Labrador Retriever Forum

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
LRC Letter

I am the first to champion any attempt to help breeders realize how overweight and unhealthy many of our labs have become. Throw in short legs, long loins, incorrect coat, improper type, and short upper arms for good measure....

But, I suspect the letter will just further alienate those who are in denial. The AKC standard stinks and we all know it. Maybe well intended but politically naive, negative, and just not right in certain aspects. The LRC needs to be more collaborative and open.

I am an FCI guy.

http://www.nationallabradorretrieverclub.com/

https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=2048

I wish we would just take the UK standard and write it in the format that is consistent with the way all the AKC breeds are written. I really wish people would see that as a good compromise that everyone can live with.

Re: LRC Letter

The LRC board consists of non lab breeders, field people and 'breeders' that haven't bred a good labrador in years. The letter is arrogant and stresses 'working condition' (bold and highlighted) vs stressing the overall dog. It also encourages judges to wicket (the board has obviously learned NOTHING from history) and once again, will divide the membership. I'm hoping I don't see judges putting up 'in condition' but mediocre dogs vs dogs that have type (head, coat, tail).

BTW - I do show my dogs at both specialties and all breed and also do hunt test.

Re: LRC Letter

I also hope that generic dog in condition won't be put up over nice dogs with breed type. However, I would also hope that completely out of condition or overly substantial dogs are denied ribbons as well. If a correct dog that is not fit is not in the ring, there should be no winner. Why send something less than decent into the Group? My dogs are shown in working condition and have never had an issue in the breed ring - at all breeds or specialties. They are moderate though so I would not enter under breeder judges who breed and prefer massive dogs.

Re: LRC Letter

disgusted breeder
The LRC board consists of non lab breeders, field people and 'breeders' that haven't bred a good labrador in years. The letter is arrogant and stresses 'working condition' (bold and highlighted) vs stressing the overall dog. It also encourages judges to wicket (the board has obviously learned NOTHING from history) and once again, will divide the membership. I'm hoping I don't see judges putting up 'in condition' but mediocre dogs vs dogs that have type (head, coat, tail).

BTW - I do show my dogs at both specialties and all breed and also do hunt test.


Labs in the US are their own 'type' especially when it comes to coat. You don't see many coats here without wave.

Coat
Distinctive feature, short dense without wave or feathering, giving fairly hard feel to the touch; weather-resistant undercoat.

Re: LRC Letter

disgusted breeder
The LRC board consists of non lab breeders, field people and 'breeders' that haven't bred a good labrador in years. The letter is arrogant and stresses 'working condition' (bold and highlighted) vs stressing the overall dog. It also encourages judges to wicket (the board has obviously learned NOTHING from history) and once again, will divide the membership. I'm hoping I don't see judges putting up 'in condition' but mediocre dogs vs dogs that have type (head, coat, tail).

BTW - I do show my dogs at both specialties and all breed and also do hunt test.


Are you really kidding me? Do you really know the folks on the board and on this judge's advisory? The revised standard (which functionally is the same as it always was) hasn't changed for 20 yrs. How long have you been in the breed to know this is all wrong? Sorry but I'm sick of all of this.

Re: LRC Letter

Excuse me Windycanyon but how long have YOU been in the breed? The standard is NOT the same as it was before. It was essentially the same as the UK standard and gave an ideal to breed for not a litany of what is wrong. What we are sick of here is the attitude of the LRC who have no idea how to mend the rift they created nor do they care to. They are only interested in insulting people and barking out their orders. LRC is an embarrassment and it is high time to split the breed.

Re: LRC Letter

JMO
Excuse me Windycanyon but how long have YOU been in the breed? The standard is NOT the same as it was before. It was essentially the same as the UK standard and gave an ideal to breed for not a litany of what is wrong. What we are sick of here is the attitude of the LRC who have no idea how to mend the rift they created nor do they care to. They are only interested in insulting people and barking out their orders. LRC is an embarrassment and it is high time to split the breed.


The breed does not need splitting, there are two different types, field and show and damm almost going to 3 different types with the new american bigger is better type too.. what I cannot figure out is how come with so many show breeders out there that know a correct labrador and what the correct standard is (UK) something hasn't been done to kick these idiots out of office that are controlling the national club that haven't a clue what is correct nor do they know what the standard should be? Someting is really wrong here, I was around and a member of the LRC when they were so sneaky to change the standard, guess what? I never got a ballot to vote nor did I know there was a change till AFTER it happened and I was the president of our local lab club at the time too... people bitch about the wrongs yet nothing is done, same ole crap that happens with politics and why Obama is still in office...what needs to be done here is to get our old standard back that is consistant with the rest of the world (UK) i'm sick of it all too

Re: LRC Letter

This conversation is giving me deja vu. The current standard is much different than the former. Do a side by side and see the differences. Some may seem subtle, but the result is easy to see. Any time a standard is written in a punitive way (i.e. adding the DQs and full of 'it should not be ____'), whether it's for a dog breed or anything else, the result is mediocrity. I'm not saying ALL our dogs are mediocre. Take a look at the breeders who have been quietly breeding to the FCI standard this entire time.

Re: LRC Letter

Actually I do know some of the board members and have, unfortunately, worked with them. Just try to change the board - they nominate the people that think the same as they do as their replacements. Getting someone new nominated is not easy - read what it takes! Even if all the conformation breeders actually chose to become members of the LRC to try to make changes, they would still be outnumbered by the 'field' people who do everything the board tells them to do.

Re: LRC Letter

There must be some guideline somewhere as to how a Nat'l club should be run and how to best supply them with a list of members / and non-members who feel that changes must be made to create a body of Lab enthusiasts who would be willing to listen to the majority.

This has been going on for far too long.

Re: LRC Letter

The LRC - if they gave a damn at all about the conformation community and mending the splits in the breed and earning the respect and support of BOTH the field and show people - would do well to study the Golden Retriever Club of America from their membership programs, board/director makeup, support of medical research, and the excellence of their judges education programs. But they don't - give a damn, that is. The arrogance of sending out that letter during the Potomac was not an accident of timing. And look what we have as a result - people up in arms again (still?) - this won't end until.... and I'll stop there.

Re: LRC Letter

another disgusted breeder
Actually I do know some of the board members and have, unfortunately, worked with them. Just try to change the board - they nominate the people that think the same as they do as their replacements. Getting someone new nominated is not easy - read what it takes! Even if all the conformation breeders actually chose to become members of the LRC to try to make changes, they would still be outnumbered by the 'field' people who do everything the board tells them to do.


So true, as you said, all those folks wanting change in the LRC needs to READ the by-laws on how board members are selected. Once one reads that, the realization will set in nothing will change, nothing can change, as it will always be biased against any activity except the field because you have board members selecting board members, nothing is allowed a vote. Even the donation of money for health issues by the LRC is and always has been slanted toward conditions that effect field bred Labs.

Re: LRC Letter

I wrote a letter to the LRC voicing my opinion on the matter.

Re: LRC Letter

Let's say the LRC are a bunch of jerks and the current AKC standard totally sucks. Does that mean we should just breed Labradors any way we want? Isn't one of the main point of breeding pure bred dogs to breed to an established and recognized standard?

For me there is only one short term solution. Find another standard to breed to!!!!

Re: LRC Letter

I've been in the breed over 20 yrs, since before the standard rewrite.

Speaking of the Golden Retriever club... they too have DQs, so it's not just us. Actually their height allowances are much tighter than ours.

Re: LRC Letter

Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
The LRC - if they gave a damn at all about the conformation community and mending the splits in the breed and earning the respect and support of BOTH the field and show people - would do well to study the Golden Retriever Club of America from their membership programs, board/director makeup, support of medical research, and the excellence of their judges education programs. But they don't - give a damn, that is. The arrogance of sending out that letter during the Potomac was not an accident of timing. And look what we have as a result - people up in arms again (still?) - this won't end until.... and I'll stop there.


What letter? To whom did it go out to? Seems not everyone is aware of the "letter" which is the topic of this discussion.

Re: LRC Letter

It went out to all approved Labrador judges.

And regarding DQs in the Golden standard, yes. But those weren't foisted on the conformation community by the field community in the dark of night, at a meeting that was held without the representation of the conformation community, in a remote location where their field trial was being conducted at the time. Some of us remember more than we are supposed to....

Re: LRC Letter

The letter can be found on the LRC web site. This is the link to it. http://www.thelabradorclub.com/uploads/file/LRC%20Letter%20to%20AKC%20Judges.pdf
You do need to breed to a standard. Our old standard was perfectly fine. The result of the new standard is this huge variation in type we are seeing as people focus on trying to get them tall enough and with all their teeth. I know of several people who have managed to get on the board of LRC with hopes of making changes and after many years of frustration finally quit. You are not going to change these people. I can't imagine why we would want to support their national when they treat us like this.

Re: LRC Letter

All one has to do is look at Loch Mor Romeo to see how an athletic Labrador should look and move. He is a Labrador for any century. he looks nothing like the gross examples being shown in the States that win.

Sadly the LRC had to write this letter because you can not keep continuing to reward overweight Labradors who no longer look like Labradors at you Specialty Shows.

Bravo LRC ... you have been watching and listening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9SiMAKuUo

Re: LRC Letter

JMO
The letter can be found on the LRC web site. This is the link to it. http://www.thelabradorclub.com/uploads/file/LRC%20Letter%20to%20AKC%20Judges.pdf
You do need to breed to a standard. Our old standard was perfectly fine. The result of the new standard is this huge variation in type we are seeing as people focus on trying to get them tall enough and with all their teeth. I know of several people who have managed to get on the board of LRC with hopes of making changes and after many years of frustration finally quit. You are not going to change these people. I can't imagine why we would want to support their national when they treat us like this.


