03-31-10
By Steiner's Silver Benny Boo - Steiner's Chocolate Chloe. Retrievers (Labrador).
Owner: Jeanine & Jeffrey Goldberg, Burke, VA 22015. Breeder: Karen Steiner.

Looks like a silver to me - I'd bet this wouldn't happen if the dog had to show up on the regular show grounds. This will simply allow these silver breeders to brag that silvers are accepted at the largest and most prestigious Labrador show in the world!

"This will simply allow these silver breeders to brag that silvers are accepted at the largest and most prestigious Labrador show in the world!"
Only if you help them here and elsewhere. Reality is that mismarked or dilute dogs are allowed in the obedience and rally rings in most breeds. For example, dilute German Shepherd Dogs can do obedience but not show in breed. A silver cannot show in breed, other than long enough to get a DQ on color, and maybe eye rims, at Potomac. Swallow hard, don't breed there, and move on? Can a protest be made on a non chocolate Lab registered as chocolate? I don't know, and I don't know that I'd want to take it away from a dog who looked chocolate enough not to be turned back from the ring, especially if he was neutered. Food for thought. I know and respect the judge who awarded the HITs Thursday and Friday, and I can't imagine her not following rules. The photos I can find of the dog in question shows that he is neutered and looks like what would be "light brown" in a Chessie, or in old Lab standards, a light chocolate. He's not my cup of tea, but he is a neutered pet and obedience dog.

I'd rather publicize the good black Lab who won HIT Tuesday and Wednesday. A yellow appears to have gone HIT on Friday.

Definitely looks neutered.

Well, the dog's color doesn't take anything away from the BLUE and green ribbons he has. Kudos to him and his owner! No, he does not appear to be show bred. But that does not take away from what he and his owner have accomplished.
Anyone concerned about encouraging the breeding of silver labs should focus carefully on the pups their dogs are putting on the ground, and what is happening with THEM. I know you cannot control what a bitch owner does with the puppies, but you can be careful about who you work with when you breed your stud dogs, and who you sell your puppies to.
Not wanting to fuel any flames here, but I know it's difficult to title a dog in obedience. That dog's owner should be, and I am sure IS, proud!

On the new titles page from which you took the photo, there is a Dudley yellow Lab. Do you want that title stripped away, too? In the other photo I saw, with just a BN title, he looked light chocolate. (I googled his breed with his name and asked for images.) I don't know the dog. I know the judge. I also know that Labs have had the name black and tan in name and not been bicolored. I wasn't there. Were you there when the dog exhibited? The shades in two different photos are very different, as is the lighting. I have been told by someone who was there (not the owner, whom I don't know) that the lighter chocolate shading was more or less confined to the head and front of the dog.

FWIW, I don't like Labs that have Rottie heads anymore than I like Weimie heads. That is my preference, but not a DQ in obedience.

You can't excuse him from obedience or anything else except for conformation. Unfortunately they now exist, as do parti poodles, white German shepherds, and many other mismarked/off color dogs in other breeds.

What we SHOULD do is require that these dogs be registered as SILVER so that reputable stud owners can't be conned! Allowing them to be registered as chocolate is a fraud.

I disagree. Registering them as silvers legitimatizes them. Let them remain with the mis-marks.

My perception is that you have an ax to grind and can see nothing else.

Your main purpose is to grind. Your time would be better spent training you dog.

Congratulations to all the dogs that competed and those that won at the LRCP obedience trials!

The fact that a dilute chocolate (aka "Silver") competed in obedience, and won, is no big deal. At least it shouldn't be news.
Silvers have been competing, and winning/titling, in obedience for several years. So too in other venues, Hunt Tests, Tracking, Rally, and Agility. There are silver dock jumpers, therapy dogs, drug dogs, etc, as well. Like any Lab, they can do a diversity of tasks being highly biddable Labradors.

Because they are AKC registered (certified purebred pedigree canine) they cannot be excluded from an AKC performance event as long as they conform to that event's rulebook. The LRCP would have had a huge problem with violating AKC rules if they had not allowed this dog to compete. That is the bottom line, their hands were tied, that is why the LRCP did not kick it out, that is why it could show. It was an AKC decision. But that is not why it won. It won because it had a good dedicated trainer (environment) and the dog itself was amenable to that training (genetics).

