The Labrador as a breed of beef cattle
This is a very interesting development in the Labrador.
But it seems to me that they’d rather have them look like beef cattle than retrievers!
I didn’t realize how much bone (which looks a lot like fat) that they were breeding into the Labrador.
I knew the KC was proposing a standard revision for the Labrador, but I didn’t realize how bad things actually were.
The things that could save this dog from this form are pretty obvious: there are a lot of them and not all of them are show dogs bred to this standard.
The poor Sussex spaniel has none of those things going for it.
Where did that come from?
I’m working on a post, but the picture didn’t appear at first. It should be visible by now.
I’ve typed about 10 responses and erased each one.
Whodathunkit–I’m almost speechless.
Shouldn’t this post be titled the over-fed labrador? He’s of the fireplug x rottie variety of lab, but he’s also carrying ten or twenty extra pounds.
And that’s why the KC is trying to change the standard. This is what wins in the KC ring.
No argument that this is the TYPE that wins in the breed ring. But this dog is overweight (way more than the overweight dogs I do see in the breed ring.) He has no tuck-up, and no muscle definition in the hind quarters.
A friend once took a very nice working lab from working & show stock into the breed ring, and was told that the girl could take points, but only after she gained ten pounds. The owner chose to forgo the show career in order to save her joints.
In the UK ring, you see this more.
The AKC dogs aren’t always horribly fat.
What’s bad about a lot of goldens in the AKC is you have both the excessive bone and then a ton of coat on them. In the UK, it’s too much bone and breeding for that recessive very light color over working ability.
ouch, that looks painful. poor poor dog. He’ll be crippled before his time.
It always baffles me when judges put up this kind of dog (happens in my breed too).. they think FAT = substance??? what do they feel when they put their hands on the dog???
oh Patti S, even ROTTs aren’t supposed to look like that! I’ve seen some with tuckups…. ok, maybe not in the show ring, though. ;-)
Here’s a side view of the dog that won BOB at Crufts in 2009. This photo was taken in 2008 at the LRC Champ Show 08 —
http://www.pbase.com/woodmist/image/98310739
Look through some of the other labs in this show including the BIS –
http://www.pbase.com/woodmist/image/98310818
The TYPE is similar to your example dog, but these dogs aren’t carrying the extra poundage.
EmilyS, I KNOW that Rotties shouldn’t look like that. A few agility buddies have amazingly fit and athletic Rotties. They are really great dogs.
Even healthy beef cattle don’t look like that – they should be nicely muscled and well-rounded. :) That looks like a big, fat dog, so far as I can tell.
“This is what wins in the KC ring. The AKC dogs aren’t always horribly fat.”
Quite the contrary! I’d say the dog is a sad and typical example of an AKC show Labrador… Just have a look at some US breeders’ home pages and pics of their winning Labrador stock. :(
I don’t think that there is any hope for our dogs. The concept of the show ring will ruin them all. I think that this is true even for those who claim that there is no split in their breed. I saw a “working” Chessie last weekend ( at a hunt test) that you couldn’t give away. Turns out the sire is a show dog champion.
No hope? Ruination? Not for the Lab, I think.
Perhaps I’m naive, but I see no rule that states that conscientious breeders of working Labradors can’t keep their vision of the standard alive and and also breed for performance. I think that’s where a good number of performance Lab breeders are right now.
And then there are show people. And then there are “handsome is as handsome does” people–this has its plusses and minuses. There’s a lot of responsible pet breeding, and those types tend toward humungous but there’s a lot of variety. And there’s also a whole lot of crap breeding. There are a few serious dual-purpose people with moderate and athletic dogs.
For the Lab, it’s so all over the map, I can’t get too terribly exercised about it. The breed ring can do its thing, and the Lab as it was first intended will survive elsewhere.
The other retriever breeds, I think, may have a tougher time being so sanguine about the goings-on in the breed ring. The ones who are fighting the good fight against a total split have my full support.
I’m not a Retriever person at all, but I tend to agree with this based on what I see day to day. I see a tremendous variety in Labs. There are the lighter-boned field-type dogs, there are the short, stumpy, overdone “English Labs” that people pay an obscene amount of money for. In this area, most fall somewhere in the middle or toward the lighter-boned end.
They pay more because the field type dogs are often too much dog for the average person, but people like Labs.
So they pay more for a dog that has the Lab temperament but a very calm temperament. Now, even the field-line Labs from the UK are calm dogs in relative terms, but these show line dogs are known for being super mellow.
The show-line goldens from the UK have a similar disposition and body, but they are a lot harder (in my opinion) to train than performance-line goldens.
I have more hope for the Labrador than other breeds. If it can’t be turned around, then no breed can.
My experience with both types of golden are very similar to yours. My first dog (a field type) was border collie smart. My second dog (a show type) might as well have been a sheep.
The field type lived to be 13; the show type to 14.
The field type dogs don’t have the genetic diversity of the show type dogs (especially the English show types.)