LMAO!!!! We don't, and that continues to rankle them beyond the point of being rational. The Potomac is the true National Specialty and everyone in the breed knows it. I can't think of another breed where the parent club has done this to themselves.

Re: LRC Letter

Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
JMO
The letter can be found on the LRC web site. This is the link to it. http://www.thelabradorclub.com/uploads/file/LRC%20Letter%20to%20AKC%20Judges.pdf
You do need to breed to a standard. Our old standard was perfectly fine. The result of the new standard is this huge variation in type we are seeing as people focus on trying to get them tall enough and with all their teeth. I know of several people who have managed to get on the board of LRC with hopes of making changes and after many years of frustration finally quit. You are not going to change these people. I can't imagine why we would want to support their national when they treat us like this.


LMAO!!!! We don't, and that continues to rankle them beyond the point of being rational. The Potomac is the true National Specialty and everyone in the breed knows it. I can't think of another breed where the parent club has done this to themselves.


Really ?? An event that rewards gross exaggerations of the breed? It is getting to be a cult of breeders who will not breed to standard.

Re: LRC Letter

The real Breed Specialty? And how many of those entries had a working title behind their names? Even a WC? A pathetically small amount for what is suppose to be the best of the best.

This is a sporting breeder and just like the field people need to remember conformation, breeders of the "Specialty" Labrador need to remember what the Lab's purpose is.

Re: LRC Letter

Okay, Potomac - or should I say Romeo Lover? Which one are you at this particular moment?

Re: LRC Letter

The height range w/in the AKC standard has not changed since at least the 1950's btw. If you have a copy of The Versatile Labrador Retriever (Nancy Martin, 1994) the comparisons between the English and American standards of that timeframe are on p.37.

Re: LRC Letter

windycanyon
The height range w/in the AKC standard has not changed since at least the 1950's btw. If you have a copy of The Versatile Labrador Retriever (Nancy Martin, 1994) the comparisons between the English and American standards of that timeframe are on p.37.


Just FYI, I know - I was in the breed 13 years before Nancy's book was published. The height ranges were the same - only the DQs make for a difference. But there is more about this Standard to be concerned about besides that particular issue.

Why is it that it is so necessary in the USA to have a standard that is so lengthy and clouded with negativity? Copying these Labrador Retriever breed standards into a Word document and doing a word count shows this:

The Kennel Club (U.K.) - 550 words
FCI - recognized by over 80 countries - 642 words
LRC (USA - recognized by not a solitary soul outside of the US, and many inside its borders - 2,053 words

Why the need for such verbosity? To tell you the truth, the breed was doing just fine pre-1994. Since then, we have come to discuss "generic dogs" - because there are so many of them being shown. The reason for that is, all breed judges who read the standard and try to figure out how to judge to the damned thing are forced into fault judging - the fastest way known to man to ruin a breed.

Re: LRC Letter

Romeo Lover
Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
JMO
The letter can be found on the LRC web site. This is the link to it. http://www.thelabradorclub.com/uploads/file/LRC%20Letter%20to%20AKC%20Judges.pdf
You do need to breed to a standard. Our old standard was perfectly fine. The result of the new standard is this huge variation in type we are seeing as people focus on trying to get them tall enough and with all their teeth. I know of several people who have managed to get on the board of LRC with hopes of making changes and after many years of frustration finally quit. You are not going to change these people. I can't imagine why we would want to support their national when they treat us like this.


LMAO!!!! We don't, and that continues to rankle them beyond the point of being rational. The Potomac is the true National Specialty and everyone in the breed knows it. I can't think of another breed where the parent club has done this to themselves.


Really ?? An event that rewards gross exaggerations of the breed? It is getting to be a cult of breeders who will not breed to standard.


And just WHO ARE YOU to lecture a group of dedicated people who have sacrificed much over the years to further a breed many of us love so much? What HAVE YOU DONE for the breed? Everyone in entitled to an opinion, many of us have a particular favorite Labrador that they feel is/was very important but those who really have something to contribute don't wear out a particular narrow viewpoint, and in your case I feel an uneducated one!

Re: LRC Letter

To which "old" standard are you referring? You make valid points and I am not in disagreement with you. However, since so many have referenced the former standard or the old standard, I think there are more than a few readers who are not familiar with the various standards and how they have changed. I will specifically address the height issue.

The original standard which was written in 1916 and used by the Kennel Club (Great Britain) where the Labrador Retriever was developed as a recognized breed, remained unchanged until 1950. The AKC standard followed the British standard when the Labrador was first accepted into the AKC in 1917. Aside from the spelling of the word "colour", the two standards were identical. There was no height DQ and while not "officially" part of the written standard, the heights were "suggested" to be 22" - 22.5" for dogs and 21.5" - 22" for bitches.

The British Standard was revised and adopted in 1950. It stated the "Desired height for dogs 22 to 22.5 inches; bitches 21.5 to 22 inches."

The AKC standard was revised and adopted in 1957. There was no disqualifyer for height and the heights were 22.5 - 24.5 for dogs and 21.5 to 23.5 for bitches. The subsequent DQ was written into the AKC standard and adopted in 1994.

Now,.... in 1928 there were 23 Labradors registered with the AKC.
In 1931 there were 40 Labradors registered with the AKC.
In 1946 there were 1736 Labradors registered with the AKC. During this time period, there was a great deal of importation of British Labradors into the USA. Most, if not all of the Labradors registered with the AKC were imported from, or bred from, recently imported British Labradors who were subject to the standard of: "height for dogs 22 tp 22.5 inches; bitches 21.5 to 22 inches."

The AKC standard for the Labrador Retriever which was adopted in 1957 then, for some reason peculiar to North America, set the height range at the present levels, but there was no disqualification.

During the 70's and 80's there was another period which saw a great many Labrador imports coming from Great Britain to the USA. The vast majority of these imports were show type Labradors rather than field type dogs, and subsequently, when the AKC standard was revised by the LRC and adopted by the AKC, the height recommendation was now made into a disqualifyer.

I find it interesting that, historically, the breed on both sides of the Atlantic, and around the rest of the world, had the same height recommendations. The dogs imported into the USA during the formative years of the Labrador Retriever in America were governed by these standards. The AKC standard did not adopt the taller heights until the late 1950's while the height range in the rest of the world ( with the sole exception of Canada) has remained constant.

I have been showing Labradors for about 40 years, and the tallest bitch I have EVER seen in the breed ring was not taller than 22.5". Interesting......

Re: LRC Letter

The letter is on the LRC website for all to read.

Re: LRC Letter

Really?? Potomac rewards 'gross exaggerations of the breed'. Have you gone to Potomac lately and seen some of the entry and the winners? Picked by, I may add, NON US breeder judges - who seem to love our dogs!

Re: LRC Letter

another breeder
Really?? Potomac rewards 'gross exaggerations of the breed'. Have you gone to Potomac lately and seen some of the entry and the winners? Picked by, I may add, NON US breeder judges - who seem to love our dogs!


The non-US judges did select the class winners,WD, WB, but a US judge selected the big winners, such as BOB, BOS, Selects and JAMs. Different tastes in the style of dogs.

Re: LRC Letter

Thanks for that background MSW. It was very helpful. Though I had Labs at the time, I wasn't in the breed like I am now. Over the years, I have only heard people complain about the revised standard and it's really hard to understand the issues through all the anger, though I have tried.

Re: LRC Letter

Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
It went out to all approved Labrador judges.

And regarding DQs in the Golden standard, yes. But those weren't foisted on the conformation community by the field community in the dark of night, at a meeting that was held without the representation of the conformation community, in a remote location where their field trial was being conducted at the time. Some of us remember more than we are supposed to....


Greg summed it up pretty well. The animosity was awful and the accusations directed at the conformation people were insulting, derogatory and only served to further create division.

Re: LRC Letter

Now that someone was kind enough to post the link to the letter in question, (thank you for posting the link) I can see why the LRC decided to send out this letter as if we are all honest here there are way too many overdone dogs being shown now, it is really a disgrace to the breed. I have stuck to the FCI standard and will stick to it till I can no longer breed/show dogs, to me bigger is NOT better as it seems to be the thinking of so many in the USA I am not saying I agree with the underhanded way the LRC works but it is understandable now to me at least that they are probably getting a lot of flack about how huge some labs that are winning have become

Re: LRC Letter

Most of the issue for me is the way the LRC decided to address this issue! If they are such a big proponent of what a labrador should look like, why don't they have requirements for LABRADOR performance events? To me, a greyhound looking labrador is just as unappealing as an overdone one.

Re: LRC Letter

WB at. Potomac this year was anything but a big overdone dog! Very pretty with a bit of tuck up and a nice mover. What big overdone winners did you see?

Re: LRC Letter

What?
WB at. Potomac this year was anything but a big overdone dog! Very pretty with a bit of tuck up and a nice mover. What big overdone winners did you see?


And WD wasn't too hard on the eyes, either - nor was BOB or the JAMs, at least the ones that I could see from my vantage point. BTW, Romeo Lover, what was your vantage point at this year's Greatest Show On Earth?

Re: LRC Letter

First, I'd like to say "Thank-you" to whoever it was who posted the link to the letter. I printed it out and read it last night.

breeder
Most of the issue for me is the way the LRC decided to address this issue! If they are such a big proponent of what a labrador should look like, why don't they have requirements for LABRADOR performance events? To me, a greyhound looking labrador is just as unappealing as an overdone one.


I agree. Now keep in mind, this is coming from an "above average" pet owner (my interest lies in obedience/rally/training, more knowledgeable than "John Q Public", not as knowledgeable as you all). I can't stand to see over done in either direction, no matter the breed.