For those of us who support all Labradors, regardless of their shade of color, this win is a big deal because it put the Silver issue on "the" Labrador center stage. I'm quite pleased the dog won. Anything less, and the obligatory wiscoy attacks would have included that the dog was not even able to compete. Yet, it did. No one is kidding themselves thinking this will do much to immediately change the perceptions that many here have against Silvers. But, it does prove, once again, that these Labs are just as capable as any other Lab.
Perhaps next year there will be more "Silvers" at the Potomac. Perhaps next year we can have a honest and open seminar on the topic. Perhaps the actual facts about these Labradors, the history, and genetics can be brought to the table. Perhaps the hearsay and lies that have propagated hatred against them can be exposed and eliminated. Perhaps, the general Labrador community would finally be willing to have an open dialog about these Labradors.
IMO, that is what the big deal is all about. Because the issue is center stage, it gives opportunity for discourse and discussion. It potentially could lead to the "Pure" truth becoming more widely available. It's a big deal because there are ill-educated nawty breeders out there hell-bent on propagating and disseminating the long-held, yet utterly unfounded, lies that Silvers came from weims. It is a big deal because true information begets pure knowledge, which can lead to wisdom and ultimately freedom, be it hard-won. Truth and freedom are the enemies of all tyrannical powers who govern by fear, lies, and oppression. Yes, the Savior of us all was correct, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Abhor Oppression - Learn Truth - Be Free

There is one large problem with your post. You are calling them "Labs/Labradors" they are not they are a cross of Lab/Weim that is now being registered as a pedigree dog under the chocolate color.

Here are the facts: NO dilute genes were ever documented in the history of the breed. There are NO dilute genes in any other original "Retriever" breeds (Golden, Flat, Curly). All Retrievers at one time were registered as the same breed with only "varieties". There are no silver Flats or Curlies. NO documented cases of a dilute gene EVER appearing in the breed prior to the 1980s. NO documentation of the dilute gene appearing in any other country until recent exports have muddied the gene pool. A dilute dog is NOT a shade of the original color. It is a MODIFIED version of that color. It is not the result of the A or K locus, but the direct result of the dd alleles that are NOT native to this breed. All one has to do is look at the Silvers, even today and see where the "d" came from-THE WEIM. And while I will NEVER breed nor accept the Silver breeders explaination (whatever that is), I do know that because of $$$ they aren't going away. I don't have to accept them. There are other breeds that have had non-native colors pop up and serious breeders will never accept them either. I think I might be a little more open to Silvers if you breeders all stopped LYING about where the color came from. I'm sure it will come out when Culo is on his death bed. Won't that be a hoot. I can hear it now, "hahaha, I fooled all you idiots into buying my Lab/Weim crosses."

The d gene has reared its' head in many Labrador lines that don't go to the Culo dogs.
Do some research on the Labrador back to the origin of the three colors and look at the gray names of the dogs from the early 1900's. Look at the dogs listed as Brindle. Look at the dogs bred into the Labrador to improve the breed. Could the houndy look of the Culo dogs have come from the Whippet? Maybe the color from the Chessie or one of the many other breedings?
Try not to ignore what the English did by tearing out the pages of their stud books after the war. The American owners had the records of these dogs.
There is a lot of information on the internet, try not to be so close minded and do some research beyond Culo.
Read a Richard Edwards book. He has done so much research on our Labs.

Do your research before you throw stones.

You are so far off on your "review the facts". NOTHING you say can substantiate your claims that the dilute gene is a native gene to the breed. The fact that it takes a simple dd combo to make a silver or charcoal and that NO breeder before the 1980s has EVER produced an adult or line of dilutes disproves your false claim that it has always been in the breed. Why would it suddenly "pop" up after all these years? You also LACK the knowledge of breed history by IGNORING the fact that the Retriever used to be ONE breed with 4 varieties. And that NONE of those varieties carry the dilute gene.

So stop spouting the same ol' rhetoric and just admit the fact that somewhere in the 1980's weim's were introduced and on purpose (since you say those kennels didn't keep weims) as a money making scheme. Maybe then we will accept the fact that after so many generations the gene pool will be considered "pure", but knowing where the gene originated would be the only honest way to go about it. Too bad you have to continue to convince yourself and others differently. Those of us who have been in the breed a long time can see just where the gene came from.

Research? I've lived Labradors for 30 years. I have done research into many lines. I've read all the breed books out there written by the most knowledgeable Labrador people out there. I've made friends and acquaintances that go back many years before that. I even KNOW Mr. Edwards personally. What you silver supporters do is try to twist someone's words to find something that might lend some type of "possibility" or mention of the dilute being present in the breed. Just because someone names a dog something with "grey" or "silver" in its name does NOT mean that it was a dilute dog. Talk about pulling something out of your a$$ on that one. You have NO solid proof that the dilute gene was ever present in the general population of Labradors when the breed closed its stud books. All you guys go on are possible theories and far out assumptions. EVERY breeder in the UK and every long-time reputable breeder in the US will tell you that there was NEVER a dilute adult Labrador seen until Culo started promoting his dogs.

I've also seen a color photo of the litter that MRW described in her book. The owner of the litter realized there was a vitamin deficiency and once corrected, the dogs turned black as expected. No dilute gene at work here. But you silver breeders hang on this as proof there was a silver litter just because MRW mentions it and try to establish as fact without any type of follow up or mention of how the dogs turned or why they were the color they were.