I see a problem with breeding a show type that is different from the field type. I see it in the labs, goldens, and chessies in my area. Although each type may be within the breed standard once you start selecting qualities based upon appearance you risk losing the qualities that are needed for hunting. Also, I wouldn’t breed my golden to a show golden and a show person wouldn’t breed their golden to my field golden. The end result? After several generations you have two types that look and behave like two different breeds. Compare my male field golden of 70 lbs. to the 85 lb. female golden appropriately named Bear that I used to see. Most of the goldens that I see are of the Bear type. Now this becomes what a person expects to see when they hear golden retriever. The field type is seen as some sort of oddity. And don’t forget that the golden retriever is “primarily a hunting dog”.
From what I see in labs I think there is a similar problem. I see it at the hunt tests. Big lumbering labs that don’t look or move like an athlete should. Granted I don’t think it’s as bad as what’s happening to goldens but the breeding of the two different types is there. I only hope that it doesn’t get any worse. In my area it’s easier to find a working lab than a working golden.
One of my old co-workers had two Labs: one was the huge blocky type, the other was streamlined and fit for the field. Neither were field dogs, but she always intoned how much quicker the field-type Lab learned things compared to the other one.
We’re dogsitting our neighbor’s ‘bear’ Golden…I just can’t get over the sheer amount of HAIR on this dog, especially what comes OFF of him when brushed. And his size! He’s as big as some Rotts I’ve known, basically looks like that Lab except dark gold and with billowing amounts of fur! He’s close in age to our last dog, and I’m just amazed that he outlived Zeke since he’s bigger, heavier (not lean-fed at all), and less active. Z died at 11 and this dog is going on 12 now. Don’t get me wrong, we love this dog and he’s a gentle boy…but in terms of health and athleticism, he’s not something I’d choose to own voluntarily unless it was a foster/rehab situation.
“I have more hope for the Labrador than other breeds. If it can’t be turned around, then no breed can.”
The split in the breed has gone from bad to worse for the past 50 – 60 years… To turn it around is ‘mission impossible’!
I think there will be a niche for a dual-purpose Lab for a long time to come, and I support that. Bringing the two together in any number, though… I agree it’s probably impossible.
What’s not impossible is the old original ideal of the Labrador being kept alive by performance breeders who appreciate and generally try to breed to the working standard–I support that, too.
I can see a day somewhere way, way, way down the road when the split is made official–maybe the “Labrador Companion Dog” in non-working, and the “American Field Labrador” in sporting. Maybe that’s a pipe dream–and it would be very sad for the folks who tried to keep the breed together.
In the meantime, I can only have a dog or two at a time, so I’m just going to get the dog I like and try to live and let live… when it comes to Labs, that is. (I’m more protective of the flat-coats.)
The reason why I have hope for them is because there are so many of them. I do think that dual purpose dogs are very few in number, but we have two distinct types of purpose bred dogs and that’s more than you can say about the golden.
At least Labs aren’t Sussex spaniels, where the only strain that still exists is in a very inefficient and poorly built show strain.
And if you want to know how that’s going for that breed, count the number of Sussex spaniels.
Again you may want to look at vanderwik’s website http://www.labradornet.com and the page on “Labrador Typecasting”
He claims there are 6 body shapes. I’ve seen these “slugs” win in show rings and also perform well at hunt tests.
I type cast a little differently– I call the English type a Bentley.
Well, the link’s typecasting is very much the author’s own, personal view – not to take as carved in stone, I’d add …
I have seen the “slugs” much more at home in show rings rather than doing w e l l the job they are intended to do… ;)
“Well, the link’s typecasting is very much the author’s own, personal view – not to take as carved in stone, I’d add … ”
That’s a good way of putting it.
I have yet to know anyone that actually puts much stock in these “types.”
In my previous life, I showed many Labs and the winning dogs were often so overweight that they could barely make it at a trot around the ring and they sounded like swine while attempting to do so.
You see this division in herding dogs as well. And typically, there are often three types: the “show” dog, the “field trial dog” and the “working dog”. There is room for overlap to some degree, but the biggest problem is that the large registries like AKC and the UK don’t distinguish between the working dogs and the show dogs. It would be better if there were more truth in advertising and if the registries were more willing to recognize the working dogs as being as worthy as the “show dogs”, but unfortunately, snob value applies in both camps. In AKC, 90% or more of the emphasis is on conformation as the “best of the best”. Even when they have performance events, the degree to which the event actually tests for working type is often problematical (I’d like to see how well the Hound folk would enjoy having just three types of course for all dogs of the Hound Group and all judged against each other as if Coonhounds were identical to Beagles). A Belgian Sheepdog is no more like a German Shepherd than a Brittany is like a Golden Retriever. When a group of dedicated breeders is focused on a particular characteristic, they can manage to recover or retain a desired characteristic (Red Setters being a case in point). However, the snob factor promptly surfaces — In 1975 the Irish Setter Club of America petitioned the AKC to deny reciprocal registration with the Red Setters, and the AKC granted the request. It is claimed, by critics of the move, that the pressure was placed on the AKC by bench show enthusiasts who were unappreciative of the outcrossing efforts of the National Red Setter Field Trial Club, as well as some AKC field trialers following a series of losses to FDSB red setters. The same thing occured with the Dalmation project — it wasn’t enough to not breed to the dogs that had pointer in them, snobs had to deny their registrations. As a person trying to maintain/ recover the working ability of Belgian Sheepdogs, it is frustrating that on both sides roadblocks are thrown up — the conformation crowd on one side, the “police working dog” crowd who look down their noses at a herding dog on the other. It’s likely that there will always be working Labradors as there’s a demand for a good hunting bird dog. It would be nice if AKC and some of the others would not only recognize the dogs but accord them as much recognition and honor as they do the dogs at Crufts or Westminster.
