The solution lies at the door of the judges and breeders, if judges encourage exaggeration (in any breed) and award exaggerated dogs highly then unfortunatley the breeders will then aim to breed a dog that they have seen  awarded a high place.   I was always taught by the old timers in our breed (Flatcoated Retriever), moderation is the key, whether it be conformation or movement, exaggerations are undesirable.  Also, when one is involved heavily in a breed sometimes one begins to accept exaggeration as 'normal' it is good to go and look at different groups and the breeds within that group, itis also useful to look at old photographs of your chosen breed and see if they have altered much over the years.   Look at the photo's in the Bateson Report which I think all should read.   It is said that the 'all rounder' is supposed to keep a breed on the right track, cannot say that I have seen that happen much in the gundog group of recent years; years ago all rounders went for construction and soundness, nowadays it seems that a few go for the flashiest, and the dog that can go the fastest round the ring.  The dog of moderation is often overlooked, possibly because they do not catch the eye, which is a pity.

It is like all things there are good and there are bad judges, which includes all rounders and specialists.

But for those that do not show, how do they know that they are keeping their breeding on the right lines, if they do not have anything to compare against.   I for one would not want a breed, whatever breed if it resembled something it was not meant to be!

Well I admit I do not follow dachshund showing closely but they certainly do put up dogs with a structure that makes them prone to certain medical conditions and would make them incapable of doing the job they were developed for.

To me Dachshunds looks no different in the UK to what they do in Sweden -apart from lacking the smallest size. In Sweden, if you added the 3 sizes and 3 coats together, counting them as one breed instead of 9 different ones, it would be THE most popular breed of dog there.  And many, MANY are still worked -in fact I dare say it is one of the breeds most often worked still.

>And if I can go back to the comment that someone made that only 10% of dogs within a breed are worth breeding - isn't that somewhat dangerous if we want to preserve a diverse gene pool ?

Not really - in many breeds it equates to one dog in each litter, so not narrowing the gene pool at all.

Surely the question should be 'should i breed at all?' not wether or not an affix is needed to do so.
I cannot believe how causually people go into breeding thinking its easy and a quick way of making money.
My advice would be don't do it, if your bitch has not proven herself in the show ring or any working field then i really do not see the point of breeding from her.
You say you have found a stud dog, how has this dog been proven?
In my thirty years of owning dogs i have only bred one litter (six years ago), this was with the guidance and help of a very good friend and established gundog breeder/trainer.
It was one of the most stressfull experiences of my life, and one i doubt i will ever undertake again.
If you are wanting a puppy, find a responsible breeder and get one that way.
Enjoy your bitch as a pet.
Because believe me if you are going into to this thinking you will make money, you are in for a shock!

DerbyMerc, how then do you explain why trials labradors look nothing like the original labrador of the early 1900's then?  To increase the speed of the trial labrador it has been know to add the odd greyhound gene!  and that is a fact that I know so do not shoot me down in flames and tell me I dont.  I show mine but also train them for working and believe you me some of mine have gone on to working homes.  not all of us who show only do it for what the others like to see.  I have never produced or shown anything that isnt physically able to run around in my field all day with my horses and jump the jumps with them too! 

Although I do agree with the fact that there are many who breed only for the look that the judges like, but, there are those who are insistant in keeping the breed as it should be.  At the end of the day there are those in both working, and showing who TO WIN WILL DO ANYTHING, the need to win being far greater than the health of the dog.

"Not really - in many breeds it equates to one dog in each litter, so not narrowing the gene pool at all. "

Incorrect - clearly if you select 90% of every breed and say they are not to be considered good enough to be bred from you will in practice narrow the gene pool quite quickly.  

As for labrador breeders introducing greyhound genes - it's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.   If the resulting puppies are healthy, of good temperament and can do the job better then why not ? 