There are many lines with the "d" gene that don't go back to Culo? REALLY? I would love to see your pedigrees on this statement. Like I said, I was here 30 years ago BEFORE the silver frenzy. I know when Culo started. I followed the silver craze and in the beginning it was just two lines. But then again, people who wanted to jump on the bandwagon and make some extra cash did not find it difficult to make a cross or two to a weim and start breeding their own dilutes. I do know of one silver kennel in the early days who was suspended from AKC because DNA proved incorrect parentage.

So before you start quoting the greats in the breed, perhaps you should talk to people who know them and know that what they have seen and written about and what you twist of their words are just more lies you make up to try to justify your color. As Nancy stated, the Culo dogs do not look like whippets, they look like weims. Anyone with half a brain and half an eye for breed characteristics could see that.

Z, you're well versed and know the silver bull nonsense they get out there to others.

Now can you visualize a silver dog that's a mixed breed Weim winning High In Trial at The Potomac?

They had a good quiet place to enter that dog where no conformation exhibitors would see him. I wonder what else might have happened there that was kept quiet.

Okay, Z, I’ll take your bait.
Anyone with half a brain and half an eye would know that a dog does not have to look like another breed to have genes from that breed in its genetic makeup. All breed historians, including yourself, know that there were many other breeds bred into the Labrador. This was done before the breed was considered a breed in the 1800’s, it was done when all the retrievers were lumped together as you laboriously pointed out, it was done while the studbooks remained open, and it was done during times like the war years in the mid 1900’s. The Labrador “breed” is chock FULL of genes that came from other recognized breeds. Some of those genes were analogous to genes already in the Labrador gene pool, some were novel dominants that were easily bred out or kept, but many were recessives that were impossible to breed out, let alone know that they were there. Because they are recessives, it is also impossible to know if they were actually novel or original stemming back to the St. John’s Water Dog, which is itself a “breed” of diverse and little understood genetic origin. The reference to the whippet cross that happened historically was obviously the poster’s attempt to point out that the gene could have come from that known outcross. There would be no reason for a Lab to look like a whippet today to validate that comment. Just like there would be no reason for a Lab today to look like an Elkhound to validate that that breed too was once intentionally bred into the Labrador. If you really want to see whippety Labs, go to RTF or your local field trial and your get your fill.

I have seen a dilute Black FCR. Came from England. The Golden Retriever could very well carry the dilution gene. It is next to impossible to detect dilution (dd) in yellow dogs with dark skin pigment without DNA testing, especially after years and years of breed refinement. Your claim that there are not dilute Goldens is as valid as mine that there actually are. Neither substantiated without DNA proof. (Note of interest, all the Silver Lab lines have Yellows close behind them, a reasonable place for the gene to remain hidden throughout the breed history, in plain sight). I am not aware of any dilute Curlies, I’ll have to look into it, bound to be there too. You, of course, conveniently left out the Chesapeake Bay Retriever, whose origins are genetically more closely tied to the Labrador. It does carry the dilution gene. So too, the Newfoundland breed, which traces its origin to the same progenitors of the St. John’s breed that eventually became the foundation of the Labrador. Just the Facts.

You want to claim that the charcoal Labs that MRW saw were that color due to a vitamin deficiency instead of dilution. Ok, no problem, could have been…though I too have seen the color photo and the gray pups in the litter look exactly like pups from charcoal Labrador litters today, EXACTLY. But hey, I’m willing to not base my conclusions on “looks,” after all I just castigated you for doing so with the whippet comment. Let’s examine what MRW actually said, shall we?
“There is another colour which I had heard of but never seen and that was a rumour of a bluish or silver Labrador in the old days, with a dark stripe or stripes down the back.”
Let it be clear, the description of the litter MRW saw herself came after this statement. Looking at this original statement, it should be clear for anyone with “half a brain” to understand that she is referencing “Bluish or Silver Labradors” that she heard about that occurred historically. These are Labradors she never saw herself. They are not the puppies she later saw and refers to. They were Labradors that were different enough in color that they were known about and talked about among the breed stalwarts historically, enough so that Mary writes about them here, many decades after they existed. You do not know if these historic “Bluish or Silver Labradors” that Mary heard about were adults or puppies, and neither do I. She assumes that the litter she saw was what she heard about. Might have been, then again, might not. Until you develop a time machine and go back to the early 1900’s and find the “Bluish or Silver Labradors” Mary heard about and collect their DNA for testing of the D locs, we are each left to our conclusions. You could look at it on the face value simplest answer which would tell you that they were what Mary said they were and accept that they were indeed “Bluish or Silver Labradors.” Or you can twist her words to fit your own perception and explain away the obvious. Careful how you respond to that, you are always saying that today’s silver Labradors are bred to weims because on the face value it is the simplest answer. You would not want to look like a hypocrite by confounding your own premise for making your value judgments, it will de-legitimize your entire argument. Can’t have it both ways.

