These field bred labs are built like flat-coats.
The Labrador retriever is the top retriever today, both in terms of registrations and in working tests and trials. However, this breed did not become even remotely common until just before the Second World War, even in field trials.
The most common trial retriever before the Lab’s ascendancy was the old wavy-coat landrace and then the old flat-coat breed (both of which included the golden). In Britain, these trials were almost exclusively land trials, that made use of pheasants or hares. These land trials were perfect for dogs that have a high degree of setter in their background.
Labradors, as we know them today, were actually quite rare dogs in the UK. They were first bred by the Earl of Malmesbury out of the short-haired St. John’s water dog. These Malmesbury dogs and newly imported short-haired dogs from Newfoundland provided the basis for the Labrador breed that was finally established from the St. John’s water dog at the Duke of Buccleuch’s estate. Today, you can still find the Buccleuch strain of Labradors.
The Labrador was unknown to the fancy. One cannot find them in the works Hugh Dalziel or Idstone, although one must assume that the St. John’s water dog is the breed Idstone mentions as the “Newfoundland” that was used as a retriever outcross. However, we do know that the dogs that eventually evolved into the heavy Newfoundland were also used for retrieving shot birds.
The short-haired dogs were closely held by the Earls of Malmesbury through the nineteenth century. The same conditions applied with the Dukes of Buccleuch’s strain.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Buccleuch strain occasionally wound up into the hands of a few other sporstmen. However, they really weren’t that common. These were not superior trial dogs, either, and they generally didn’t do as well at land trials as flat-coats did.
But then something happened. The Labradors fanciers began to outcross with lots of dogs to increase speed and soften the mouth. They crossed with foxhounds and pointers to add speed and endurance, and whippets and greyhounds to make them lighter on the ground. They also used lots of good flat-coat trial dogs as an important outcross. The fact that a lot of field type Labs look like flat-coats is no accident.
It was during the Interwar Period that the Lab began to be perfected as a trial quality working retriever, and at the same time, the flat-coat was undergoing some bad fad breeding. The dogs were being bred way too light in build, and to make matters worse, they were developing a long, “borzoi” muzzle that had no strength or control to grip the birds as a more moderate muzzle. In fact, a lot of trialers began to claim that borzoi had been added to the flat-coat line, which further decreased their popularity.
This very lightly built flat-coat is similar to the "weedy" dogs that were being produced in the Interwar Period.
By the late 1930’s, the Lab had finally replaced the flat-coat as the top retriever in British trials.
In the US, retriever trials were largely duck dog events. In fact, the earliest American retriever trials consisted of Chesapeake “duck-dogs” and water spaniels (Irish and American). The Labrador was then adapted into the duck dog trials. It proved to be an easier dog to handle than the Chesapeake, simply because the Chesapeake is a market hunter’s dog, designed entirely for efficient retrieving, not fancy trial work. It was also faster in the water than the water spaniels, so it very quickly became the top duck dog on this continent.
The Labrador replaced the top retrievers in both the US and the UK by the late 1930’s. It was able to do so because its breeders were willing to experiment with crossbreeding to make a dog that was as efficient in the water as any Chesapeake, as biddable as any collie, and as birdy as any setter. And to think that this breed was virtually unknown 40 years before it took over.
Today, the Lab is the top retriever, and it will probably never be replaced. I will bet on it as long as stud-books remain strictly closed and no one can do the experimental breeding that Labrador people used to perfect their dog.
Flatcoats make good hunting companions for the weekend bird hunter but are not well suited for US Field Trials as they are run today. They do not have the temperament for it and personally, I’m glad for that. Any breed has ups and downs and both tend to endear themselves to the owners over time. Flatcoats also die of cancer at an alarming rate before a dog’s lifespan would normally be met. Again, without outcrossing there appears to be no hope there.
I’d say that goldens aren’t that suitable for highest level field work, because they, like the flat-coat, have setter characteristics. They don’t naturally line well. If you want a dog to find birds in dense cover, both have far better air-scenting abilities than the typical Labrador.
However, both of those setter-retrievers are thinking dogs. That’s why I like them both.
The flat-coat has cancer issues, as does the golden. But the golden’s average life expectancy is 12.03 years, based on the best morbidity studies, across 4 countries, while the flat-coat’s is 9.56.
Did you know they to be interbred as late as 1916?
One of the founding lines of golden, the Culhams, were interbred with black flat-coats. I think the Ingestre line also had some black dogs in it. It’s really not that the flat-coat is a black or liver golden, rather the golden is a yellow strain of flat-coat. And there are occasional yellows in the flat-coated breed, which are vestige of interbreeding with goldens.
If the field trials for retrievers were a driven English shoot for pheasants or hares/jackrabbits, then they would be able to compete with Labs. But in this country, they are really designed for the Labrador. Or maybe, the Labrador is designed for the trial.
In Britain, the goldens tend to do quite well in their trials, so I’m sure the flat-coats could be competitive if more people worked them in that country.
I wish we could use flat-coat genes in goldens. I know they have health problems, but they are generally structurally more sound and still have the working, drivey temperament. Dudley Marjoribanks, the founder of the golden, always used the black dogs in his breeding program, usually the best black dogs he could find.
I am an owner/handler of one of both, and exposed to a variety of breeds while field training. (Both my dogs are good IMO, but one will never be “famous” and one is still young.) On the one hand, you’re absolutely right–the modern field trial is made for Labs, and I think they will forever dominate, and I love them for it. But, there are far more Labs in general, Labs that are almosts/washouts/non-cometitive than are competitive, so the field trial dog–and even the hunt test dog–are a rarity within the breed. On the other hand, flat-coats are far more handicapped in field trials and hunt test competition by their handlers than by their DNA! Flat-coat owners tend to be amateurs, and tend to diversify activities rather than specialize on field work, and tend to dote on them as pets a bit more–which is all good! but doesn’t necessary help show off their natural instincts (and I’ve seen some flat-coats that take a natural line as well as any Lab out there). Cancer issues aside, a well-bred flat-coat is a great dog, at home and in the field.
I agree. Lots of labs means more variance in the breed.
What part of the country and in what events do you run your lab & flatcoat, Flattie-n-labbie?
by far the best dog for field work is the black lab with little work they are by far the most obedient breed of dogs on the planet
I find goldens for normal purposes to be the easiest gun dog to train. It’s just they aren’t tough like Labs are. And they have a different hunting style.
Goldens clean Labs’ clocks in obedience and agility trials.
I’ve become fascinated by this debate.Here’s a different perspective: http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/rethinking-the-decline-in-the-flatcoats-popularity/
However, I think the important aspect of the debate is not the history of what happened but what should happen now. It is a choice between conservation and breeding to suit today’s competitions. A more provocative way of saying this might be that the choice is between breeding dogs to suit the trials/tests or designing the tests and trials to encourage breeding as conservation. http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/retriever-breeds-use-them-or-conserve-and-use-them/
Just for the record, the picture used above (without permission) to demonstrate “weediness” is of a young flat-coat bitch bred by myself in 1990. She lived lived for nearly 14 years and was still qualifying in agility at age 11 and winning her conformation class at age 13. A vast number of quality dual-purpose flat-coats in both colors, many with good bone and substance, trace back to her in pedigree.