Question.... I know there are a lot of lab breeders that you see that advertise "English" type conformation show all labs and then I see the ones called "American" type field bred labs. Are there any kennels out there that mix the two? I was just curious what they would look like and if one was more dominate over the other.

I had a gorgeous "English" looking female with some well known show kennels and a touch of field up her lines. I met her siblings and they also were really nice. They had solid health clearances in both the show and field ancestors. I bred my girl several times to outstanding show lines and ALWAYS got fieldy looking pups. I did keep the best she produced and bred her to show type and finally am producing show worthy pups from that line (great performance line). But it took 2 generations.

Original "English" looking girl had bone, coat, head, nice angles but was at top of breed standard for height. However, her offspring really showed the fieldy end, even though they had only 1/32 field in them.

Can't wonder why you ask? If I had to do mine all over, I would have placed my mostly "English" girl and started fresh with a true show line girl with good show pedigree.

Hard to get the fieldy out and not just how they look. They can be very hyper.

Your story sound exactly like mine except I never kept anything and my girl is just a house pet now. Finally settled down and easy to live with at 7 :)

I don't think the "English" type really applies to many of the show dogs today in the US. So many are so big, heavy, over boned, short muzzled, over pronounce stops that they resemble more of a short coated Newfoundland. This is not the English type.

The dogs in the UK are more consistent in type and are much more moderate than some of the big winners at specialties these days.

To me English type describes a moderate dog, which in comparison to some of the big show winners here, do look a bit more on the fieldy side. I long for the days for the pendulum to swing back more toward the moderate side of the breed.

I do not understand why judges reward such exaggerations.

I am not a big fan of exaggeration and prefer to keep and breed a more athletic dog, but moderation is not the only component of breed type. A dog can be moderate but generic/lack breed type. I am generalizing based on what I have seen training and running hunt tests for years, but it is not common to see good structure, coats or decent heads in field bred Labradors. Many of those folks are breeding to pedigrees proven in performance (titles in specific venues) and I rarely hear conversations around improving structure or any other physical attributes when those breedings are discussed. Because of that, I think getting anything consistent from a physical conformation perspective is very difficult within those pedigrees. I also think there are very few breeders who successfully marry the two pedigrees (field/show), and the ones that do are very long time breeders with a good eye for a dog and an understanding of breed type, structure and pedigrees. Most of the dogs that I have seen out of crosses have primarily been generic, pet quality dogs – nothing horribly wrong with them but nothing outstanding either. Heads rarely have what I would consider a melting expression and ears are often houndy. The eyes are often too small and/or too round. I have seen work ethics and temperaments all over the board. The dogs do tend to have more leg under them, but many are out of balance in the other direction – too much leg for depth of body. Also, many of the loins in field bred dogs are quite long, which is not correct for this breed and hard to fix.

While a decent dog makes a fine pet, it really does not improve on anything or promote those attributes that are most loved about this breed.

Kerrybrook labradors may disagree. Home of many CH/MH with prominent FC AFC's in their pedigrees.

Lets not start naming names. There are alot of nice show Ch/MH,SH. I think alot of us started with show/field dogs. First kennel were training and the best dogs were coming from these kennels and winning. But looks have changed alot. Many show dogs can work, some have alot of drive and not the crazy hyper. Just need the chance and the money. Some adv. English Lab because that is the way Joe public see and knows the difference.

I think American Field-Bred Labradors have a beauty all their own that has little to do with the AKC standard and everything to do with performance. If you have seen a good one at work, you can see where breeding for function and not type has resulted in some interesting changes that make them ideally suited for American terrain and especially field trials. Their ears are higher set for better hearing. Coats are usually not double, which prevents overheating in the highly physical sport. Legs are longer, bone is lighter, and the body is built for speed. Temperament is "hot" - lots of energy and drive.

The other type of Labradors I would rather call "correct" than "English". They are more closely bred to the standard while preserving the classic temperament and instinct. Yes, you get swings of the pendulum that result in overdone dogs and other traits being ignored or exaggerated, but they are judged against the standard, not by how well they perform in field trials.