Another pre-1980 reference to “Silver” Labradors comes from another of your “greats in the breed,” at least by her statements she considers herself such. Sharon claims that modern Silvers began being bred for in the 1970’s. Ten years earlier, no big deal, could be a bit of poor research on her part, I’ll concede the likely. But then she also claims that “Another long timer remembers ads in Gun Dog magazine from the 50's advertising "gray Labradors" from Kellogg kennels.” I could call into question her so called “facts,” but let us assume that, like you, Sharon knows everything Labrador and therefore cannot be wrong. There you have two more pre-1980 examples of Silver Labradors from one of your own. Careful, if you attack those claims, you discredit Sharon in the process. Are you willing to throw one of your own under the buss over this?

The new silver lines. There are several. You can go see the Culo on the web anywhere, Beavercreek is out there too (unrelated to Culo for those that need help with pedigree research), Husker is another one, here is a link to that one. http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=451852&postcount=235 Those are public along with one or two more less common lines if you know where to look. The others, well, there’s not a field-bred Lab’s chance in the Potomac show ring would I give you those. You will only find out about them after we’ve bred them so deep with your lines and put more CH titles on them in the ring (yeah, you read that right, I said "more"). See, that is the beauty of the new lines. Because they do not tie back to the known silver lines I just mentioned, which you all love to hate, when you service a bitch, you are happy to do so because nowhere in the pedigree is a dog you would even think to question. Just nicely bred, very reputable English lines. Are you going to require every bitch you service to submit DNA proving that the dog does not carry the dilution gene? I’d encourage it actually, that is how we find our new lines these days, nice new lines. When the owners do DNA testing on their dogs and are surprised to find that they carry the gene. There was a windfall of new silver lines “discovered” several years ago when Ingen was using their old testing platform that automatically tested each dog for dilution. Yes, please do require DNA testing, we love the lines you all abandon over one little lowercase d. There is an idea out there that the LRC ought to require DNA testing before registration is allowed at the AKC to certify that a Lab does not carry the d gene. Beyond the logistical/political/ethical/legal nightmare this would be for the LRC and AKC, the shock will come when some of you all are denied registration. It is in the show lines, as well as the field lines, always has been. That is a can of worms you all might think twice about before opening…me, I hope you do it as it will do nothing more than validate the veracity of the dilute gene being a Labrador gene, because you all know your dogs are “pure” as the day they came of the ships at Poole, right?

Ultimately, there is zero evidence that a weim was ever bred into the Labrador gene pool to develop the “Silver” Labrador. There is a mountain of evidence of historic and accepted outcrosses that could have brought the gene into the Labrador gene pool. There is even more significant evidence that the gene has been part of the Labrador gene pool from the very origin of the breed. So, stop regurgitating the same ol' unfounded rhetoric, you’re grasping at straws that aren’t even there.

As a word of friendly caution, take care in your attack of “Research,” if you knew her background and experience with the breed and the years of historical research you would feel stupid for what you posted. I’m actually embarrassed for you. When will you guys learn that not all of you hate. Not all of you are ill-educated. Not all of you buy into the regurgitated weim hype. Some have actually objectively researched it. Some have actually found the gene in their lines.

Simply exhausted. You don't want to give up because you just want a reason to continue breeding your Weim mixes. You provide NO SOLID proof that the d gene has been in the breed since it's inception. All you can do is present your one sided vomit trying to substantiate the existence of a gene that was not in the breed. All you can do is barf up more conjecture trying to justify breeding a non-native gene. Nothing you present is definitive to your case. In fact most of what you try to present as evidence is half truths and out right lies. It's all based on how *you* perceive the information and what you read into these statements because you so badly want to prove that the dilute gene is naturally occurring. I just have to ask, WHY IN THE HELL CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THE DOGS LOOK LIKE A WEIMARANER? No matter what you want to spout about the gene being in the breed pre-1980, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can take away the fact that they LOOK LIKE A WEIM! And that is as simple as it gets. I don't believe a word you say.

Quite clearly this persin thinks a lot of his silver dogs. Well, sir, if they are that great why bother with us? The quality of your dogs should be self evident without trying to incorporate our lines into yours. Go forth and multiply all you want. Never will silver be an allowable color in the confirmation ring no matter how many high quality lines you manage to fraudulently sneak into your breeding program. I am going to add a clause in my stud contract that provides for a large cash penalty should you try that with one of my chocolates.

By LRC Directors - Saturday March 24, 2012.
SILVER coat color in LABRADORS—Official Statement

There is no genetic basis for the silver gene in Labradors. The silver color is a disqualification under the Standard for the breed. The LRC does not recognize, accept or condone the sale or advertising of any Labrador as a silver Labrador. The Club opposes the practice of registering silver as chocolate.

