Laurel put it perfectly. 'my understanding', I think you are right about people not knowing what a gentlemans gun dog is, you proved a point with your comment. It is more than running out and picking up a bird. You'll understand this if you re read through the posts. Retrievers conserve game. They do this by picking up everything that is down. To do this, they may not see all shot, but they have to have the desire to remember those they did see drop and to persistently look for those they didn't and to be willing to work with the handler to get to birds that the handler knows the location of.

I am NOT saying every dog needs a SH or criticizing those that don't go beyond a JH. Hunt Tests are just that, TESTS. A test of ability. I don't hunt but have been hunting. There are only so many hours in a day and so much money. But tests at the senior level help to show that dogs have the ability to do what is required by a retriever. They do not accurately reflect a days hunt. They are testing for the traits needed. This is one of the weaknesses of the show side of things. It is more than running out and picking up a single bird. Now, the field side of things is the extreme opposite.

Like conformation shows should be a way to evaluate structure and type of breeding stock, this venue is a way to help evaluate ability. Why do you thing the Dual champion was such a coveted thing?

Go to a hunt test and find someone involved in multiple aspects of the breed and have them walk you through concepts. Heck, call me. I'm usually marshaling somewhere. I'll help anyone evaluate why traits are important.

Sue Puff

Great posts Sue. I do disagree a bit on the JH thing though, but maybe it's a matter of semantics. I have trained (on my own, w/ no help of pros)a dog to SH a few years ago, that along w/ CDX, open agility titles and tracking certification all by age 4. She was bred twice after that as well. I was pretty exhausted to say the least as we were training 7 days a week most weeks.

Now w/ more numbers here, I have come to feel very comfortable after training for JH, CDX (on 5 generations), tracking etc, in my assessment of individual working ability/trainability. I have one fire breather who I'll likely do a SH on but holy cow, she may need to be 9 by that time to just mellow out a bit! She earned her CDX handily at age 2, like several others here, and is also working on utility concepts as time allows. The thing is not necessarily do these dogs get the titles, but what the breeder/owner/handler LEARNS about the dog in the meantime. Do *I* really WANT another just like the fire-breather though? Not really... I'm personally hoping that by breeding her to a more grounded, but highly capable/trainable stud, I will approach my goal though. I'd not know any of that if I didn't at least do the JH, maybe do some SH handling at least (not necessarily title but see how they "learn") and do the CDX (which I know CAN be done very reasonably w/ a smart and biddable dog). OTOH, I've watched some MH titled dogs that were painfully pokey, so just saying that titles don't tell the whole story. I'd much rather breed to the untitled son of a fantastic dog from proven lines. But sometimes that takes really knowing the breeder well and being able to trust what they tell me about their dogs too.

The reason for all my posts about Romeo is one word... Balance.

Balance allows beautiful movement.

I do think Mary Roslin - Williams would love Romeo.

I really like how Crufts works. One judge for the girls, another for the boys. If they can't decide between them, a senior judge is called in to cast the deciding vote. I am sure glad that is the case. Three sets of eyes are better then one.

One has to remember that real life hunting is not a competition . It is a time to enjoy the outdoors with your Labrador. If you have a balanced one it will have no trouble in a field, on a mountain hike, or a swim in the ocean.

Most often it is our lack of training ability that makes for a poor hunter. As another poster said, most Labradors have the instinct. Will every Labrador excel, no way. Life does not work that way.

No, it doesn't. However, it probably DOES matter if your dog goes out and chews up the bird, if your dog is unsteady to the gun and is therefore a liability on a hunt, if your dog is so noisy there is no way birds will ever get close enough to shoot, etc. I am assuming it would matter if your dog has no desire to enter water or use its nose, has poor marking ability etc.

Everyone has different standards and things they can live with. I train with a lot of old school waterfowlers who belong to the local gun clubs and Ducks Unlimited. They are active hunters who run tests to keep their dogs conditioned and tuned up for hunting. They all say hunting with a nice, trained dog with good instincts is much better than hunting with an untrained, out of control dog or one who goes off to smell the roses when they are supposed to be picking up birds or dogs that need to be cajoled to get into the water. But these types of dogs are encountered quite regularly, so there must be a varied range in what is considered acceptable, depending on the person and the relationship with their dog.

My personal belief is that breeding dogs should be held to a higher standard than the standard an average pet owner has for their dog. I believe this to be true for both physical and mental conformation (work ethic, biddability, etc.). Breeders should KNOW what they are breeding rather than make assumptions. We don’t assume that because we have bred several generations of good hips that we no longer have to xray our current breeding stock; it is as erroneous to assume that because I had an obedience dog or two or because my dogs like to chase balls in the back yard that they will produce great work ethic or make good hunting companions. The only way to KNOW what is being passed down is to prove each generation of our breeding stock and keep track of the pups we place in pet homes. If a dog has never retrieved a bird, how is one to know whether that dog has hard mouth, which is one of the worst faults a retriever could possess? This is a personal pet peeve of mine because I am seeing it a lot more frequently at field events.