For most practical purposes, the pedigrees of these two types are totally unrelated. The breed has already split - it's only the formalities that prevent the field Labs from being recognized as a different breed.

I would say they are an example of a long time established breeder who knows their pedigrees and the breed standard and therefore can effectively mix pedigrees (as the poster stated).

What I find to be confusing is that what people often call "English" Labradors don't look anything like Labradors from England. I understand the history of the phrase so maybe it isn't confusing as much as it is frustrating. The reason why this is an important discussion is because most "specialty" type Labradors of today are not typical of the breed historically or what would be described by The Standard of the country of origin. I am not saying what is right or wrong, although I do have a strong opinion, but it is important to deeply consider what is correct type and not just spout mindless jargon.

Although there aren't many people who successfully cross show and field trial lines, there are a lot of confirmation people who do run their dogs successfully in hunt tests. They have moderate dogs and consider hunting ability as an important aspect of their breeding programs. When the pendulum swings back, and I think it already has started to, these breeders will be sitting pretty. Breed for what is correct and not what is trendy. Put some time into thinking about what "correct" really means. That may be exactly what the OP is doing. :)

What I find confusing is that I am only 2nd generation American on my fathers side, yet I consider myself "American".
I have yet to find an "English" lab 3 generation pedigree with relatives actually from England. On the other hand, my "UK" dogs (a lab and an english cocker) at least have all or most dogs in Britain, Wales, Ireland, or Scotland. Go figure

Why are they not called "American Show" labs since that would be a more accurate description, and that way I can stop getting calls from people looking for "blockhead, short, broad, 100+lb, big boned, non-hunting" dogs for pets? By the way, those were THEIR (the callers) descriptions of what they wanted, not mine!!!

Frankly, I am glad that I don't sell to "pet" people, some of the calls are really "out there"!!!

Would you say that there are 3 "types" of labs being 1) English labs, 2) American show labs, and 3) American field labs? Furthermore, would you say the confusion is because American show labs used to look like English labs?

Don't sell to pet people ? These are wonderful homes. Better than in a kennel with a bunch of Labs. Riding in a truck for hours to a show. Please ! Pet people see nice dogs and decribe them as they see them. We don't adv. block heads and all that, but sure don't put the pet familys down. They deserve a beautiful Labradors family member as much as we do. This breed is so wonderful.

I will have pet people call and ask about stocky and block heads which they will call English Labs. I am honest and tell them my dogs have English backgrounds but are from moderate American Show Dog lines. When the people visit, they like what they see. Not all want the extreme stocky and block heads. They just want to distinguish between the taller, long heads of some hunting dogs. They are very happy with a moderate show type dog.

I like the "dual look" myself and that is why I was asking. I like a dog that isn't all fieldy but has some stockiness. I don't like the super short so was just wondering if mixing had proven to produce any CH/MH type of dogs.

Mixing show and field lines result in generic looking Labradors which do not conform to the standard in conformation and do not have what it takes to win at field trials. It has been this way for over thirty years...I know...been there and seen people try with good quality dogs from both sides...always with "blah" results.

For the most part, the CH/MH dogs out there are show bred and have little to no "field" dogs in them. The couple with field back in the lines are the ones that finish their MH, but then have to be shown in random remote places to pick up any points in the ring. FT lines stamp their look hard.

Keep a nice show bred dog lean and well exercised and you'll have just the look you want!

And then, there are those that are quickly finished in the ring and need a trainer to do junior and senior hunter. Then when it comes to Master Hunter, they really struggle and fail many tests but with enough hard training and time and money and the right test site and judge they finally at last get their MH. Check out the test records of CH/MH dogs.

Personally, I'd rather have the one that will work for me and knows his job that he was bred for. And I do believe that he should meet the Standard. Hopefully, in the future, dogs that are moderate, well put together and in working will be recognized more often by well educated judges.

I agree after studying pedigrees that the field trial dogs seem to come through from generations way back

There are a lot of field bred labs that fail a lot of tests and yet no one even notices because they do not stand out. Yes, there are some CH/MH that blow through JH and SH and then struggle at Master, for several reasons. Kudos to those that work through it and achieve success. I know people who have judged some of these dogs and loved their marking ability, drive and enthusiasm - they had issues to work through and given they competed in multiple venues and did not focus on one area, it took a while.