Doesn't really matter whether the silver gene has been in Labs all along ... point is it is undesirable and should not be perpetuated. There are plenty of other coat patterns (mismarks etc) or other traits that can be traced back to early cross breeding and good breeders don't breed dogs where those pop up, because they are not good representatives of the Labrador breed.

My opinion is, who cares what the origin of the color is - that's beside the point. The point is that it is not within the standard and is therefore something that should not be encouraged.

This is not a new statement. It has been on the LRC website for a number of years now.

I do not understand why the LRC did not take a stronger stance when the AKC started investigating the silver. Silver is not a shade of brown or chocolate. It is a modified color as a result of the dilute gene introduced by the Weimaraner. I don't care about all the research the "simple" person has done to come up with all his/her's "what ifs". That's all they are: "what ifs". There is no solid proof the dilute gene ever existed in the breed. The simple proof is in the look and they still scream Weim mix to all those who know breed characteristics.

As for the silver that won HIT, good for the trainers/owners. The dog is neutered. AKC allows mixed breeds in obedience as long as they are spayed/neutered. Simple as that.

We do see some silver Labradors at various performance events/ obedience , Agility , Rally .. however the LRC of the Potomac IS a breed specialty and hence mixed breeds are not allowed along with any other kinds of purebred dogs. That is the nature of a breed specialty offering Obedience or Rally.

I guess as long as the AKC and not the LRC can determine that a Silver is still a Labrador there is nothing that can be done about it since it is an AKC event.

You know that gets me thinking. I looked in the catalog and saw several dogs entered under a PAL number. I am unfamiliar with this, but assume it's the same idea as the ILP. In order to get an ILP, all you had to do was take some photos of the dog, send them to AKC and register it as the breed it most closely resembles.

I am wondering if someone tried to register a silver under an ILP or PAL, if the AKC would make them register it as a Weimaraner or if they would accept it as a Labrador, especially since they look more Weimy than Lab still. Just thinking out loud.

Z. You provide NO SOLID proof that the d gene has not been in the breed since it's inception. All you can do is present your one sided vomit trying to de-legitimize the existence of a gene that was in the breed. All you can do is barf up more conjecture trying to justify ignoring a rare recessive native gene. Nothing you present is definitive to your case. In fact most of what you try to present as evidence is half truths and out right lies. It's all based on how *you* perceive the information and what you read into these statements because you so badly want to prove that the dilute gene is not naturally occurring. I just have to ask, WHY IN THE HELL CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THE DOGS DONT LOOK LIKE A WEIMARANER? No matter what you want to spout about the gene not being in the breed pre-1980, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can take away the fact that they DONT LOOK LIKE A WEIM! And that is as simple as it gets. I don't believe a word you say. You don't want to give up because you have dug in so deep that even facts no longer interest you, facts that if you recognized you'd have to eat crow.

Here are a couple better bred "Silvers" though still in need of more improvement, it's a process, a movement. (Go ahead, rip 'em apart, it is what you all do so well anyway.)




Of all the evidence provided that there is obviously no weim, it behooves those who hate Silver Labradors to put up or shut up. When Culo went public with his first litters in the 1980’s, the LRC in conjunction with the AKC, investigated and we all know that they jointly stated that they were purebred Labs (though as was posted above, the LRC has recently bent to pressure to renig on their original objective findings, and wow, what pressure, this is a witch hunt with you guys!) So, the position from the advent of the modern Silver Labrador was that they were/are indeed 100% Lab. It has always been in your court to P-R-O-V-E otherwise...for 25+ years now...we are all still waiting for something more than conjecture, you know...factual evidence...

Those are the UGLIEST dogs I've ever seen. I don't have to prove anything. HISTORY PROVES YOU WRONG. There is nothing in the breed's history that supports your claims. IN FACT, it's quite the opposite. Everything that you try to find and all your what ifs have NO SOLID BASIS. The claims you make from well-known breeders are taken out of context and information that you FAIL to provide or acknowledge proves YOU wrong.

These dogs you post photos of are a slight improvement over the first silvers, but that's only because you guys have duped good breeders into selling you good quality dogs or bred to their dogs under false pretenses. The whole silver controversy is based on nothing but LIES, LIES and more LIES!

And if you can't see Weim in your ugly silvers, then you are kennel BLIND. Even the obedience dog posted on here looks like a Weim x. Just because a couple of breeders LIE and MISLEAD other breeders to try to improve their dog's conformation and breed away from the Weim genes, doesn't mean it will ever be accepted. If you keep breeding them back to conformation Labs then you will eventually bury the weim genes deep enough where the dogs will have more Lab characteristics. However you will have those Weim characteristics popping up from time to time.

Keep digging up your supposed research and keep using your failed conjecture and what if's to sell your dogs. I for one will NEVER breed a color that is not native to the breed.