I think maybe people think I'm somehow anti show dogs.    I've got no beef with people producing dogs for show, for work or for pet so long as the dog is physically and mentally sound and they are breeding responsibly in terms of finding good homes for the pups and taking responsibility for the futures of the dogs they breed.   I do observe that many breeds are not in my opinion physically sound though - and I fail to see how anyone can defend the modern dachshund when it is beyond any doubt that the body shape predisposes it to serious physical disability.   

but by using the 90% you are breeding dogs which wont look like the breed standard. the fact that only a small amount in the uk are suitable for breeding encourages breeders to either import a dog, thus meaning that dog has virtually no relations in the uk, or importing the semen, which has the same benefits.

you are keeping the gene pool just as small by using a whole litter to breed with as what you would using one from that litter. they have more or less the same genes, from their parentage. both parents must be at least a carrier for pup to end up with each particular pheno/genotype

>As for labrador breeders introducing greyhound genes - it's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.   If the resulting puppies are healthy, of good temperament and can do the job better then why not ?

But a labrador that's very fast might do well in trials where speed is a consideration, but is less useful in a practical working sense where steadiness and accuracy is far more important. The introduction of greyhound genes would be a definite retrograde step.

> Incorrect - clearly if you select 90% of every breed and say they are not to be considered good enough to be bred from you will in practice narrow the gene pool quite quickly.  

Nature has never designed for all the offspring of any to parents to all breed.

In wild canids it is unlikely that more than one of each sex from any pair would breed, because the cubs die, or are not alpha enough to become pack leaders.

It is the lack of hard selection that is one of the causes of problems with domestic species, if only the best are bred from it strengthens breeds.

Repeat matings, lots of the same way bred animals does not enlarge a gene pool, just numbers.

> how then do you explain why trials labradors look nothing like the original labrador of the early 1900's then? 

I believe that in breeds where there is a huge difference in type it is not just the show breeders that have moved away from the breed standard but the working side too.

Also a lot of the working bred animals are no longer bred for the original function but to be competitive in Trials as opposed to easy to handle working partners for country owners that shoot.

Most of these field trail bred dogs would be too hot to handle for someone who just wants a shooting companion, as well as for the pet home.

The same could be said of Sled dog breeds, there are those now breeding dogs bred to win races, and often these are short coated crosses of Pointers etc (Alaskan Huskies) mixed in with the traditional Spitz breeds  who were best suited for working in the climate where they were used for actual work.

In the purebred sibe circles there are dogs that are bred to Race as opposed to actually do the original work, as well as dogs that are all coat and no knickers in the show rings, primarily in the US where Glamour in the show ring is stressed.

In labradors there are 6 different types within the breed which is why the breed has so much diversity and shape, but a lot of the trials labs have totally lost the shoulder and head completely even when you look at the slimer types of the holton, whitmore and lawnwood for example.    Alot of the main problems come from the fact that for the show ring we are expected to have almost a 10 kilo difference in weight from field trial or workers. 

No one should knock the show labs of today as there are so many that actually have proven themselves in the working trials too. 

I agree with brainless as I stated too to WIN many feel, in both working and show breeding, that they have to move away from the breed standard to acheive their goals. 

Funny isnt it how the original purpose for the labrador in labrador was to jump of fishing boats in icy waters to pick up stray fish! it is us britsh who trained them to pick up on shoots.

Re. sled dogs and labradors - if the "job" they are required to do has changed then I can't see the problem with the breed changing.    Why should breeds be preserved in aspic.    If people want a labrador that is fast for trials or a sled dog that can win races rather than work day in day out then I can't see why they shouldn't breed for that.    Would we criticise guide dog breeders because their dogs couldn't work with fishermen like their ancestors ?     By the same token I've no problem with show breeders having changed so many breeds to suit what is essentially a fashion of what they think that breeds should look like - so long as it doesn't impact on the breed's health and well being.    If labradors develop into different lines - pet and working -  then isn't that just what has happened to create so many of our breeds in the first place ?  

Unfortunately the impact of changing breeds to suit a fashion has effected the labradors health.  Problems with being overweight and too heavily boned have resulted in the breed suffering with hip and elbow problems just for starters.  If you go in the ring with a labrador in correct working weight you are throw out with the trash.  but that is just my opinion and I will continue to strive to stand with the number of labrador breeders who breed for the good of the breed with good leg length and weight, so be dual fit for function.  I am quite happy to always be in the minority for the health of my dogs.