No one "gives" a dog a MH - I don't care where they pass their tests. Many of the MH judges have egos the size of TX. Many others have a bias against conformation dogs. I watched a test where field bred dogs were carried out of the 1st series with a weak, sloppy performance and the show bred dog was dropped due to a weak but decent blind that was much stronger than those of the dogs that were carried - he pinned his marks and the second blind was near perfect. The gallery was appalled, the pros were appalled, and yet it happened. Sometimes the struggling has less to do with the work than the attitudes.

I have a highly driven show dog that failed several SH tests because he kept breaking - this happens with field bred dogs all the time yet no one notices. He did finish and became a very solid worker, with me handling. He trained with a field bred dog that everyone just thought was outstanding - that dog NEVER passed a master test, and it took years before the owner would listen to the trainer who said to retire the dog. It was out of control, ate birds, etc. She was bred and produced more of the same. The same trainer would not even consider letting me give up on my dog when things got frustrating. Most reputable trainers will not stay on a dog that they do not believe in - it just may take different approaches to get to the same place with some of these dogs. My dog, who is built well, is still going strong as an aging veteran in both the field and show ring.

I would rather have a correct dog that can do solid work even though they may struggle through some things & can get to a point where they are consistent (meaning they are biddable), than a mediocre dog that gets there quickly but is largely mid to low quality in conformation/structure - no amount of time or wishful thinking will ever improve their structure or type. The correct dog with a good (although maybe not outstanding) work ethic can be used to improve a breeding program. A quick study that is mediocre in conformation is really of no use to a breeding program because it is highly unlikely any improvement will ever come from that, especially with a male - no bitch owner with a nice bitch is going to go backwards with a mediocre male just because he has a master title. A NICE dog with a MH title - that is a different story, especially if the bitch brings good working ability to the table.

I do agree that there are dogs that have no interest in retrieving, are not biddable, etc, and struggle to get a WC, let alone a JH - I would not consider breeding those dogs any more than I would consider breeding a structurally mediocre generic dog.

So, where do your puppies go? Are they all show quality?

99% of pet homes are wonderful, loving families that will treat their puppies like the pampered pets we want them to be.

As to dogs needed multiple passes to get their master? I used to say that I wouldn't touch a dog that couldn't pass relatively quickly. I checked out records on Entry Express.

Well, guess what, then I started training and running my dogs in Master myself. More than 1/2 the times we have failed was due to ME, not the dog. When you get to that level it's all about making decisions quickly. You learn the hard way how to blow that whistle and give a cast.

So, unless you see that dog was handled by a pro and failed constantly, you can't look at number of failures to tell working ability. If that were the case, my dogs would be duds. Which they are certainly NOT. And I know they are having a blast whether we fail or not! They get the bird regardless!

Sue Puff

I don't think the number of failures is a reliable measure of working ability regardless of the handler. It can be if the dog never achieves success or consistency, but if that is how people are measuring dogs, they are selling a lot of dogs short. Looking at a list without knowing the dog, having seen it work, talking to the handler or trainer, is no better measure than breeding to a dog one has never seen in person. There are several reasons for failures that have little to do with intelligence or work ethic. A lot of trainers enter dogs that are not ready to run and have the dogs grow into it. I am an HRT judge and I see this all the time.

At Master, MOST of the dogs are titled Master dogs (unlike at JH and SH, where dogs do not continue to run for years after they have titled) and still the overall pass rates at tests are 40-50%. A dog new to the scene, especially dogs that are pulled in and out of training to show, do obedience, etc., is not going to pass at the same rate as an 8 year old dog that has been running MH since it was 18 months. Anyway, I think knowing the dog and watching it run is a better way to evaluate. Talk to the trainer, if there is one.