Again, I have nothing to prove since the history of the breed only describes three colors and since every color DNA test have charts just for the three color and since every form of Labrador art, collectibles, etc are of only three colors. You and your silver buddies are the ones who have to prove where the silver gene came from. Even most pet people can see the Weim in the mix. Maybe some day you'll wake up and see it too.

Don't choke on your vomit now.

Simply nauseating is a good handle for you!!!

Nothing you present is definitive, if it was then I guess we would all be acknowledging silvers as labs. Talk about conjecture, lol, your full of it. Tell me again, why is it that silvers are always in need of more improvement? Because they look like weims plain and simple. You are too funny. I really doubt other silver breeders are trying to get the weim out or improve them as you say, they are only in it for the money. While your busy duping lab breeders to "improve" your silvers the majority are breeding to anything. They look like weim crosses and they always will. Give it up already before you have a stroke.

And I believe it's your job to "prove otherwise" not ours as a national organization has taken a stand against your beliefs.

Simply nauseating

Z. You provide NO SOLID proof that the d gene has not been in the breed since it's inception. All you can do is present your one sided vomit trying to de-legitimize the existence of a gene that was in the breed. All you can do is barf up more conjecture trying to justify ignoring a rare recessive native gene. Nothing you present is definitive to your case. In fact most of what you try to present as evidence is half truths and out right lies. It's all based on how *you* perceive the information and what you read into these statements because you so badly want to prove that the dilute gene is not naturally occurring. I just have to ask, WHY IN THE HELL CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THE DOGS DONT LOOK LIKE A WEIMARANER? No matter what you want to spout about the gene not being in the breed pre-1980, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can take away the fact that they DONT LOOK LIKE A WEIM! And that is as simple as it gets. I don't believe a word you say. You don't want to give up because you have dug in so deep that even facts no longer interest you, facts that if you recognized you'd have to eat crow.

Here are a couple better bred "Silvers" though still in need of more improvement, it's a process, a movement. (Go ahead, rip 'em apart, it is what you all do so well anyway.)




Of all the evidence provided that there is obviously no weim, it behooves those who hate Silver Labradors to put up or shut up. When Culo went public with his first litters in the 1980’s, the LRC in conjunction with the AKC, investigated and we all know that they jointly stated that they were purebred Labs (though as was posted above, the LRC has recently bent to pressure to renig on their original objective findings, and wow, what pressure, this is a witch hunt with you guys!) So, the position from the advent of the modern Silver Labrador was that they were/are indeed 100% Lab. It has always been in your court to P-R-O-V-E otherwise...for 25+ years now...we are all still waiting for something more than conjecture, you know...factual evidence...

I agree - this whole silver discussion is pathetic and hilarious! I accept that it doesn't help to close the barn door now that the horses are out. These off-color dogs are going to be registered as Labradors no matter how nauseatingly ugly they are. NOW what I want to propose is to REQUIRE them to be registered as SILVER! That way we can see them in pedigrees and these mind-numbed zombie silver people won't find it so easy to use our wonderful silver-free lines.

I say stop registering them, they are ruining the breed. Let them sell silvers for what they are, designer mutts. Call them Labraraner's or Weimadors just don't call them labradors, that's not what they are.

Z. I don't have to prove anything. HISTORY PROVES YOU WRONG. There is nothing in the breed's history that supports your claims. IN FACT, it's quite the opposite. Everything that you try to find and all your what ifs have NO SOLID BASIS. The claims you make from well-known breeders are taken out of context and information that you FAIL to provide or acknowledge proves YOU wrong.
Goes both ways my friend.


LAMO. Every Labrador "is in need of improvement." That is why a Labrador breeder breeds, to improve. Some need more than others, it varies by line and individual.

Are there Silver Labrador breeders that breed for color and for money? You bet and I'll be the first to say it is a shame. Are their BYC breeders that breed for color and for money? You bet and in an exponentially greater amounts than there are even total Silver Labradors! These BYC breeders produce hundreds of thousands of BYB puppies annually, most without papers, and they sell them at their local super market or newspaper. A lot of them tie back to your coveted lines and some are your own puppies sold on limited but bred anyway. Why is it you all are not up in arms over the no doubt astronomical number of BYC Labs that are being bred just for the money? Seems quite two-faced to me. Are you really the keepers of the breed that you claim to be? Or are you bigoted in your self-described ethics war, giving one with similarities to you a pass while condemning another that you just love to hate?

