Hello, I am looking up the details of a dog on the Champdog forum - all details are there, such as the dogs age, breed, colour etc - however there is no information of its owner?  I find this strange, why is this the case?

No idea as you haven't mentioned the dogs name

Hello - the name of the dog is "Patanavac Mint''
Thank you

https://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=558606 
This any help ?

Thank you and yes, the more information the better.  From my interpretation from this website, the dog does not appear to be KC registered.

Hi is KC registered.

Not sure if you can see this if you don't have an account but let's give it a go: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/search/dog-profile/?dogId=ceb410c2-ec7b-e911-a8ad-002248005544

He's sired a lot of litters...

Wow he must be exhausted, lots of litters born just days apart

I can see the information on the link, thank you, that is very helpful!

> Wow he must be exhausted, lots of litters born just days apart

I know...

> I can see the information on the link, thank you, that is very helpful!

Great

Looks like Mr C Branford is listed as an owner possibly here: https://labradorretriever.breedarchive.com/animal/view/mr-c-branford-c6ef1b13-3e5e-49bc-9ddb-6b4252d4341f

No contact details though

A John Cavana owns Patanavac Gun Dogs but not sure if he owns Patanavac Mint

Goodness talk about well used .

He's listed in the results here with a Peter Elwine https://www.grcnorthumbria.co.uk/working-test-results.html

Looks like this is the chap as he is advertised for stud on his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/peter.elwine

Thank you :-)

It is a lot of litters sired but it's also a very popular breed, a dog being worked, and with zero hips and zero elbows plus DNA tests, so I can't really blame people for wanting to use him.

Thought I'd have a look at some of the bitches which came to him, many have not been health tested at all

Not good enough

I think he's fox red. Enough said.

He is apparently

>I think he's fox red. Enough said.

What's the problem with that? It's a recognised shade of yellow and perfectly acceptable within the breed standard.

Fox Red isn't incorrect, its not rare either and a shade of yellow which is seen regularly in the working lines.

I think the inference is that it is the 'fashionable' colour of the moment.

On health test terms the dog is a good prospect, but a dog.is a lot more than a set of health tests, as important is health and then breed type.

My only issue is that the owner is accepting bitches without Health tests.

One could argue that these bitch owners would go elsewhere to untested studs, and at least this way the outcomes might be better.

None of the pups can develop.any of the DNA tested conditions, but HD and Elbow dysplasia inheritance is too complex to rely on one parents excellent results.

>What's the problem with that?

The problem is that a dog just has to be deep fox red to be used 55 million times, with no other qualifications or achievements. If you're lucky there will be acceptable health tests. But oftentimes not even that.

Whereas a black dog or a pale yellow dog would not get used even once without working qualifications or achievements, typically. And if used, just a small handful of times.

So this is becoming a breed where they have massive concentrations of certain popular sires in the breed: https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/the-pox-of-popular-sires.html - and those popular sires are not even high achieving dogs, they are just... fox red. Wowsers. They don't even have any proven working ability or (often) health tests, and to be bred to bitches who aren't fully health-tested either.... And this is when the dogs are not bred for conformation as they can't be shown. They are just bred because people like the pretty colour.

That's the problem.

And no, there's nothing wrong with fox red per se. As long as it's fox red, with proven working ability and full health-testing, which isn't bred to every bitch with a pulse.

> On health test terms the dog is a good prospect, but a dog.is a lot more than a set of health tests, as important is health and then breed type.

Blond moment, I meant to write:
...as important is temparament and then....

and I totally agree with 1234 re overuse of sires.

A relative living on small holding has recently purchased a pup of the fashionable colour, for the colour.

In Facebook posts I was unsure of it's breed, had to ask if it was a Viszla.

Most of us should be able to recognise a TYPICAL lokking Labrador puppy, having been brought up on Andrex ads ;)

Camrose Canis Christopher a well known Golden stud, produced the exceptionally pale colour so very popular for some reason. He was used on so many bitches even years after he died as he had a massive amount of semen frozen. There was a litter born by AI, I think in Norway, that had a COI of over 25%, 2 of which were imported to UK. Very very pale almost white in colour.

A Golden breeder accompanied a fellow breeder to use him at stud & had to wait with 2 other breeders, with their bitches, whilst he was mating a bitch, the breeders were not allowed to be with their bitches, but could watch the mating through a window whilst the Kennel owner & their stud"groom" assisted the mating. The Golden breeder who accompanied their friend, was shocked(they told me they would never use this dog)

All of the goldens I’ve owned trace directly back to Camrose Cabus Christopher and one of them had a COI of 25%, same grandsire on both sides, could account for why she was so scatty. There was some temperament issue which appeared to have come from a famous well used sire, never found out who it was but I do wonder

I used Cabus Cadet on a Westley/Arbrook bitch. It was a total outcross on paper in those days!