VR, Peggy Richter
Gundogs do get their due recognition and honour at Crufts dog show, even today!
The gamekeepers ring is the oldest in Crufts history.
The breed rings also have special class for working gundogs and dogs awarded field trials prizes.
I actually don’t know but highly doubt if any working/trialling gundog was ever shown at Westminster!
Well, explain to me why in golden retrievers, if I want one that will be useful, I will avoid any dog that is of English conformation breeding.
Really? You surprise me. I can only conclude that what is advertised in the USA as ‘english conformation’ breeding is not what is winning in the show ring in the UK.
The 2008 Crufts best of breed in Golden Retrievers was Ch Catcombe Corblimey. He works 2-3 days a week throughout the shooting season. I would say he epitomises the breed as a dog that can work all day in the field and then come home, have a bath and a brush up and go into the show ring and win. To win best of breed at Crufts he beat 615 dogs, the highest entry of any one breed at Crufts.
You might want to check out his breeders’ website – http://www.retrievers-catcombe.co.uk – if you look under the publications section there’s a wonderful picture of the range of coat shades acceptable in the breed standard.
I’ve seen the Catcombe dogs.
But I wouldn’t have a “white” dog with that much bone.
Now British Labradors of the trial type, I’d definitely consider.
What’s being advertised as English type here is big-boned, blocky, polar-bear type with very little retrieving instinct and very little “ambition.”
I prefer the little red dogs that are of from field breeding. I call them swamp collies, which is the old name for the working-type golden in the US.
I’m not a big fan of any dog shows, and I very happy that the RSPCA pulled out of Crufts.
Quite a few gundogs entered in Westminster have hunt test titles. Some have Master Hunter titles. Even labs.
I’m not saying that they took BOB. but there are hunt test titles, and there are dogs that hunt.
A Belgian Sheepdog with an HS (herding started) title went Best opposite Sex at Westminster and a Collie (rough) with a PT and a Vallhund with a HT did the same. Unfortunately, that’s all there was. A Brittany Senior Hunter went Breed, a German Shorthaired Pointer JH went BOS, and so did a Spinone Italiano JH. Unfortunately that’s all there was in the Sporting dogs. The fact that ANY dual titled dogs made it indicates a fair amount of $ and dedication on the part of the owners but it also points out that AKC has missed a golden opportunity to make a fuss over these dual titled dogs. As for Crufts, they may honor the working-titled dogs, but you don’t hear about it much on the news coverage.
Vr, Peggy Richter.
Flatcoat BOB results –
2008 BOB JH OA OAJ
BOS JH
JAM JH
2007 BOB JH OA OAJ
2006 BOB JH OA OAJ
JAM CDX JH AX OAJ
2005 BOB JH OA AXJ
BOS JH
2004 BOB CD JH NA NAJ
BOS JH
2003 BOB CD JH
JAM JH
The 2002 BOB had a SH, went on to earn his MH
The 2001 BOB had a JH, took a Sporting Group One
And the announcers do mention titles on both ends of a dog’s name. At least they do in flatcoats.
That’s a true dual purpose breed.
The two really popular ones aren’t so much.
I think that Greta (flattie-n-Labbie) has some experience with that MH Westminster BoB dog. The dog also starred in Outdoor Life Network’s Beretta’s Bird Dog Journal “Flat-coats in the Dakotas”. A real working champion. And a very nice flatcoat
I knew Hawk quite well personally–a wonderful dog. Talented, sweet-natured, and beautiful.
In addition to his AKC CH and MH, he had a UKC HRCH title (somewhat comparable to an MH, but the tests are more realistic hunting scenarios). I understand he was a very, very good upland dog.
He was his owner’s best buddy and his hunting dog, and while he led a decently long life, he is very missed. He was a sweet, sweet dog.
Patti S., Peggy Richter and flattie-n-Labbie; thanks for the info, much appreciated! :)
Here’s a link (downloadable PDF) to a discussion of the updated British UK Labrador standard.
http://www.retriever-magazine.it/homeingl..html
A quote: “Regarding substance, Mr. Craig noted that a Labrador breeder should aim for a good level of substance and a powerful construction through selection and not by giving more food to his dogs, as in this way he will produce
overweight dogs lacking the good bone and strength that are characteristic of the breed. A dog that is too fat is not a
powerful Labrador but simply a fat Labrador.”