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.

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

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?"

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

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.

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'.....

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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.

Cindy, get over yourself already.....

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.