I know you all like to lump all Silver Labrador breeders into the same boat and then try to sink it. One could say it is a wisocy pastime (pass me some more popcorn). However, there are Silver Labrador breeders that are working their tails off to breed the best Labrador possible. Some Silver Labrador breeders are even doing more health clearances than most of you. Some Silver Labrador breeders willingly take back any puppy they have produced if needed for any reason and offer support to new puppy owners for life. Some Silver Labradors breeders remove prospects from their future breeding plans if they do not pass health clearances. Some Silver Labrador breeders do not ever produce "Silvers" but instead just the typical BYC and an occasional few that are silver-factored BYC. Some Silver Labrador breeders lose money breeding their Labradors (kinda kills that "only in it for the money" argument you all love to use). Some Silver Labrador breeders place nearly all their puppies with limited registration. Some Silver Lab breeders train, then test/trial and earn titles with their Labradors, no handlers involved. Some Silver Labrador breeders strive to breed the "show" style Labrador. Some Silver Labrador breeders strive to breed Field trial competitors. Some Silver Labrador breeders are educated with degrees beyond the undergrad level with strong genetics backgrounds. Some Silver Labrador breeders have personal breed libraries that would put most here to shame. Some Silver Labrador breeders have specific breeding goals of which color is the last consideration, not the first as you all claim. Some Silver Labrador Breeders are trying their best to assist, guide, and mentor those who are new to breeding and do so with a desire to increase the "some."

But hey, go ahead and keep lumping us all together, I know you just cannot help yourselves, it's what you do. Then again, perhaps someone here will start actually thinking and researching objectively. You'll understand if I don't hold my breath.

Stop wasting your breath on us. We don't care what you have to say. Plain and simple THERE IS NO GENETIC BASIS FOR THE SILVER.

Now go play in your own little delusional world and make up all the crap you want to about how this could possibly have occurred to make your color, when we all can see where the color came from. We DON'T CARE to help you propagate an unnatural color. Plain and simple.

I for one believe they are crosses but like other have said AKC did not stop it when it first happened. So just like the doodles and other designer breeds, we need to be careful who we sell to.

For Simply Silver what is your reason to put so much effort into improving your Silver dogs. Because Silver will NEVER be a recognized color for a Labrador Retriever. So they will NEVER be able to be shown in conformation NEVER.

Look at the Simply Silver website. Check the pedigrees too.

Labradors come in 3 colors and silver is not 1 of them.

No, I am not Simply Silver Labradors. Heavens no!
I use the "simple/simply" moniker for some semblance of continuity on this forum, which encourages users hide identities. You know it is me if you see Simple or Simply in the name. Much more than most here can say. I could drop it if you would like, but then you wouldn't know if you were talking to me or not. It came from a thread here a few years back where I had to speak "simply" for some people to understand some very basic points.

Simply put, I didn't read your post all that well, so boring and I simply don't care. Your starting to sound like a cry baby.

Never heard a breeder refer to their labs as "needing improvement". Sure no lab is perfect but most of the show labs are recognizable as labs, you can't say that of silvers (hence needing improvement). Lab breeders breed to the standard, silver breeders do not, silver is not in the standard (any standard) FYI. Not breeding to a standard is not improving the breed.

B,Y, or C dogs are not rare and I've never heard of a reputable breeder charging more for a particular color. We are not in favor of BYB's either, where have you been.

The majority of silver breeders don't do clearances (but claim they do), try to name a dozen and let us check them out. Wake up and stop romanticizing silver breeders.

This whole topic is a waste of band space.

Simply whatever,

You still did not answer my question.
Why do you care about improving the silver dogs? They will NEVER be accepted by the LRC and will be DQ'd if they ever step foot inside a conformation ring.

If you breed black, yellow and chocolate, why do you care souch about the silver mutts.

Just wondering

Why don't you ask Potomac people ( club members-officers) why they split the venue. I doubt because it was for "silver" labs.
I guess most of you have no knowledge of how dog shows work. The Potomac files its application with AKC and gets its blessing from AKC. They hire a superintendent to get the entries - the club does not control that. Entries go into the super with the information needed and that is that. These labradors (silvers) are registered as chocolates. The problem lies when the whole "silver" thing started nothing was done with the parent club and AKC and the registration as chocolate has gone on. I will not entertain doing any discussion where the weim color and looks came in but what should have happened was like has happened with the white german shepherd. It is not an allowed color in conformation but they are allowed in companion events like obedience. They could have put a stipulation in the standard that the silver lab cannot be called a lab at all or say it is a non allowed color and can only go on limited registration and able to be in companion events only.
The Potomac club has no right to refuse a dog registered as a labrador to participate. A judge however in their ring could excuse such dog and say it is not an acceptable color but there is NOTHING to prevent this dog from participation in any companion event offered by the club. That is lawsuit fodor.
As a judge if I think a dog is not the breed it should be I don't have a right to refuse to judge it but I mark my book that the dog does not look like an XYZ and it is up to AKC to investigate.
I have had the honor to judge one of the best performing labs I have yet to see at this past year's National. When I turned around to make sure jump height was correct I saw 26 inches and I thought OMG- I turned and there was this magnificent, field bred, white blaze on chest and no double coat but what a working dog he was. I was honored to award this dog High in Trial with a score of 199 1/2 out of Util B ( and if any of you do obedience you know that Utility is not the class HIT comes out of)
He might not come up to many people's opinion of a labrador but he was a labrador all the way and his performance made me proud to own and breed labradors but especially to judge one .