Pity more breeder/exhibitors don't feel as you do. :-(

>If you go in the ring with a labrador in correct working weight you are throw out with the trash.

Now that the standard has been altered to mention that the dog should not be carrying excessive weight (following years of outrage at the extreme bulk of so many show labradors), it'll be interesting to see if this changes.

> Pity more breeder/exhibitors don't feel as you do.

I'd say the judges need a kick up the backside if they throw out fit dogs in favour of overweight ones.

I agree with dogsdinner, re judges and looking back to old pictures of the breeds.

When I judge I will look for a dog which I think I could take shooting and feel confident that it will not break down after a few seasons due to poor construction. Moderation is the key. Exeraggerations are undesirable.

I realise fashions change but at what point does a fashion become the norm? I had this discussion with a breeder who said that limited use of their particularly good stud dog would keep the breed type and shape. I pointed out that by limiting him to the few bitches she thought were exceptional, owners of incorrectly constructed bitches would look to lesser dogs with constructional faults if these lesser dogs were bred more than her properly contstructed dog then over time, her properly constructed dog would stand out because the rest of the breed no longer looked like his type. So at that point is he or has he become the poorly constructed dog? While I would not condone the over use of one dog it is interesting to think about exactly how fashions can change, through the influences of judges and breeders.

I also wonder how much handling affects structure? I have seen flatcoats go from free standing on a loose lead to a breed whose feet are now placed and the back legs are often placed wide apart at the back. They look good but as Read Flowers taught me, look beyond the staging of the dog and see the real dog when it stands naturally and relaxed. I think that in many cases the flashy dog has won beause more and more we are seeing all the gundogs set up with feet placed in a certain way. Movement is often not sound with the flashiest dog winning.

Hi Jenegenie,  i was hoping that too, but unfortunately it has not yet made any difference.  Its funny how the breed has also shrunk!  Piling on the joint pressure too.  The latest trend is to follow the golden retriever trend and make a yellow labrador CREAM.  I now refuse to breed this into my lines and am striving to return to the darker coated yellow labs.  My recent ones reflect this. 

In the show ring I have decided to withdraw my stock from championship shows and watch this lastest trend fade away.  I will continue to have a little fun at the opens and junior handling for my kids, but for me I will not breed this way.  My main male stud dog has all the looks and charm of the older Sandylands labradors and I am sure Gwen Broadley would agree, if she was alive today.   In fact looking at some of his ancestors makes me proud to see how many look so similar to him they are.  I am struggling to find the right bitch stock for him but its all trial and error. 

We all have our own opinion of what a labrador should look like and for me it will always be the older style lab.

>We all have our own opinion of what a labrador should look like and for me it will always be the older style lab.

Me too. Last time I saw labs at a Ch show - only about 10 years ago - I was shocked; so many of them looked more like miniature Rottweilers than labradors.

In the show ring I have decided to withdraw my stock from championship shows

But doing that aren't you making the problem worse :-(

> I also wonder how much handling affects structure?

I really hope that we can keep the stacking out of our breed, it has always been frowned upon in this country but is the norm in the USA, and a few people have been know to place feet etc.

For me this takes away the natural balance of the dog (it can make a dog look worse if done badly) and also for a naturally alert bold and energetic breed it makes them too static.

Also trimming.  All my US contacts tell me to trim the belly on my dogs when we exchange photos, but both standards call for natural untrimmed presentation!!

In our breed there are a different type of BM being bred at each kennel more/ less wrinkle, taller/ shorter, short nose/ longer nose, heaver dogs/ lighter dogs, dirty coats/ clean coats the list goes on.

You can pretty much tell what dog came from what kennel a mile away regardless of the owner. No two look the same, the breed whether for the better of worse is by in large still in development, and this I can safely say is down to current trend and fashions in the ring.

> The latest trend is to follow the golden retriever trend and make a yellow labrador CREAM.  I now refuse to breed this into my lines and am striving to return to the darker coated yellow labs.  My recent ones reflect this. 