Generally I much ptefer the look of the working line Goldens.

They seem to have nicer flat coats that shade gently.

For me the heads are much nicer much drier than the show specimens.

Of course I don't like snipy narrow heads in either Goldens or Labradors that make you wonder what crossbreed they are ;)

My friend bred dual purpose Goldens & one of her dogs, Rossbourne Timothy, was a lovely dark gold boy with a super temperament. She didn't shoot with her dogs but a fair few went to be working types.

Had a friend who bred Labradors that too were dual purpose

Neither produced the extreme types, simple good type & excellent healthy dogs

I have always thought correct is probably in the middle.

Both show and working have diverged in opposing extremes in some breeds that are no longer routinely dual purpose.

My own breed in Scandinavia cannot diverge too much, as Dogs cannot gain hunting titles without winning 1st quality gradings at shows and show dogs cannot gain show title without a number of hunting test passing grades.

The hunting tests are carried out before the hunting season starts, and only difference as I understand it is that the prey is not shot.

My current golden is dual purpose bred, her breeder took his goldens shooting regularly throughout the season and showed them out of season.
She is more like my first golden bought in 1987 before the breed really started diverging between working and show. I think she would make a reasonable working dog as she really enjoys searching things out and rarely gives up

Thought I'd have a look at some of the bitches which came to him, many have not been health tested at all

Now that is NOT good.

A Golden breeder accompanied a fellow breeder to use him at stud & had to wait with 2 other breeders, with their bitches, whilst he was mating a bitch, the breeders were not allowed to be with their bitches, but could watch the mating through a window whilst the Kennel owner & their stud"groom" assisted the mating. The Golden breeder who accompanied their friend, was shocked(they told me they would never use this dog)

That's how it was done back then though. Large kennels with stock, not pets. I've had three Goldens from the Yeo kennels. (Because when I moved to the UK in 1988 I wanted the same lines that I'd had back in Sweden, and I didn't want pale cream and I wanted dual purpose, so I went to the lines that were behind those I liked in Sweden.) You arrived at a huge country house with kennels and staff, tea from a tea trolley, tennis courts, being shown the pups and the mother outside regardless of weather. It was like a scene from some TV programme. You were told what to do, you didn't ask any non essential questions and there was a clear distinction between a pet buyer wanting to show and the breeder. You were grateful to even have been allowed inside the house, let alone being accepted for a pup.

All my early experiences of buying puppies in England were like this. Whilst I was waiting for my Golden pup to be born in 1988 I was without a dog and so decided to buy a Cocker Spaniel. They weren't even KC registered puppies, advertised in the Yorkshire Post, but again it was arriving at a huge posh country house with "old money". Back in Sweden the breeders I had visited had been far more down to earth and loved their dogs as pets, but again all lived in large houses with acres of land and kennels. That to me was what a dog breeder was. A different class to the rest of us mortals.

Excellent EBVs and Ft Ch sired - he has a lot going for him.

>That to me was what a dog breeder was. A different class to the rest of us mortals.

I've never been to a breeder's premises like that! Even back in the 1970s the highly successful breeder I went to lived in a small old farmhouse and it was all very down-to-earth!

I bought my Irish Setter in 1970 from a KC reg breeder who showed their dogs, and that was someone’s house with a bit of land. I was invited in and met all her dogs and had a nice long chat about the breed which was new for me, all pretty much like it is today. I’m quite taken aback by the other ways described

My first dog, a GSD, was also advertised in the Yorkshire post. The breeder was known by my uncle and did show. It was just a normal house with a large garden and kennels though. The pup was one they had run on to show till 4 months but didn't quite make the grade.

Maybe it's a Gundog thing.

Those of the shooting fratternity are generally not your average working class or town/suburb dweller.

Gundogs were worked by landowners and Game keepers.

Similarly Whippets and Terriers were mostly bred by a different socio-economic group.

My own breed were initially owned by the landed gentry who brought them to UK from hunting and fishing trips.

Wasn't until second half of the 20th century that they were owned by more ordinary folk, but still considered mostly a country breed.

It's probably why they have never been more widely known and yet more difficult Spitz breeds became popular when introduced in the 1980'swhen more people wanted a pedigree dog for a pet, rather than a pup from a bitsa.litter.

This is all very interesting, and yes maybe Brainless is right that it is a gundog thing, or was. And that's the only group I had experience buying pups from until the mid 90s. I assumed all breeders were the same, more or less. I also bought my first pedigree cat in 1988, and although this was from a breeder not living in the countryside with land, it was still a "posh" person with an expensive house. Again with the tea trolley etc, and my then fiancé whispered to me that we best not tell the breeder that we weren't married yet, as we were living together, as maybe they'd not agree to sell the kitten if we weren't married! (This was only 3 months before we got married and although we lived in a tiny little flat, what I, as a newcomer to the country, didn't realise then was that we had quite a posh post code so if everything went by who you were etc, living in SW19 should have made us "good enough"!)  I paid the princely sum of £75 for a pet quality but Champion sired Persian kitten. I sent the breeder a Christmas card for many years and one year when I got one in return it was addressed from the Mayor of where they lived -as that's what they now were!