OK flame suit is on

I am just saying a lab is a lab if it is registered as a lab. The Potomac is for labs therefore a dog registered as a lab is eligible for participation. I'm not getting into the silver debate but those dogs are registered as labradors colour chocolate. The Potomac club cannot refuse them nor can the super-- that is all I am sayibng.

You seem to be saying that the club or should I say a few club members wanted silvers admitted so to cover this up they changed venues or am I misreading you.

Yes your application goes into AKC and it is 18 weeks before your closing date. The club if it was changing venues for obedience sent stuff in probably earlier to prove to AKC that the site was acceptable- it does not change who can participate-- it is a labrador only specialty ( some clubs open their obedience to other breeds) so since this dog is registered as a labrador it could participate.

What is happening is the hot topic of Silvers to begin with and they are registered- this is now muddled into a change of venue further inflamming folks with a "Silver" going HIT and apparently people just waiting in the wings for the Potomac to have 2 different sites. Is this thread for real?

Obedience competitor wrote: "Is the 26 inch Lab with a white blaze and a single coat really any different from a silver Lab. Really? Neither of them can win in conformation."

The difference is that there have been black, 26 inch Labs and shorter, but probably not truly single, coats for the last 100 years. It's in the gene pool of real Labradors--look at the descriptions of the water dogs from which the Lab derived, and how it was related to the bigger Newfoundland. The Weim characteristics in looks and temperament show through in temperament and looks of many so-called silver "Labs," who really should have had no registration or maybe conditional registration if it had been available back when the crosses were done. One can still show a conditionally registered dog in obedience, but breeding it will show up in the pedigree of progeny. However, with contamination of the stud book, long before true DNA for a litter's parents was available, it is hard to just close the barn door--the horse of a different color is out. As for the winning black Lab described above, the coat is probably not a true single coat, but both the top coat and undercoat are probably short, and maybe the undercoat has even been stripped or Coat Kinged out.

Well put-- the horse is out of the barn.

when the first so called "silver's" came out was the time to do something-- it is a bit late and until you pull the registration on all those dogs that say labrador they will be out there. hindsight is wonderful.

And many field dogs do not have a true double coat

Yes, the horse is out of the barn and into our gene pool. Done. 20/20 hindsight is great, but now what are we going to do about the fact that silvers have already entered our gene pool and been registered as Labs.

I don't like the color silver, but arguing about how the dilute gene got into our breed is pointless. Maybe no one did it. Maybe it just happened. The dilute gene occurs as a mutation in other breeds, why not ours? Because the color silver occurs in dogs who have characteristics of Weims means nothing. Lots of Labs who aren't silver also have some of the characteristics of Weims. Check out performance events and you will see a lot of Labs who don't look the way I want Labs to look.

So flame on as you like, but we still have to decide what we are going to do about silvers in our gene pool. They are registered as chocolate Labs, they are being bred as Labs, and they are getting AKC titles. Already out of the barn....and galloping down the road.

This thread is like a serpent eating its tail. Are silvers worthy of the Labrador label? Should they be allowed to participate at Breed Club events? Who exactly put the axe to the barn door and allowed the horse to cavort? None of this seems to have any practical significance at this point in time (except for breed historians).

What exactly would have happened if the venue hadn't been split and the silver had shown its mettle on show grounds? Would you have had the generosity to admire a sterling performance, or would you have protested and booed the dog? Just remember, he had nothing to do with his breeding nor with LRC/AKC rules. He was just doing his job and, by all accounts, a darn good one.

Madeleine has explained the rules and, since the dog obviously had the right to participate, then the judge had no choice but to concentrate on performance and reward the best.

As a breeder, the only thing that bothers me is the lack of identification of the gene in pedigrees years down the road. It will become more and more difficult to trace and, tomorrow, we could all be involved, like it or not... even on the other side of the Pond!

I believe the only way this can be worked out if not already too late, is to work with the parent club (LRC) - oh I can hear some moans now and the AKC. The parent clubs are the ones that affect standards not individual clubs or individuals. I have not been to the LRC web site for some time but I believe they have an article on silvers

MHO is that they should be registered as???? with color silver???? or do you want to treat them as labradoodles which we know is defintely a cross between a lab and a poodle. If the silver folks say it is a gene mutation and not a weim added then it will behove some folks to prove it. So this labrador, registered as a labrador and with color chocolate did a star performance - let's be happy for the dog and it owner. I doubt the change in venue was a plot to secretly get the silver in.