If all Labradors were like the ones I saw as a child, i.e. lean lithe and tall... they may well have been a breed I chose. Later on, I instead learned that the only ones that still resemble my ideal are working labs. I know a few friends who have said they would never get a Lab based on current appearance. Pet owners don't need the drive of a working lab, but if they wanted that lovely svelte look, they would have no choice but to buy working, and if golden is really turning into white, then that will surely affect breed appeal.

>I really hope that we can keep the stacking out of our breed, it has always been frowned upon in this country but is the norm in the USA

Ditto with my breed; over here they're never stacked, only shown free-standing, and with all the wagging tails the ring looks so much happier than the ones full of statues.

> Also trimming.  All my US contacts tell me to trim the belly on my dogs when we exchange photos, but both standards call for natural untrimmed presentation!!

Our standard calls for minimal trimming confined to tidying the ears, neck and feet. The Scandinavian and European dogs have shaved necks and the trimming is so severe the feathering is all but removed. For me it spoils the look of a proper flatcoat, as they are out of balance if they are correctly constructed, but if too up right in the shoulder shaving the neck and leaving hair on the chest can give the impression of a correct front. this is where a good judge will sort the chaff from the grain. This fashion for trimming all the hair off is catching on in many places, I am told by some that it gives a more professional look to the dog.

Understand LJS but when you travel all that time spend all that money to be beaten again and again and again! We have only packed in the Champs, not the opens.  I have decided to change breed having lost all faith in the labradors.  We fell in love with the spinone some years back but decided then to keep going with the labs, until last year.  We bought our first spin and love everything about the breed and the breeders, that we have decided to concentrate our champ show efforts here.  yes there are different types and shapes, but all that I like.  We will continue at the opens to show our type and make our point, but its more relaxed and rewarding at the opens, because the judging is all different.  My daughter handles our labs and in time she will make her breed decision, and if it is with the labs then she will have some good stock to continue with.  She studies the pedigrees, raises the puppies, trains them and ultimately shows them.  With our support and help of course. 

> Ditto with my breed; over here they're never stacked

Oops ...not so these days. I've seen quite a few being strung and close-baited. Often by young ladies, dressed in the US style two piece skirt suit. I saw one being considered for the utility group only last week.

Good grief, that's terrible! I'm amazed nothing was said to them as they came out of the ring. Open show or Championship?

Last week it was an open show at Reading.

> Good grief, that's terrible! I'm amazed nothing was said to them as they came out of the ring. Open show or Championship?

I wonder how much this is junior handling influencing things? I have noticed that a lot of young handlers do not free stand their dogs and if they have a free standing breed in handling classes they often do not seem to do as well as those with breeds which are stacked?

DerbyMerc, how then do you explain why trials labradors look nothing like the original labrador of the early 1900's then?

The breed standard is a guideline and clearly open to enterpretation.  I would say that the majority of working/trialling labradors I know, work with and in competition are far more like those in the early pictures of thet original labrador than their overdone conterparts in the show ring.

No one should knock the show labs of today as there are so many that actually have proven themselves in the working trials too

I'm not sure about working trials (they have nothing to do with gundog work), but there are very very few show labs that have placings in even novice field trials.  There are show labs picking up on shoots and doing a good job at it but there are definately disadvantages and they do lack in some areas.

>If you go in the ring with a labrador in correct working weight you are throw out with the trash.

Now that the standard has been altered to mention that the dog should not be carrying excessive weight (following years of outrage at the extreme bulk of so many show labradors), it'll be interesting to see if this changes

I must admit to being horrified at the amount of excessive weight that a show labrador has to carry to do well in the ring (as told by a show person).  However, excessive weight has nothing to do with substance.

Just also wanted to correct a misunderstanding that the most important thing in a trial lab is speed.  It is not.  There are many abilities that go towards making a good working lab, and speed can be as much of a handicap as it can be an advantage.  Contrary to opinion that working labradors are all fast, skinny whippety things, working labradors come in a variety of shapes and sizes.  What is important is that they have the natural ability and intelligence and the athleticism to carry out the tasks it has on a shoot.  However, the type of labrador that would have the agility and athleticism to do this is nearer the current working lab than the show lab.

*interpretation*