Re: LRC Letter

After years of watching people try to get changes made and to get the LRC to work with the conformation community and listening to so many say the same thing, I can only see one solution. That is to split the breed into a separate variety and begin a new parent club that will represent the fancy and protect the breed as it should. I would love to see a solution that would work but even as the LRC board members retire and die off they find others to take their place that are just as bad. We have to have a solution of some sort. I know my idea is really drastic and don't really want that but there seems to be nothing that will work. So tired of this.....

Re: LRC Letter

Can someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about? Nothing in the Standard was changed with this letter. Is it only those of you that breed "Specialty" type Labs that are having fits? If you are breeding to the AKC standard, what are you complaining about? Aren't you happy that something is being done to bring the breed back to a functional one? Not meaning to fan the flames just trying to understand and am open to hearing opinions.

Re: LRC Letter

I believe the letter actually went out to all LRC, Inc. members, not just approved Labrador judges. I am not a judge, but I am a member and I did receive the letter via email. Judges received additional materials according to the email I recieved.

Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
It went out to all approved Labrador judges.

And regarding DQs in the Golden standard, yes. But those weren't foisted on the conformation community by the field community in the dark of night, at a meeting that was held without the representation of the conformation community, in a remote location where their field trial was being conducted at the time. Some of us remember more than we are supposed to....

Re: LRC Letter

The one thing that (I feel) stands out in the standard as being most incorrect is the weigh and height range. Even if you take the heaviest bitch suggested, at 70 lbs - match that up to the shortest bitch allowed (within 1/2 " ) - which is 21 1/2 ", so technically 21" ...............what do you suppose she will look like? Ditto with the males

I have, or have had, alot of bitches over the years - only one or two tall enough for the current standard. Wicket your girls sometime and see what you have - 21 1/2" to 23 1/2" is pretty tall. Imagine a 23 1/2" bitch at 70 lbs -----oh my goodness.

This should to be modified within the standard with no DQ

Re: LRC Letter

Confused
Can someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about? Nothing in the Standard was changed with this letter. Is it only those of you that breed "Specialty" type Labs that are having fits? If you are breeding to the AKC standard, what are you complaining about? Aren't you happy that something is being done to bring the breed back to a functional one? Not meaning to fan the flames just trying to understand and am open to hearing opinions.


Quite simply - and this is just my opinion as one of the judges that got this letter - it's not really about any of that. What it is about is:

1. The timing of releasing the letter (in the middle of the annual Potomac spring specialty, and there is definitely unpleasant history between LRC and the Potomac club, going back to the leadership role they played during the Standard debacle in 1992-94;
2. The perceived arrogance of the LRC in the overall tone of the letter, including bolded, underlined, and italicized portions of the Standard that came across as inflammatory rather than instructive;
3. The letter carried an undertone that was almost threatening to judges;
4. The letter continued the history of the LRC of ignoring the almost non-existence of adherence to the Standard by the performance community, focusing entirely on the bench community.

It's been 20 years, and the way the LRC handled this messaging did nothing but exacerbate the hard feelings that had either subsided over the years or were at the most just smoldering. No - they had to fan the flames once again.

That's why people are upset, IMHO. And it's largely people that were around when all of this happened the first time. Usually, lessons get learned so the second time around things are not as hostile as the first time - but not when arrogance trumps reason.

Re: LRC Letter

Judging the letter you are absolutely right. This letter was like rubbing salt in a wound.

Re: LRC Letter

Classy broad
I believe the letter actually went out to all LRC, Inc. members, not just approved Labrador judges. I am not a judge, but I am a member and I did receive the letter via email. Judges received additional materials according to the email I recieved.

Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
It went out to all approved Labrador judges.

And regarding DQs in the Golden standard, yes. But those weren't foisted on the conformation community by the field community in the dark of night, at a meeting that was held without the representation of the conformation community, in a remote location where their field trial was being conducted at the time. Some of us remember more than we are supposed to....


The letter I got in my email inbox carried the subject line "Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. letter to AKC Judges". The content of the email was the 1-page letter, just as it appears on the LRC website. If the copy of the letter that you received from the LRC said that judges received additional materials, then you were misled at best, and lied to at worst. In either case, it's just another indication that the more things change the more they stay the same. I am very proud of two things: that I am an approved Labrador Retriever judge, and that I am not a member of the LRC.

Re: LRC Letter

Unfortunately, this letter may very well intimidate all rounders to begin DQ'ing.

IMO, the Parent Club is unhappy with a segment of breeder/exhibitors, because, those of who wished to, learned to play without the all breed shows and all rounders.

We earned our judging licenses, once we bcame judges, we donated out time to judge, and now there are enough supported entries and Specialties where many exhibitors prefer to show.

I read my letter while still at the Potomac, and my first thought was **Really** ???


-Jill

Re: LRC Letter

The problem as I see it, is that a judge who judges so many different breeds can tend to start thinking that what they see on a daily basis is correct and that trend “changes” the standard in those judges’ eyes. This is what we as breeders have created.

The LRC’s letter is not a personal attack, but a reminder to judges AND BREEDERS to revisit the standard, and remember what the dogs original purpose is. The standard has been the same for years, and those of us who have discounted it in favor of what we like are now being reminded that there is a standard, and whether we like it or not, THAT is what our breeding stock should strive for. If we haven’t liked the standard in the last 20-some years, then we should be in a breed that favors what we like. We will not change the standard by continuing to breed outside the standard.

I have had labs all my life, but got my 1st breeding bitch in 1988. My current dogs are all altered, and I do not go to a lot of conformation shows anymore, but I have spectated at some large clusters on the circuit recently. I have also been at Eukanuba and LRC Nationals for the past 3 years, so have seen labs from all over the country.

Too many conformation labs I have seen, I believe are overdone (no, they don’t always win). IMO most (even those I don’t consider to be overdone) do not have 50% leg, and when I watch those dogs move, I do wonder about their ability to work in the field for a whole day. I have also seen some more moderate dogs win.

I have heard some long-time breeders say that “people don’t hunt as much anymore” and the dogs need to reflect that. Or “my dog could hunt, I just don’t have the time and money to put into training, and I’m not interested in hunt tests or field work.” So we want the breed to change based on what we are willing to do with the dogs.

On the other end, we have field/hunting/performance Labs that are so different from the Standard. There are some truly houndy looking dogs, but there are also some that scream “classic lab.” There is definitely lack of attention to coat and tail in many of the hunting/field dogs. They are going more for speed and stamina at the expense of the Standard. Unfortunately this “performance only” mentality has also hurt our breed. A friend in Weims recently told me they have a futurity that requires all dogs to pass the equivalent of a CC. I don’t know much about it, but it seems to be a good idea, although I wonder how easy it is to place a field-drive bred dog in a pet home if it doesn’t meet the CC requirements.

In case you haven’t noticed, this “performance/conformation split” does not only affect labs. Most other working/sporting breeds have a similar issue…Labs have simply gotten so popular that it has gotten out of hand.

From what I see in this discussion, the biggest objection to the current standard is the height DQ. Since I see very few tall dogs in the ring, I would assume it refers to the shorter dogs. But the minimum height has not changed for Dogs, and has gone DOWN ½ inch for bitches. I don’t see why this is such a huge angry issue. The only thing that has really changed is the DQ.

The LRC’s Illustrated Standard has drawings of what is considered correct and incorrect. I have found that very helpful.

As breeders, WE are the stewards of our breed. If we have strayed from the standard, it’s our own fault. Don't shoot the messenger, just because you don't like the message.

Re: LRC Letter

As a judge and lifetime LRC member who faught the change of the standard, I find it interesting that I did not receive the letter nor the additional information.

Also another piece of information about the forced change in the standard. The voting was done between Christmas and New Years and all votes not received were considered a "yes" vote.

Re: LRC Letter

JanG
As a judge and lifetime LRC member who faught the change of the standard, I find it interesting that I did not receive the letter nor the additional information.

Also another piece of information about the forced change in the standard. The voting was done between Christmas and New Years and all votes not received were considered a "yes" vote.


Correct you are, Jan - I had forgotten about that. There was a GREAT deal of suspicion at the time that the revision had in fact failed to pass, but the powers that be at the LRC shredded votes and counted them as "yes" claiming they had not been returned. People who weren't around to experience the joy of that whole sorry episode are probably saying to themselve, "Oh, that would never happen"... Oh, but it did.

Re: LRC Letter

Certainly every breeder/exhibitor is free to show at all-breed shows or specialties; to all-breed judges or breeder judges; but -- if you are under the impression that all-round judges see the true quality of Labradors that you could see at a specialty - they don't - so therefore could not have a fair comparison to what they see every weekend; and now they have the LRC reminding them of a thing called the standard.......ugh

this is not to say that there aren't some all-rounders who are very knowledgable - it just doesn't seem the majority

I don't think I am in the minority here. I prefer to take my dogs to judges that really do understand the standard (and possibly do not agree with it) but they are breeders and competitors themselves and realize how difficult it is to breed perfect Labs -

Re: LRC Letter

The email I received was dated 4/26/2014, long after the Potomac concluded. It states, "In March, the LRC purchased from the AKC the names of all of the judges that can judge Labrador Retrievers. Did you know that number is 445? Over the next several weeks all judges received an e-mail reminding them of the importance of judging the Labrador to our Standard. If you would like to read this communication, go the the (sic) LRC web site: http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_detail_news.php?nid=5"

That suggests to me that the AKC approved judges for Labradors received a communication before I received my email. Perhaps that is the letter that arrived during the Potomac event. I don't believe I was mis-led or lied to with regard to the communication since you state you received the letter.

I hope that we can someday bring some agreement between the LRC, Inc. and the Labrador Retriever conformation community for the sake of our breed. The extremes are doing noone any favors...

Judging the Letter
Classy broad
I believe the letter actually went out to all LRC, Inc. members, not just approved Labrador judges. I am not a judge, but I am a member and I did receive the letter via email. Judges received additional materials according to the email I recieved.