I think the one thing that is difficult for many is, what should the standard be for work ethic? If you ask hard core field enthusiasts, it should be an AFC/NFC. The minimum standard set by the LRC is a WC, and for Labradors (as opposed to Flat Coats or Goldens), the WC requirements are extremely minimal. It is a measure of basic instinct; it does not measure trainability, marking, etc. There are some people who could care less about whether these dogs can retrieve, but for most I think the standard is somewhere in between a WC and a Field Trial Champion. Personally, I think field trials are an extreme sport and do not resemble real hunting situations. They may mimic some pieces of a hunt that could possibly occur once in a blue moon, but on average regular hunting does not involve multiple 400+ yard retrieves. For me, a WC is a great way to get puppies started but certainly does not tell me what I want to know about work ethic, marking, hunting a fall, etc. My minimum standard is the equivalent of what is measured in a SH or Seasoned (HRC) test although I do take my dogs to MH and Finished because I enjoy it. I want a dog that can work off lead and is steady to the gun. If I am shooting I do not want my dog running out in front of me until I send it. If I am shooting having to restrain it by a collar is next to impossible. I expect my dog to be responsible for marking multiple falls, and I will be responsible for handling to the ones he doesn’t see. But that requires a dog that will handle. I want a dog that goes when I send it (resending within reason – I should not have to beg my dog to go out and retrieve or get in the water). For a great marking dog, I could care less if they run the bank or not. For a marginal marking dog, I would care. I do expect my dog to use its nose and put in a decent hunt. And when they have the bird I expect it to come back without a lot of encouragement. I want a dog that will sit quietly in a blind, and when I am with others I do expect them to honor another dog’s work without interference or restraint. If one does not get out there and work their dogs, how does one really know whether their dogs can meet this standard?

I expect others have lower or higher standards, but I also expect these standards to be based on working knowledge and not what they think it might be. When I ask a breeder about their stud dog’s work ethic, I expect them to be able to articulate what their standard is and how the dog measures up. Whether this is done through hunting over one’s dogs or through titles that represent achieving a standard, I really don’t care, but I do expect the dog to have been evaluated in some way if it is being held up as breeding stock. If someone uses a trainer to achieve a title, it really does not matter either, because the dog is ultimately the one earning the title. I would probably want to talk to the trainer as well.

I also think breeding dogs should hold up in strong competition in the breed ring; dogs that are given CH's for merely showing up(IABCA shows, for example) would not meet my criteria any more than a WC. I don't think they need to be specialty winners, but they should be evaluated by people approved to judge this breed (who have been mentored by breeders)and should be evaluated against other strong representatives of the breed.

And then there is the evaluation of the overall health of the dog and meeting standards for that.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should be evaluating and breeding the WHOLE dog, because when we breed to WIN at one specific event (field trials, agility, specialty shows) and ignore the rest, we get extremes. A lot of this is due to events that are meant to produce a “winner” and what winning means to people. People lament the demise of the dual champion, but let’s face it, neither shows nor field trials are what they were when we had dual champions. I would not say either have improved, but they certainly have changed. Back in the day, shows and field trials were often judged by the same people, who had working knowledge of conformation and work ethic. The same dogs were entered in both arenas. That is a bygone era.

Whole Dog,

Excellent post. I too think we will not have another Dual. The games have changed too much in the extreme. Though I do think there are one or two kennels today that might be able to do it.

Sue Puff

I'm just curious now....we're having a civilized discussion...

No one else has any comments about any of this? Either way?

Sue Puff

Just checked out your web site, and I am very surprised that your Labradors have none of the look of the Field Trial Labradors. They actually look typical of what is being bred in the USA today by Show breeders.

I like them, but what would the Field Trial dog breeders say about them? Much of your issue or thoughts goes right to individuals preference. It would seem you are trying to breed a versatile Labrador. I commend you for that. It is what all breeders should strive to do.

You may have sold off pups to buyers that could have been great hunters but never took them hunting. If your motivation for breeding is selling good hunting dogs you will make those buyers happy.

I have this one friend who bought a Field Trial type pup. He can't stand him too years into ownership. Will he one day I do not not know. He just wants to run all day or whines, he is too hyped up all day long. I wonder how many of these high octane pups that get produced actually get put down or put up for adoption because would be buyers can't handle or have the time for such a dog.

Balance is the key. You have to produce a dog that is quiet in the home, but willing and built right to spend a day in the field.

******************************************************

I'm late getting into the discussion but I did want to say I agree with you to a point.

I have only put a WC on one dog (note: I'm in Canada so a WC is 2 land, 2 water)but I have trained enough to know I am not interested in standing in wet grass, in the rain, five or so days a week. I have trained to UD in the obedience ring and, although it doesn't necessarily show marking ability, I feel that obedience does show the trainability and willingness to work as a team.

I think the Labrador Retrievers original intent WAS to go out for a days hunt. The number of birds is irrelevant. The focus should be on the willingness and ability to do the job. I chuckled at Valerie Jones comments that if you're hunting all day you're either a bad shot or have gone over limit.

I have put the three relevant standards below. You will notice that the FCI and CKC standards call for a dog that is biddable (def: willing to do what is asked; obedient) and only the AKC standard hints to the intensity of the work required.

As an aside, I find it sad that people have to post under an assumed name because they are afraid of repercussion. Obviously many Labrador owners don't have the same, kind nature that their dogs have.

"The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion." (AKC Standard)

"Good-tempered, very agile. Excellent nose, soft mouth; keen lover of water. Adaptable, devoted companion. Intelligent, keen and biddable, with a strong will to please. Kindly nature, with no trace of aggression or undue shyness." (FCI Standard)

"The breed is noted for its love of retrieving and water, for its excellent nose, soft mouth, intelligence and biddable temperament." Extraordinary versatility allows Labradors to excel as hunting, service, and therapy dogs; in search and rescues; in drug and bomb detection; as family companions, and in performance and field events." (CKC Standard)