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.

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.

[/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.

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.

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.