Greg Lynch - Kellyn Labs
It went out to all approved Labrador judges.

And regarding DQs in the Golden standard, yes. But those weren't foisted on the conformation community by the field community in the dark of night, at a meeting that was held without the representation of the conformation community, in a remote location where their field trial was being conducted at the time. Some of us remember more than we are supposed to....


The letter I got in my email inbox carried the subject line "Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. letter to AKC Judges". The content of the email was the 1-page letter, just as it appears on the LRC website. If the copy of the letter that you received from the LRC said that judges received additional materials, then you were misled at best, and lied to at worst. In either case, it's just another indication that the more things change the more they stay the same. I am very proud of two things: that I am an approved Labrador Retriever judge, and that I am not a member of the LRC.

Re: LRC Letter

The judges received the letter during Potomac. The e-mail notifying the membership about the letter was just sent out - at least I received it a couple days ago.

Re: LRC Letter

I have to say, I have had a completed application and my sponsor letters sitting here on my desk waiting to be mailed. But after reading the tone (underline, bold, italics) of the letter and the stories here from long time breeders, I really feel the parent club has nothing to offer me. I also feel based on what was reported here, that even if I join, I will not have a voice as a conformation member. The whole situation is really sad for the entire breed.

Re: LRC Letter

Lab Breeder
Certainly every breeder/exhibitor is free to show at all-breed shows or specialties; to all-breed judges or breeder judges; but -- if you are under the impression that all-round judges see the true quality of Labradors that you could see at a specialty - they don't - so therefore could not have a fair comparison to what they see every weekend; and now they have the LRC reminding them of a thing called the standard.......ugh

this is not to say that there aren't some all-rounders who are very knowledgable - it just doesn't seem the majority

I don't think I am in the minority here. I prefer to take my dogs to judges that really do understand the standard (and possibly do not agree with it) but they are breeders and competitors themselves and realize how difficult it is to breed perfect Labs -



Huh?

Re: LRC Letter

I've been devoted to this breed for forty plus years. I was encouraged back in the nineties to join the parent club. I thought that was a good idea at the time! I got my sponsors, submitted my dues and the next thing I know I'm a member. I received no welcome letter or any materials like by-laws.

Next thing I know the standard is going to be changed. I have a bitch with twelve points and a major, many first placements at specialties under English and American judges and the dream of her championship came to an end. She measured 20 1/2 inches. I would not subject her or myself to the new craze of " the dreaded wicket". There wasn't any "grace" period as some felt there should be. Your competition could now just threaten to call for the measurement.

We were all outraged. Some tried to get onto the LRC board thinking they could make a difference. They had rude comments made to their faces about their dogs. Others became "sucked in" to the perceived prestige of being in a place of power. They went along with the establishment.

Now here we are again. I received my letter two days ago. I went to the website. I went to the standard. I also saw the pages of the Ziessow book with pictures. I see a head study of their black bitch, I'm guessing, Ch. Dark Star of Franklin. Several pages into the standard is the same picture as from the book. Were any of us able to "vote" on what should represent our standard?

Several mentioned in previous posts the timing of this letter having to do with Potomac. I've spoken to others that say it was backlash from all the negative comments from Westminster. I also suggest that it wasn't issued until after the LRC dues deadline.

I finally am ready to say that I'm tired of following a standard that field/performance lines can and do ignore.
Where is the person standing at the line with a wicket to disqualify any of those dogs from competing for being under or over the standard? Aren't those dogs being bred and producing the next generation?

Boycotting the National is only going to hurt the good people of the show giving club. I have decided to send a letter of resignation and state my reasons to the LRC. I have condoned their behavior for way too long.
I like so many others thought we could just "work around it" but here it is in our face again. Hitting them in the pocketbook might speak to them. Not to mention the embarrassment of losing your conformation membership doesn't look good to the AKC. I'm tired of wringing my hands with the frustration over this.
It's time to act.
Just a postscript. I still believe that a Labrador should be a moderate dog.N

Re: LRC Letter

been around the block
I've been devoted to this breed for forty plus years. I was encouraged back in the nineties to join the parent club. I thought that was a good idea at the time! I got my sponsors, submitted my dues and the next thing I know I'm a member. I received no welcome letter or any materials like by-laws.

Next thing I know the standard is going to be changed. I have a bitch with twelve points and a major, many first placements at specialties under English and American judges and the dream of her championship came to an end. She measured 20 1/2 inches. I would not subject her or myself to the new craze of " the dreaded wicket". There wasn't any "grace" period as some felt there should be. Your competition could now just threaten to call for the measurement.

We were all outraged. Some tried to get onto the LRC board thinking they could make a difference. They had rude comments made to their faces about their dogs. Others became "sucked in" to the perceived prestige of being in a place of power. They went along with the establishment.

Now here we are again. I received my letter two days ago. I went to the website. I went to the standard. I also saw the pages of the Ziessow book with pictures. I see a head study of their black bitch, I'm guessing, Ch. Dark Star of Franklin. Several pages into the standard is the same picture as from the book. Were any of us able to "vote" on what should represent our standard?

Several mentioned in previous posts the timing of this letter having to do with Potomac. I've spoken to others that say it was backlash from all the negative comments from Westminster. I also suggest that it wasn't issued until after the LRC dues deadline.

I finally am ready to say that I'm tired of following a standard that field/performance lines can and do ignore.
Where is the person standing at the line with a wicket to disqualify any of those dogs from competing for being under or over the standard? Aren't those dogs being bred and producing the next generation?

Boycotting the National is only going to hurt the good people of the show giving club. I have decided to send a letter of resignation and state my reasons to the LRC. I have condoned their behavior for way too long.
I like so many others thought we could just "work around it" but here it is in our face again. Hitting them in the pocketbook might speak to them. Not to mention the embarrassment of losing your conformation membership doesn't look good to the AKC. I'm tired of wringing my hands with the frustration over this.
It's time to act.
Just a postscript. I still believe that a Labrador should be a moderate dog.N


Good for you! Might want to cc a copy of that letter to AKC as i'm sure they won't tell AKC why they are losing members!! Maybe if they have a mass exodus AKC will look into this bs.

Food for thought, has anyone tried getting all confomation breeders to write to AKC about the National Club and our displeasure with them? I am wondering if that might make a difference that AKC will let us form another National Club and get rid of this joke of the one we now have? I would think if they get enough letters from enough people they will have to sit up and take notice and do something

Re: LRC Letter

I know it's too late for this year but what if the regional clubs did not put on a show for the LRC? It's all the local clubs that do most, if not all, of the work. Maybe the LRC would get the message then.

Re: LRC Letter

I think what Jill wrote goes to the complexity of this issue.

The LRC got everyone upset with the process they followed in changing the standard years ago, and also because of the details of the standard itself. So, lab breeders basically boycotted all-breed shows. The result is that many lab breeders and breeder judges of today have not ever been to many all-breed shows.

This is a problem because do you really understand any breed until you have compared it to others? Until you understand why some breeds want a sloping topline, or a straighter shoulder, or length much longer than height, etc., do you really understand the way that a Labrador should be structured?

Maybe you can get a similar experience at performance events (especially hunt training) but many comformation breeders don't do that. I know you can get this experience by being a horse person. Once I became involved with horses, I realized that the dog people who had been mentoring me didn't really understand structure. When I became friends with dog people from a different breed than labs, and that particular breed is very focused on movement, it is only then that I understood lab movement better.

Besides, in any endeavor in life the more isolated you become, the less valuable input you receive. How much improvement over time is there in countries who do not actively interact with the rest of the world?

I understand why many breeders avoid all-breed shows like the plague. What I don't understand is why these breeders don't seek out similar experiences elsewhere (from breeders of other breeds, from horses, from field training, etc.). What is frustrating is when lab breeders validly criticize all-breed shows but then don't even realize how narrow their own understanding of dog structure is. If we realized what we are missing, we would get broader experiences and we would breed better dogs. For example, if you don't like the AKC standard, do you at least use another country's standard for guidance (like the country of origin of the breed maybe...)?

The thing is, we can't keep blaming the LRC for this. Other breeds have different style dogs between all-breed and specialties too. At some level, this is natural as specialties will tend to reinforce extremes. These other breeds have wonderful parent clubs. And the top breeders do understand that both venues provide important, but different, experiences. You need the two to balance each other. Respecting all-breed judges helps keep the breed from changing too much to the extreme. Specialties help breeders focus on the attributes unique to their breed.

A dog can be a good dog and not be a good Labrador. But can you have a good Labrador who isn't a good dog?

I am not minimizing the negative actions of the LRC from the past or in the present. But are we also being ignorant for not stepping back, not seeing the bigger picture, and for not putting the dogs (the breed) first? Complex problems are not solved by black and white attitudes.


Jill DiGesare
Unfortunately, this letter may very well intimidate all rounders to begin DQ'ing.

IMO, the Parent Club is unhappy with a segment of breeder/exhibitors, because, those of who wished to, learned to play without the all breed shows and all rounders.

We earned our judging licenses, once we bcame judges, we donated out time to judge, and now there are enough supported entries and Specialties where many exhibitors prefer to show.

I read my letter while still at the Potomac, and my first thought was **Really** ???


-Jill

Re: LRC Letter

I have read the point many times in this thread that people are offended by the highlighted/underlines points of emphasis from the letter. The things is, do you realize that England (and therefore FCI) highlighted basically the same points?!?!?! And they did so I assume because of the concern of the influence of U.S. dogs and U.S. judging?

So, I ask again, is the LRC correct about what they are trying to do even if they are going about all this in the completely wrong way (both process and content)?