I personally give those who keep at it with their dogs a lot of credit - every failure is a learning opportunity and I wish more breeders made that kind of commitment to learning more about what their dogs can do, their strengths and weaknesses. Most people are not that into self-torture that they will continue with a dog without potential. People who judge by looking at numbers may discourage a lot of people from even trying lest they too will be judged inadequate.

I do not breed show type labs. So no, they are not "show quality". I breed working dogs from american field trial and hunt test lines, as well as from UK field trial lines. I breed for the purpose of working since the breed is a retriever and should be worked as such. I do not sell to pet homes because of those looking for a "pet", 80% of them have this naive idea that the pup will conform to their lifestyle, with no or very little training or effort on their part.

In any given litter, there will be three that I would consider having the drive and temperament to either compete year round in hunt tests and/or field trials, or guide hunt 90+ days of the year, or would make great narcotics, bedbug detection, and search and rescue dogs, and agility. These are your type "A" dogs. Most Pro trainers love them.

There will be the majority of the litter at "B" level. These make great hunt test dogs, serious hunting companions, dock dogs, search and rescue, bedbug detection, obedience trials and rally. They are birdy, have tons of desire, yet they are also great for the amateur trainer or DIY owner.

There is usually one or maybe two at the most on the end that are either really soft, or just have a really laid back attitude. These are great for owners with experience in training soft dogs, older hunters looking for that weekend warrior type of hunting companion where they spend more time sitting in the truck drinking coffee or fishing out of the boat. They are great for getting youngsters involved in the hunt test games and hunting, since they are less likely to be too much dog for the handler. They still need a set routine with lots of mental and physical exercise as well as a daily job to perform in order for them to be happy as a companion dog when they are not working. They also do well with other jobs, like obedience trials, as therapy dogs, dock dog, and hunt tests.

In order to get that "pet" type of dog that I seem to get, the pup would have to have little to no ambition other than to get up so that it could eat or go potty. I get the calls from those that want a pup that doesn't bark, chew, cry, nip, dig, want attention (unless they are ready to offer it), lick, pee, poop, get on the furniture, jump, knock kids over, hit you with their tail, slobber, leave bits of kibble on the floor, need walks, won't bug them with toys, won't steal the laundry in lieu of a toy, won't destroy toys or the laundry :) They give me the description of a dog that is a piece of furniture who's job and purpose is to lay still and out of the way, until they want to either show it off to friends or if they need some type of emotional pick me up. They are quick to point out how their previous dog was "perfect", at least for the last couple of years before it died. They don't seem to recall how that dog acted or what its needs where 15 yrs before. Or they make some statement like, "oh, we got rid of our last dog because it ....insert any of the usual bored dog syndrome here....and so we are looking for a new dog."

If I had a pup that didn't act like a labrador RETRIEVER (emphasis on retriever), then I would seriously consider taking that pup to a vet because something is wrong with it !!!


By the way, I have/or have had, all three types as adults all living in my house at one time. What you call hyper dogs are just excited dogs. When you see them at hunts tests and field trials or training days, these dogs are driven athletes that love to perform. When they are home, you will find a majority of them lounging either on their owners bed or draped across the couch. If you don't believe me, go on to the Retriever Training forum (RTF) and ask for photos of their dogs! They will be happy to oblige!

While I don't have any qualms with those that want to pursue breeding, raising, showing labradors, and thus needing to sell those that don't make the grade as show quality, I do get "irked" with "pet" breeders.

Sporting and show dogs have an inert value. Both monetary and perceived. Sport breeders have a HUGE niche to sell their dogs since they have so many different categories and markets to sell them, all of which are also perceived as having value. Show breeders have a narrower market, those of show quality go (hopefully) to show people and breeders, and those that aren't, are sold as pets, maybe therapy dogs. Those that show and sport their dogs have a wider market as their dogs are PROVEN by earning titles and thus inferring that the pups could also obtain such, and thus they have a higher value as well.

Pet breeders are already selling to the lowest market available...unless they are selling the pups as laboratory animals, or at food markets in other countries, their isn't any other market readily available. Those educated buyers in both sporting, hunting, and show, all know that they are not going to get their next champion from these sources.