Christina T
I have to say, I have had a completed application and my sponsor letters sitting here on my desk waiting to be mailed. But after reading the tone (underline, bold, italics) of the letter and the stories here from long time breeders, I really feel the parent club has nothing to offer me. I also feel based on what was reported here, that even if I join, I will not have a voice as a conformation member. The whole situation is really sad for the entire breed.

Re: LRC Letter

right but wrong way
I have read the point many times in this thread that people are offended by the highlighted/underlines points of emphasis from the letter. The things is, do you realize that England (and therefore FCI) highlighted basically the same points?!?!?! And they did so I assume because of the concern of the influence of U.S. dogs and U.S. judging?

So, I ask again, is the LRC correct about what they are trying to do even if they are going about all this in the completely wrong way (both process and content)?



Absolutely the LRC is correct, yes you can argue till the cows come home about the way they did what they did, but it still doesn't detract from the message being sent. I almost cry when I see dogs on face book ( head shots in particular,) that resemble Mastiffs, droopy saggy eyes and jowls, but what is worse is known breeder judges commenting how beautiful they are. For some reason some breeders seem to think a 6 month old puppy should look like a mature adult, IT SHOULDN'T ! I know a few years ago I dared comment on the BOB at the Potomac saying he was far too fat, OMG the outcry was unbelievable, and I was told in no uncertain terms that he just had profuse coat, well where in the standard does it say the dog should have a coat like a Nuffie. Bigger or more of is not correct this is a functioning gun dog and should be moderate athletic dog that is fit for purpose. Sadly some of the ones being put up at shows would have trouble working a full hour let alone a full day . HOWEVER I also believe the field type dogs being bred are also so far from the standard that is as bad the fat too much bone too much substance and too much coat being seen in the show ring. There should be no difference, perhaps something should be introduced that for a dog to gain its show title it also must have a working title and for a dog to become a field CH It must compete in the show ring perhaps not to a CH title but be placed at Ch show .I really don't know the answer but I am sure hoping someone does.

Re: LRC Letter

right but wrong way
I think what Jill wrote goes to the complexity of this issue.

The LRC got everyone upset with the process they followed in changing the standard years ago, and also because of the details of the standard itself. So, lab breeders basically boycotted all-breed shows. The result is that many lab breeders and breeder judges of today have not ever been to many all-breed shows.

This is a problem because do you really understand any breed until you have compared it to others? Until you understand why some breeds want a sloping topline, or a straighter shoulder, or length much longer than height, etc., do you really understand the way that a Labrador should be structured?

Maybe you can get a similar experience at performance events (especially hunt training) but many comformation breeders don't do that. I know you can get this experience by being a horse person. Once I became involved with horses, I realized that the dog people who had been mentoring me didn't really understand structure. When I became friends with dog people from a different breed than labs, and that particular breed is very focused on movement, it is only then that I understood lab movement better.

Besides, in any endeavor in life the more isolated you become, the less valuable input you receive. How much improvement over time is there in countries who do not actively interact with the rest of the world?

I understand why many breeders avoid all-breed shows like the plague. What I don't understand is why these breeders don't seek out similar experiences elsewhere (from breeders of other breeds, from horses, from field training, etc.). What is frustrating is when lab breeders validly criticize all-breed shows but then don't even realize how narrow their own understanding of dog structure is. If we realized what we are missing, we would get broader experiences and we would breed better dogs. For example, if you don't like the AKC standard, do you at least use another country's standard for guidance (like the country of origin of the breed maybe...)?

The thing is, we can't keep blaming the LRC for this. Other breeds have different style dogs between all-breed and specialties too. At some level, this is natural as specialties will tend to reinforce extremes. These other breeds have wonderful parent clubs. And the top breeders do understand that both venues provide important, but different, experiences. You need the two to balance each other. Respecting all-breed judges helps keep the breed from changing too much to the extreme. Specialties help breeders focus on the attributes unique to their breed.

A dog can be a good dog and not be a good Labrador. But can you have a good Labrador who isn't a good dog?

I am not minimizing the negative actions of the LRC from the past or in the present. But are we also being ignorant for not stepping back, not seeing the bigger picture, and for not putting the dogs (the breed) first? Complex problems are not solved by black and white attitudes.


Jill DiGesare
Unfortunately, this letter may very well intimidate all rounders to begin DQ'ing.

IMO, the Parent Club is unhappy with a segment of breeder/exhibitors, because, those of who wished to, learned to play without the all breed shows and all rounders.

We earned our judging licenses, once we bcame judges, we donated out time to judge, and now there are enough supported entries and Specialties where many exhibitors prefer to show.

I read my letter while still at the Potomac, and my first thought was **Really** ???


-Jill


I think there is a lot of wisdom here. As someone who shows at both all breed and specialties, I see problems in both areas. Sure, at all breeds, I have seen judges put up dogs that aren’t as deserving as others. I have also seen them do a great job. At specialties, I have left scratching my head why people feel the need to go to extremes in matters of coat and size. Per the AKC standard, as that is what our dogs are to be judged by:

“The most distinguishing characteristics of the Labrador Retriever are its short, dense, weather resistant coat; an "otter" tail; a clean-cut head with broad back skull and moderate stop; powerful jaws; and its "kind," friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament”

and

True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the breed as the "otter" tail. The ideal disposition is one of a kindly, outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards man or animal. The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog. Aggressiveness towards humans or other animals, or any evidence of shyness in an adult should be severely penalized.”

IMHO, the extremes (and I am NOT saying every dog) you see at Specialties aren’t good examples of the distinguishing characteristics or hallmarks of the breed. They are exaggerated. When a dog I know to be a Labrador, but it reminds me more of a Rottweiler or any other, that is a lack of breed type.

My friends in other breeds, who are long experienced dog people, will comment to me about the size of Labs they will see, usually on TV. I have often thought, when a fellow dog fancier who isn’t in Labs, sees a Lab, and the “breed type” they see reminds them of another breed, isn’t’ there something wrong with that picture?

I have also seen some glowing examples of breed type at Specialties too!

A dog can still have a good thick coat without “dripping” in it. It can still have good substance without being cloddy, lumbering specimen. We can take a stand and not show our dogs in “show condition” with 15 pounds of extra weight.

I also compete in obedience, rally, and hunt test venues with my dogs. I understand that not everyone has the time or money to do these things, but I do think they give a different perspective and I know my thoughts have morphed over the years when I see things in a new light. And I expect that my education will continue for years to come as I don’t plan on ever being without my Labradors.

I understand the harsh feelings some have towards the LRC for past actions surrounding the changing of the standard. I also received a copy of that letter that was recently sent out, as I am a member of LRC. Yes, LRC could have gone about this in a better way, but really, maybe they do have the best intentions of the breed at heart? Maybe by giving the all rounders a bit of a boost, the extremes on both side of the breed will be brought into perspective? Personally, I hope so.

Re: LRC Letter

Business as usual here. Go show to the breeders I want to show to and completely ignore the LRC. You all should do the same.

Re: LRC Letter

I will continue to show to judges I respect and I honestly don't see those judges being guided by this letter. I show at all breed shows and specialties and have seen good judging in both arenas (and some bad). If I show to a judge who I see clearly adhering to that silly letter I will simply withhold my entries from then on for that judge and make sure to spread the word. When judges start getting 2 Labs entered under them they may hear our "voice".

Re: LRC Letter

"Respect" is a very interesting word.

Personally, I don't have the time to get up at 4AM or earlier to drive a couple hours or more to show under a judge who doesn't like my style of Labrador. Never mind the entry fees, gas, and maybe handler charges. That said, in dog showing or anything else in life, if we only "respect" those who agree with us, we are missing out on tremendous opportunities for growth and improvement. I am so worried not only for our breed but also for our culture in general because we are losing our ability to respect that which we don't agree with. Many of us seem to only respect those that agree with us. With the internet and relatively easy methods of transportation, there is so much potential for considering multiple perspectives when establishing our own personal values. Yet, our society seems to be going in the exact opposite direction.

But back to dogs, it is so important to get multiple eyes from multiple venues to critically evaluate our dogs even if we are smart enough not to waste an entire day showing under a judge who we have no chance of winning under. However, remember that this is the problem we are discussing. The pure breed dog world is all about breeding to a standard. If we actually did this, there wouldn't be such exaggerated differences in how judges make decisions. There will always be diversity of application of the standard which is a good thing. But the huge differences in dogs of the same breed is the problem here.

I just can't get my head around someone who says "The AKC Standard sucks and I am not breeding to it" but then does not select another established, accepted standard to breed to. This attitude of "I breed what I like", and "I only show to judges who like what I like", and "Let's all put up each others dogs so we can groom the next generation of judges who like what we like", without any established standard to guide all of this.... At some point we need to figure out how to solve the problem instead of just pointing fingers and blaming others.

The darn change to the standard was 20 something years ago. It is about time we got past it and moved on. And yes, that is exactly what is pissing off many of us because "The Letter" feels like pouring salt on a wound and amplifying the whole problem again. (I can't tell you how much I dislike the height DQ!) But however insensitive or politically incorrect that letter might be, all they are saying is that our dogs are too darn fat and are so much longer than they are tall. They are saying the right thing in the wrong way.


Withholding
I will continue to show to judges I respect and I honestly don't see those judges being guided by this letter. I show at all breed shows and specialties and have seen good judging in both arenas (and some bad). If I show to a judge who I see clearly adhering to that silly letter I will simply withhold my entries from then on for that judge and make sure to spread the word. When judges start getting 2 Labs entered under them they may hear our "voice".

Re: LRC Letter

another judge
Judging the letter you are absolutely right. This letter was like rubbing salt in a wound.


Amen to that! Short sighted, in my opinion.

Re: LRC Letter

Withholding
... If I show to a judge who I see clearly adhering to that silly letter ...


Heaven forbid a dog show judge actually judges by the Standard! And you think the LETTER is silly?

There is much good discussion here. It is about the future of our breed. I STILL have not heard a well thought criticism of the Standard as it is now. Everything is emotional...(It's punitive, It's destroying the breed, I hate the LRC...)

The bylaws of the LRC include that the LRC is dedicated to preserving the working retriever. They are doing their job. We need to do ours.

Re: LRC Letter

The quote below makes a fantastic point. People were so hurt by what went on with the original standard change that they are having an emotional reaction to this new letter. I was only starting in labs in the 80's so I was well aware of what was going on but not really emotionally caught up in it.

I get it that people were hurt. These negative emotions people are feeling are valid. I will not judge that. But we are also a logical species. When will we be able to get past the bad "feelings" and start "thinking" about the best way to move forward? I know the recent letter doesn't help with that. But in any ongoing emotional disagreement, doesn't someone at some point need to take the high road?

Voice of Reason


There is much good discussion here. It is about the future of our breed. I STILL have not heard a well thought criticism of the Standard as it is now. Everything is emotional...(It's punitive, It's destroying the breed, I hate the LRC...)

The bylaws of the LRC include that the LRC is dedicated to preserving the working retriever. They are doing their job. We need to do ours.

Re: LRC Letter

Voice of Reason
I STILL have not heard a well thought criticism of the Standard as it is now.


I will have to go back through this thread but either here and/or on multiple other threads, I think many people actually have written logical critiques.

In summary and for me personally ...

1) Are the heights are too tall? I would use the FCI standard as a comparison.

2) Should height be a DQ or should the wording be something like they use in FCI? ...paraphrasing... the dog should be penalized in proportion to the degree that the fault affects its' ability to perform the intended job of the breed.

3) a) Should a written standard be so wordy? Would it better being more concise (again, see FCI)?

b) Should a standard have so much dedicated to what the dog shouldn't be like? Shouldn't the standard focus on the positive goals...describe the ideal dog (I guess my bias toward FCI is coming through again)?

4) We understand the need for all AKC breed standards to have some type of standard format.

Re: LRC Letter

Voice of Reason
Withholding
... If I show to a judge who I see clearly adhering to that silly letter ...


Heaven forbid a dog show judge actually judges by the Standard! And you think the LETTER is silly?

There is much good discussion here. It is about the future of our breed. I STILL have not heard a well thought criticism of the Standard as it is now. Everything is emotional...(It's punitive, It's destroying the breed, I hate the LRC...)

The bylaws of the LRC include that the LRC is dedicated to preserving the working retriever. They are doing their job. We need to do ours.


The biggest problem with the LRC is that it only is looking after the field side of a wonderful very versatile breed. In addition, the by-laws are written to protect the "good ole boys" club where nothing can change.
To say that the LRC is doing their job, in my opinion and many others nothing could be further from the truth. The LRC should be looking out for the best interest of the breed as a whole. There are far more Labs participating in conformation then in field events and by far, more Labs are home companions than anything else but all the attention is directed toward the field. What is the LRC doing for the vast majority of the breed? Look where their medical research dollars go, all issues that affect the field side (back several years ago money was being pumped into CNM but not a dollar toward TVD in spite of waves of criticism). What are they doing to cut down on the unscrupulous breeders? Are they encouraging pet owners to become more involved in the breed? Are they making any effort what so ever to heal the split we have in our breed? What is the LRC doing to encourage membership? The LRC is not even coming close to doing the job as the protector of our breed.

Re: LRC Letter

I think that there have been quite a few very reasonable suggestions made to correct the standard (to bring the height and weight to proper ratio) with no DQ, etc

I think that the Nat'l Club should include more people at the helm that are currently involved in breeding and showing. It seems that the majority has less representation.



Re: LRC Letter

Lab Breeder
I think that there have been quite a few very reasonable suggestions made to correct the standard (to bring the height and weight to proper ratio) with no DQ, etc

I think that the Nat'l Club should include more people at the helm that are currently involved in breeding and showing. It seems that the majority has less representation.


Yeah, like that's gonna happen in my lifetime. That would cause some people to wonder if the parent club was starting to be reasonable - can't have that, now, can we?

Re: LRC Letter

FCI All The Way....
Lab Breeder
I think that there have been quite a few very reasonable suggestions made to correct the standard (to bring the height and weight to proper ratio) with no DQ, etc

I think that the Nat'l Club should include more people at the helm that are currently involved in breeding and showing. It seems that the majority has less representation.


Yeah, like that's gonna happen in my lifetime. That would cause some people to wonder if the parent club was starting to be reasonable - can't have that, now, can we?


This quote is very interesting because it is by a person who can't get past his or her disgust with the LRC BUT has also decided to look toward a different standard for guidance. A standard is like a Bible. You have to religiously study it, try to understand it, and follow it to the best of your ability. If the AKC standard is not acceptable to you, find another one. But don't just flip flop in the wind with every trend that comes down the pike. FCI All The Way!!!

Re: LRC Letter

right but wrong way
FCI All The Way....
Lab Breeder
I think that there have been quite a few very reasonable suggestions made to correct the standard (to bring the height and weight to proper ratio) with no DQ, etc

I think that the Nat'l Club should include more people at the helm that are currently involved in breeding and showing. It seems that the majority has less representation.


Yeah, like that's gonna happen in my lifetime. That would cause some people to wonder if the parent club was starting to be reasonable - can't have that, now, can we?


This quote is very interesting because it is by a person who can't get past his or her disgust with the LRC BUT has also decided to look toward a different standard for guidance. A standard is like a Bible. You have to religiously study it, try to understand it, and follow it to the best of your ability. If the AKC standard is not acceptable to you, find another one. But don't just flip flop in the wind with every trend that comes down the pike. FCI All The Way!!!


I confess I had not looked at the FCI standard in quite a while. So I looked it up, and find that it was changed in 2010 to emphasize WEIGHT AND CONDITION. Hmmm.

While a Standard with less verbage may be easier to remember, the down side of it, is that it is open to wider interpretation, which could lead to an even mmore diverse picture of our breed. Althoough the height range is more specific, if faults are to be considered serious only in relation to how the fault affect the dogs ability to do the job, then it's feasible that off color, miniature, or giant labs could be placed instead of DQ'd. That is not acceptable to me.

I prefer a standard that has more specific descriptions.

Re: LRC Letter

There is a wonderful presentation by Mary Roslyn Williams to a KC in 1986. I highly recommend that you listen to it as she speaks about what a Labrador should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFlng4i8_R4

Re: LRC Letter

Is there a particular country's standard that you prefer? Or in the perfect world would you like to see a completely new one developed from scratch?

Voice of Reason

I confess I had not looked at the FCI standard in quite a while. So I looked it up, and find that it was changed in 2010 to emphasize WEIGHT AND CONDITION. Hmmm.

While a Standard with less verbage may be easier to remember, the down side of it, is that it is open to wider interpretation, which could lead to an even mmore diverse picture of our breed. Althoough the height range is more specific, if faults are to be considered serious only in relation to how the fault affect the dogs ability to do the job, then it's feasible that off color, miniature, or giant labs could be placed instead of DQ'd. That is not acceptable to me.

I prefer a standard that has more specific descriptions.

Re: LRC Letter

Try as I might I cannot find this letter. Cut and pasted links will not work. TIA

Re: LRC Letter

Go to the LRC, Inc. website at www.thelabradorclub.com
The letter is under the News column under the heading, "What is a Labrador Retriever?"

Re: LRC Letter

Or, on the home page of the LRC, Inc. site, go to Library/Links -> For Breeders -> Information Sources

Re: LRC Letter

Would this help? My husband shows orchids in competition. All orchids are judged by a panel of judges. . . as many as 10-12 judges. Some are seasoned and some are in training. A round table discussion about the plant being judged is public. Then there is a call to nominate or not nominate the plant for an award. Then there is the actual numerical judging. AND, NONE of the judges are paid.

Along this line, I went to a bird show. There was a single judge who wore a microphone. He had to comment on the spot, publically, why he chose the bird who won each class.

Yep, this kind of judging for Labs is impossible with the numbers shown, especially at speciaties. But, perhaps there is a way to reduce the impact of one judge's opinion on the day. If, at least two judges reached a consensus of opinion about each dog judged, the judging would be more meaningful. If a judge, let the public know, right then and there, why he chose the way he chose, it would be more meaningful. If judges judged for free and did not feel a bias towards this or that professional handler or breeder, it would be more meaningful. Hey, with all these "if's" I don't think you could get anyone to judge. . . but wouldn't it be so much more informative and helpful.

Re: LRC Letter

German Shepherds have AKC but also have shows that are run by a separate organization in the same way they run shows in Germany. For the German shows, the judge explains each placement to exhibitors and to the crowd. I went to one and it was really interesting. I received an education from an older gentleman (the judge) who I probably would never had the chance to have a conversation with otherwise. I never realized there were so many nuances to proper movement for that breed. I suspect that at other shows, judges who don't have that knowledge are identified pretty quickly or more likely were never approved as judges at all. But that said, I suspect all judges in Germany are better educated that than the average AKC judge in America because they were raised on this system prior to ever becoming judges. I suspect, but don't know, that there are supervisors of judges who privately critique the judge's critiques after the show with the judge.

The other interesting things is that each dog got a rating from the judge. It was less about winning and losing and more about being judged to a standard. Theoretically, every dog in the class could get the highest rating on any particular day, or every dog in the class could get the lowest rating. I should probably find out for sure before I write these things, but I think that a dog needs to get a particular rating by a couple of different judges and then the rating becomes their title.

But the point is that other breeds are split too. And if the AKC doesn't smarten up, people may begin to realize that there are better ways of doing things and there might be a mass exodus from AKC.