It is human nature to put more emotional value on items, including pets, that cost more monetarily or have a higher perceived value- otherwise we wouldn't have the show or sporting venues as these all started with "my dog is prettier or more talented than your dog!!" We have become a throw away society, were if something is too much of a bother, or if it isn't cute no more, or it eats too much, needs too much time, sheds too much, doesn't match the carpet anymore, getting too old, etc... that we "get rid of" it. And then, to make matters worse, we turn around in a few months and get another one to replace it.

I am sorry but, not everyone should own a dog. Some are just too strapped for cash-even if they deny it or don't realize it, or they don't have the time, the know how, the ability, to own a dog. It is what it is. I don't believe in making a dog conform to its environment, making it mentally and physically miserable, not to mention making its owner miserable as well. I would rather carefully place pups with people that have either 'been there, done that" with a proven track record or for those new to the game(s), with those that have a stable support system in place via a pro trainer, local retriever club for guidance, or some other mentor (whom I have also talked with before selling a dog) so that they will have a realistic chance of getting the dog that they NEED, as well as want, and the pup will be in the best home possible for the rest of its natural life.

Sorry for the long post. Ok, flame and pick away at it. :)

both these paragraphs describe the families that purchase my "pet" puppies.
I find it odd that you would consider the pet family to be the lowest market.
I dont know what families you have looking but most of my pet families make more than enough money.

I found your post to be degrading and pompous.

I breed for the B type dog. I usually get an A or two and place them appropriately or keep them but breed them carefully. It is easy to find pet homes for the C type but if I were breeding too many of those, I would not feel successful. I think it is fine to produce some C's, but intending to produce those laid back dogs is not breeding for what a Labrador is supposed to be. The type A dogs are great dogs too but since I am not a serious hunt trainer, I would not have the market to place them in the proper homes if I produce a lot of those. I like them for myself but am careful not to produce too many.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm betting the Guide Dog/Therapy Dog associations would have zero use for your A and most of your B dogs. Labradors weren't intended to be used as Narcotic, search and rescue, or dock dogs, either.

Labradors have evolved into so much more than just a retriever; don't sell them short. If you don't diversify, you become extinct. The need to hunt, and indeed - the places to hunt, are growing smaller.

The qualities that make this breed an excellent hunting retriever are the same ones that make it an excellent companion - there is no need to lose those traits as they will never become extinct. This dog was never intended to be bred solely to show either, and yet that is what many people are doing - breed a head coat and tail and forget the rest, including structure/outline/biddability - that is happening as well. It is the breeding for personal interests that has led to so much diversity that this breed looks and often acts like several different breeds. The dog described in the standard is a NICE honest dog - no changes were ever necessary.

And don't forget....this breed was not originally developed as a Field Trial guided missile, either. One extreme is just as incorrect as the other. Key words are Balance and Moderation.

That is very well stated.

It seems that everyone gets caught up the semantics of all of this... there are English field type dogs and English show type dogs in England.... there are American field type and American show dogs in America. Who gives a flying front door what they're called if the terminology helps the general public know what they're looking for. The only thing that matter is the YOU know what you have.

I like this quote included the LRC Illustrated standard:

"Fancy dogs may be measured by any rule however artificial, but a shooting dog
should be judged by points relevant to his work." J.H. Walsh, 1887

I think this is the whole point of any working dog’s standard – what are the important features a dog must have to efficiently and effectively do its intended job ( in this case, retrieval of game).

From the introduction to The Kennel Club standard....

"Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed."

This is a recent addition to the standard by the KC in an attempt to appease the Animal Rights groups in their country. The Labradors are one of the breeds on a watch list for things such as being overweight or becoming too short in leg. It's become all about the "health and welfare of the dogs" over there right now. This is the reason there was such an uproar at Crufts last year when dogs were being disqualified after winning Best of Breed for stupid stuff as determined by non specialist AR leaning veterinarians. While I would not want to see this ever happen in the US, it is left up to the judges to determine what is correct to the standard and not the AKC, not an AR group nor a veterinarian. We as breeders know our dogs and our pedigrees and you will always have those breeding for their own set of ideals, which may or may not be correct nor for the better or worst of the breed.