The interesting thing is that if we relate this to Labradors, I don't think we are looking at a 2 way split. I actually like to imagine a 3 way split.

In AKC performance is separate from conformation. We have the fat, and exaggerated show labs and the poorly constructed performance labs. Everyone talks about the 2 way split. But in reality, there are plenty of moderate (correct) labs who do one or the other or both. I would love to see an organization arise who does things like the real German German Shepherd organization. We would siphon off the real labs from both the performance and confirmation venues who would be judged on their conformation as it applies to actually working. Of course, we could still dabble in the old fashioned venues who go for extremes.

Now, I realize this system is really like AKC obedience or hunt tests (as opposed to field trials or conformation shows) and it is simply about judging to a standard and less about competing with each other. I love the way hunt tests have more than one judge. I love competition but also believe that true competitors get past all the crap.

Just dreamin'.....

Beth Schweitzer
Would this help? My husband shows orchids in competition. All orchids are judged by a panel of judges. . . as many as 10-12 judges. Some are seasoned and some are in training. A round table discussion about the plant being judged is public. Then there is a call to nominate or not nominate the plant for an award. Then there is the actual numerical judging. AND, NONE of the judges are paid.

Along this line, I went to a bird show. There was a single judge who wore a microphone. He had to comment on the spot, publically, why he chose the bird who won each class.

Yep, this kind of judging for Labs is impossible with the numbers shown, especially at speciaties. But, perhaps there is a way to reduce the impact of one judge's opinion on the day. If, at least two judges reached a consensus of opinion about each dog judged, the judging would be more meaningful. If a judge, let the public know, right then and there, why he chose the way he chose, it would be more meaningful. If judges judged for free and did not feel a bias towards this or that professional handler or breeder, it would be more meaningful. Hey, with all these "if's" I don't think you could get anyone to judge. . . but wouldn't it be so much more informative and helpful.

Re: LRC Letter

many breeds are split
German Shepherds have AKC but also have shows that are run by a separate organization in the same way they run shows in Germany. For the German shows, the judge explains each placement to exhibitors and to the crowd.

The other interesting things is that each dog got a rating from the judge. It was less about winning and losing and more about being judged to a standard. Theoretically, every dog in the class could get the highest rating on any particular day, or every dog in the class could get the lowest rating.


Actually this sounds like some of the AKC/CKC judges who have judged for the IABCA in the past out here. That group has the same sort of set up where your dog is judged against the standard (FCI), and you are given a written eval by each judge at least but I appreciated the judges that gave the breed or classes a run down on why he/she placed them as they did. Seems to me to be more educational.

Re: LRC Letter

I showed at one "international" show - it was not IABCI. I found that the written judges critiques mostly proved they had no idea what they were looking at. They were very friendly and my dog got high ratings in every category - even when he probably shouldn't have. This is not to say that international shows are bad - I just wasn't impressed by the judges' critiques on that weekend.

Re: LRC Letter

I think we all need to remember what the Labrador was originally meant to do. They are water dogs, meant to haul in nets and then later waterfowl. They are supposed to be a sturdy dog able to swim in the coldest of water, come out, shake, and be dry and warm. Meant to sit in a blind or boat quietly until needed. We Americans decided that we wanted them to hunt upland birds, in doing so, we started to breed a dog with more leg, less coat, higher energy. I think it's fine that people have "changed" the lab for a different purpose, but at the same time that more moderate animal, is not what the Labrador was meant to be, and certainly should not be considered correct. Please remember, head, coat and tail, is what sets our breed apart. Breed type is so important, and I am afraid that a more generic Labrador is what is being pushed by some. Of course there are extremes on both ends, but as a whole based on the dogs that I see at specialtys our breed is doing just fine, thank you.

I can't help it I have to add this, the people that think they can see a dog on TV and determine if the dog is over weight, have me shaking my head. Until you put your hands on a dog, I'm sorry you do not know.

Re: LRC Letter

LabFan - what a great post! Something MRW spoke of - the true job of a labrador.

Re: LRC Letter

right but wrong way
Is there a particular country's standard that you prefer? Or in the perfect world would you like to see a completely new one developed from scratch?



I don't have a problem with the AKC standard. Or the Canadian, or the KC, or even UKC. When I breed "rarely" it is for AKC & UKC, so I try to breed to those...I strongly believe that working ability should be included...it is the history of our breed.

I DO want to keep in DQ's for color, pigment, and size, as removing these DQ's would be used by unscrupulous breeders to "VALIDATE" their crappy breeding practices. Unfortunately, that is a registration issue, and a whole 'nother can of worms.



Re: LRC Letter

Lab Fan, I can't be in stronger agreement with your goal of breeding Labradors for their original purpose. But I strongly disagree with your statement that Labradors are not meant to be moderate. It could be just that you and I are using the word moderate to mean different things. You seem to be using the terms generic and moderate as synonyms and these two words have very different meanings.

For example, a generic lab may not have a particularly good coat, just not a bad one. A generic lab may not have the proper amt of substance, but is OK. A generic lab may not have a great tail set but does not have a bad one. A generic lab has an OK head but one that is not incorrect. Any one of these things does not make a lab generic. Having many of these small issues together, but no big problems, makes a lab generic.

Another poster mentioned MRW. She defines generic as not having any clear faults but also not having many clear strengths. The problem becomes when we start to define strengths as more and more and more (extreme qualities that are easily observed).

Labs are supposed to have moderate substance, moderate angles, and be of moderate size. Labradors have a short dense coat but not as short as a Rotweiller (so I guess moderate). Labradors should have a moderately sized head with a moderate stop and a moderate length of muzzle.

Since so much of a Labrador is supposed to be moderate, and since the way to determine how much of one body part there should be is by comparing it to another body part, it is often balance that determines the exceptional lab (a non-generic lab). A wonderfully balanced, moderate Labrador is certainly not generic. Especially today when they are so hard to find. An exceptionally balanced, moderate Labrador is what we strive for.

Unfortunately, many of us judge a lab to be exceptional because it has more bone than the other dogs in the class, or more angles, or more coat, or a bigger head... This is NOT was MRW meant when she wrote that fault judging can result in generic dogs. Generic and moderate are NOT synonyms.

I do agree that the height portion of the standard is due to wanting to have more leg that the traditional water dog should, probably for upland hunting purposes. I assume many LRC members would say that many of our conformation labs are too short legged. I would disagree with this. I see too many labs with long backs and loins (not balanced). A Labrador should have a long neck, medium back, and short loin. I see a lot of labs who appear to have short legs because their bodies are too long. Much less often do I see a lab where the different parts of the topline are in proper balance with each other but that it is the legs that are too short.

I do agree that head, coat, and tail are the 3 main (but not only) aspects of proper type. But the disagreement many have is what is the proper size of a head? How big should the jowls be? How much stop? How long (or short) should the muzzle be? How long should the coat be? How much wave should the coat have? How much croup should a lab have? What does a proper tail set look like? But in all cases, moderate does not mean generic.

I also agree that putting your hands on a dog is necessary to truly evaluate whether the dog is overweight. Too much coat and too much overall substance do look like fat. But too many people put their hands on obese dogs and still think they are at a healthy, athletic weight. I don't understand this actually. But, your eye gets used to what you see all the time and I guess that works for fingers too!

Lab Fan
I think we all need to remember what the Labrador was originally meant to do. They are water dogs, meant to haul in nets and then later waterfowl. They are supposed to be a sturdy dog able to swim in the coldest of water, come out, shake, and be dry and warm. Meant to sit in a blind or boat quietly until needed. We Americans decided that we wanted them to hunt upland birds, in doing so, we started to breed a dog with more leg, less coat, higher energy. I think it's fine that people have "changed" the lab for a different purpose, but at the same time that more moderate animal, is not what the Labrador was meant to be, and certainly should not be considered correct. Please remember, head, coat and tail, is what sets our breed apart. Breed type is so important, and I am afraid that a more generic Labrador is what is being pushed by some. Of course there are extremes on both ends, but as a whole based on the dogs that I see at specialtys our breed is doing just fine, thank you.

I can't help it I have to add this, the people that think they can see a dog on TV and determine if the dog is over weight, have me shaking my head. Until you put your hands on a dog, I'm sorry you do not know.

Re: LRC Letter

Dear Lab Enthusiasts,
I am sure we can all agree that MY dogs initiated this controversy, considering it happened just after Westminster.
And I am sure not many know how well conditioned my dogs really are.
I will not get into "p_____g" match over any of it right now BUT I DO want you to know how poorly Nancy and I have been treated.

The comments on Facebook and other Chat Rooms were just plain MEAN and honestly sounded JEALOUS.

AND after receiving the letter from the LRC, Inc. I responded to Marilyn Little with a request to discuss the matter with her. You will recall that she put that offer at the end of her diatribe.

I have YET to hear back from Marilyn. Guess she REALLY does NOT want to talk to ME!!

Also find it EXTREMELY interesting that one of the members of the Judges Educational Committee has bred to Grizz and LOVES her puppies.

Thank you to all who have been kind to us through all of this.

Most Respectfully, Cindy Skiba

Re: LRC Letter

I would like to take this concept further.

Nobody wants to see generic labs being put up by judges. But if we have a generation of breeders now who think generic and moderate mean the same thing...

I think this is powerful and explains a lot. Everybody wants their dog to stand out. But if what makes your dog different from the others is something that is not correct type, then that dog should not win. The winners should be the dogs who have the most correct type and structure. And for Labradors this means the right balance of all the correct, moderate traits.

Re: LRC Letter

right but wrong way


I also agree that putting your hands on a dog is necessary to truly evaluate whether the dog is overweight. Too much coat and too much overall substance do look like fat. But too many people put their hands on obese dogs and still think they are at a healthy, athletic weight. I don't understand this actually. But, your eye gets used to what you see all the time and I guess that works for fingers too!

[/quote]

The key words here are "too much" - everyone seems to be on board with not rewarding "too little" (and evidently decisions on traits that do not appear to be enough CAN be determined without actually putting hands on a dog since those comments are made all of the time and accepted), but "too much" seems to be desirable. This breed should not "appear" heavy due to too much weight, too much coat or too much bone. Too much is just that, TOO MUCH. Putting one's hands on a dog can tell one if the reason the dog looks heavy/overly substantial is due to actually being overweight. But regardless if it is weight or having another characteristic that throws off its balance, the dog still isn't the picture of a moderate working dog.

Re: LRC Letter

Cindy, get over yourself already.....

Re: LRC Letter

Westminster always seem to bring out the worst in some of us. If the Westminster Labrador BOB winner is actually the dog that created the LRC judges memo, I wonder how many BOD members (who surely approved the letter) have actually seen her and put their hands on her. if they are relying on FB and TV, it is hardly an accurate way to evaluate any dog. My second thought is that if after 20 years since the standard was changed by the parent club and they are still complaining about short legged, fat, out of condition dogs then the "new" standard has not done any good at all.

Re: LRC Letter

breeder abc
My second thought is that if after 20 years since the standard was changed by the parent club and they are still complaining about short legged, fat, out of condition dogs then the "new" standard has not done any good at all.


Thank you! It's about time someone stated the obvious.
I recall a few people predicting this would happen when the standard changed. Too much detail written into it, along with a lot of 'should not' statements, and this is what we get.

Re: LRC Letter

breeder abc
Westminster always seem to bring out the worst in some of us. If the Westminster Labrador BOB winner is actually the dog that created the LRC judges memo, I wonder how many BOD members (who surely approved the letter) have actually seen her and put their hands on her. if they are relying on FB and TV, it is hardly an accurate way to evaluate any dog.


I watched the breed judging live online. Thought the winners were lovely. I didn't get to watch the Group judging live. I then saw posts all over FB about how fat the Labrador was. I quickly replied to a few threads with the 'you cannot tell without getting your hands on the dog' comment. And then I watched the Group judging online and realized what the uproar was all about. The Lab in Group looked way different than she did during Breed. The close up views certainly made it seem like she is fat and a cloddy mover. My question is - was it the camera angle? the lighting? the different handler? The tension of a big crowd?? What was the reason she looked so much better in he Breed judging vs the Group? The sad thing is it was the Group judging that Joe Public saw and even I didn't know how to defend our breed after watching Group.

Now - I am NOT saying the winner(s)are fat. Quite the contrary - I think they are lovely, and re-affirmed that after I saw them at Potomac in person (from ringside). But I do see how Joe Public thinks like they do after watching the Group.

Re: LRC Letter

The point is the LRC board felt it necessary to send that letter to judges based on what people saw on TV!!! and don't tell me they would have sent the letter anyway. They were responding to the 'complaints' received and betcha they were mostly from field people since that is who the board listens, and caters, to. Were members of the LRC board at Westminster? Did they go over the dog?

Re: LRC Letter

How do you know that the perspectives, angles, different handler issue were not the reasons that the Labs in the Breed ring looked slimmer than the Lab in the Group ring rather than the other way around? The issue of heavy dogs has been noted by the public for many years and can't be explained away as complaints of "field people," the changed standard, who has "hands on" the dog, the Westminster BOB, etc.

Re: LRC Letter

Because I've seen most of the these dogs in person on more than one occasion and I know what they really look, and feel, like!

Re: LRC Letter

Makes no difference. Who cares what an anonymous poster on this forum says. The public sees what they have seen for years now. If one person calls you an horse's rear end, pay no attention. If two people agree that you are a horse's rear end, consider the notion. But if three people say you are a horse's rear end, get a saddle.

Re: LRC Letter

Cindy and Nancy .. I am very sorry that your wonderful win at WKC - a goal that many breeders, myself included, aspire to - has been diminished by the derogatory posts and ensuing backlash here and on FB.

Re: LRC Letter

The public thinks our dogs are fat. Breeders of other breeds think our dogs are fat. Breeders of our own breed think our dogs are fat. Veterinarians think our dogs are fat.

People who make emotionally based decisions do not change their minds when they are confronted with data that contradict their opinions. They tend to "dig-in" and find reasons to discount the data.

The reason I started this thread is because I am worried the LRC letter will be viewed as "salt on a wound", or reopening an old wound, or at the very least insensitive and arrogant. The letter may be all of the above but that should not be an excuse for us not to look at our dogs and make a rational decision as to whether or not our dogs are overweight.

perspective
Makes no difference. Who cares what an anonymous poster on this forum says. The public sees what they have seen for years now. If one person calls you an horse's rear end, pay no attention. If two people agree that you are a horse's rear end, consider the notion. But if three people say you are a horse's rear end, get a saddle.

Re: LRC Letter

Labradors in general are not shown in "fit" condition which may explain why they look different in a group of well-conditioned sporting dogs than they do surrounded by their own kind. I am not saying they are all fat, but they generally do not have the conditioning of an athlete like many breeds shown in the group. Swimmers who compete have an athletic appearance that many weekend swimmers do not, regardless of weight.

By contrast, the Goldens, which also have a lot of coat, generally are not called fat or overly heavy. They tend to have more coat than their field counterparts, but the weights themselves are not vastly different. I was talking to a top Golden breeder recently (dogs have won BISS at more specialties than I can count plus have multiple BIS awards), and her males (that are in standard 23-24 inches) all weigh 75-78 pounds. No one has ever suggested they were weedy and they are not. Her dogs are kept well conditioned and have had no issues winning at either specialties or all breed shows.

Chessies, which were also bred to hunt waterfowl (i.e. are a swimming breed), do not have chests that drop perceptibly below their elbows and their weight ranges are 65-80 pounds for a male (height range goes to 26 inches). This is a solidly built breed as well.

So when people say that Labradors need heavier bone, excess weight and deeper chests to be functional in the water, it really makes no sense. Labradors really do not need to be in excess of 100 pounds with chests barely above ground to successfully navigate cold waters. They need a solid build and a CORRECT coat.

Each breed in the Group has distinguishing characteristics that give it distinct breed type, but I would think breeds that have similar standards would not appear so vastly different, weight and substance wise. One would think the Labrador standard calls for a heavy set dog, and it does not.

Re: LRC Letter

Old Standard Lover


Why is it that it is so necessary in the USA to have a standard that is so lengthy and clouded with negativity? Copying these Labrador Retriever breed standards into a Word document and doing a word count shows this:

The Kennel Club (U.K.) - 550 words
FCI - recognized by over 80 countries - 642 words
LRC (USA - recognized by not a solitary soul outside of the US, and many inside its borders - 2,053 words

Why the need for such verbosity?


Blame the wordiness on the AKC. It had to follow the rest of the standards which were re-written at the time. The AKC gave the group an outline to follow otherwise they wouldn't approve it.

Personally, I prefer the dogs in the UK. They are more moderate and IMO correct. That's why it makes me laugh when people here refer to their dogs as "English Labs". Their dogs look nothing like the dogs in the UK. They have too much coat, have heads like Rottweilers and short legs on huge bodies.

Re: LRC Letter

older than dirt breeder


Personally, I prefer the dogs in the UK. They are more moderate and IMO correct. That's why it makes me laugh when people here refer to their dogs as "English Labs". Their dogs look nothing like the dogs in the UK. They have too much coat, have heads like Rottweilers and short legs on huge bodies.


I sat ringside with a British judge at a recent Lab specialty. He asked, "do you know why so many Labrador breeders advertise their kennel as "English Labs" when they look nothing like ours?"

"Sir," I said, "I do wish I could answer that question."

Re: LRC Letter

English
older than dirt breeder


Personally, I prefer the dogs in the UK. They are more moderate and IMO correct. That's why it makes me laugh when people here refer to their dogs as "English Labs". Their dogs look nothing like the dogs in the UK. They have too much coat, have heads like Rottweilers and short legs on huge bodies.


I sat ringside with a British judge at a recent Lab specialty. He asked, "do you know why so many Labrador breeders advertise their kennel as "English Labs" when they look nothing like ours?"

"Sir," I said, "I do wish I could answer that question."




Where's the Like button !!!!

Re: LRC Letter

yes
English
older than dirt breeder


Personally, I prefer the dogs in the UK. They are more moderate and IMO correct. That's why it makes me laugh when people here refer to their dogs as "English Labs". Their dogs look nothing like the dogs in the UK. They have too much coat, have heads like Rottweilers and short legs on huge bodies.


I sat ringside with a British judge at a recent Lab specialty. He asked, "do you know why so many Labrador breeders advertise their kennel as "English Labs" when they look nothing like ours?"

"Sir," I said, "I do wish I could answer that question."




Where's the Like button !!!!


Heck where is the LOVE button!

Re: LRC Letter

older than dirt breeder
Old Standard Lover


Why is it that it is so necessary in the USA to have a standard that is so lengthy and clouded with negativity? Copying these Labrador Retriever breed standards into a Word document and doing a word count shows this:

The Kennel Club (U.K.) - 550 words
FCI - recognized by over 80 countries - 642 words
LRC (USA - recognized by not a solitary soul outside of the US, and many inside its borders - 2,053 words

Why the need for such verbosity?


Blame the wordiness on the AKC. It had to follow the rest of the standards which were re-written at the time. The AKC gave the group an outline to follow otherwise they wouldn't approve it.


That is just so wrong! The LRC is totally responsible for the wordiness - I could take the 1957 standard and get it into the required AKC format in less than 15 minutes. To think the AKC is at fault here is just plain ludicrous.