Ann R Smith:  Fox Red Labradors: They are my chosen breed.  I will fly the flag for them as their coat colour shows their muscle mass, their structure and unique dark faces far better than a true yellow.  I have 2 black labradors of which the same admirable features apply.  It's not that the true yellow labradors don't have these feature - just that they are not as visually apparent. IMO. Two of my guys are Stud Dogs and I have never had them cover a bitch without the owner being present.  Your comment re black labradors and their decreasing popularity is unfounded in my experience.  I have a waiting list with black being the preference for next year.  Things that happened in the past are not necesseraly what will happen in the future as Breeders become more aware of responsible practices and quite rightly work towards being the best possible... some have tried on the Forum but are quickly rebuffed.

>They don't even have any proven working ability or (often) health tests, and to be bred to bitches who aren't fully health-tested either.... And this is when the dogs are not bred for conformation as they can't be shown. They are just bred because people like the pretty colour.

This is exactly why the breed has diverged so dramatically: the primary role of a labrador should be to be a working gundog.

>And no, there's nothing wrong with fox red per se. As long as it's fox red, with proven working ability and full health-testing, which isn't bred to every bitch with a pulse.

That would rule out every show-bred labrador; how many of them have 'proven working ability'?

Jeangenie:  > <br />This is exactly why the breed has diverged so dramatically: the primary role of a labrador should be to be a working gundog

Well said:  They are bred for the brilliant job they do what ever the colour! The fact some are Fox Red only highlights the trend not the intelligence, power,  love of human company and the lap dog they are (despite the size of the owners lap).  A fantastic companion! loyal dual purpose - pet, worker or both.  No wonder they are high on the list of the most popular breed in the UK!

> <br />That would rule out every show-bred labrador; how many of them have 'proven working ability'?

A few of them have taken the test to prove their working ability and thus can call themselves a full champion if they are already a show ch.
The split in type is so drastic now its shameful.
I look back on our old Labs gone by which were working lines and you know what, they look not a lot different from the show lines now but more length of leg and not so deep chested. Heads are similar and general shape. The working lines of today have imo gone way overboard and taken the breed away from what it ever has was. Thats my take on it, they don't breed to the standard, they breed solely for working ability. Some have gone almost greyhound like in structure and that is not what a Lab should be.
Until people do work their dogs they will never know whether their dogs are capable, thats both show and working lines and tbh its not always something people want to do either. You mention it to the average pet owner and they look horrified even if you say for training only and working with dummies. You don't need to go on shoots to engage in it.

I have to admit that I don’t feel comfortable with the working/show split that some breeds have.

It seems like you can either pick “pretty but not terribly able to do the job it’s supposed to do” or “functional but not the best conformation”.

I mean I don’t expect a show line collie to also work sheep all day or win trials, but it seems such a shame if we end up with dogs that are no longer fit for their original function.

A Labrador Retriever that can’t retrieve isn’t a Labrador Retriever. A greyhound that doesn’t want to chase small fluffy things isn’t a greyhound.

Not that I’m suggesting that you do bull baiting or kill badgers or hunt lions with your bulldog or dachshund or Rhodesian Ridgeback. Just that a a dog *should be capable* of doing that job they were bred for, as well as conform to breed standard physically.

I’m biased though, obviously! My dog’s ancestral job was to look pretty and amuse aristocrats, but I pride in the fact that he can do other tasks.

He’s pretty good at tracking, for example. We don’t intend to compete and just practice for fun, but he picked it up super quickly and he loves it. I don’t much fancy using him for ratting, but with his proficiency with the flirt pole I don’t doubt he’d be an efficient killer of small pests.

Suejaw:> A few of them have taken the test to prove their working ability and thus can call themselves a full champion if they are already a show ch. <br />The split in type is so drastic now its shameful.

Sorry but I just can't understand this assumption that if our dogs are not proven to be a full champion or are not already a full champion that they should be seen as shameful? (looking like showlines or not)
Looking like 'show lines' does not mean they are some sort of blood line to be worshipped. There has been so much debate re Health Testing on this Forum yest it always reverts back to Show Type Stanard as being the only viable line to continue in a breeding programme..  All of my guys are capable of their working ability proven every day.  Just because they don't have the perfect head, right size of chest or they don't hold their tails at the right angle does not make them 'rejects' of the future.  The fact they are healthy from proven working lines - which is the whole point of being a breeder, should surely be the most important thing? IMO

Healthy with working ability doesnt make them a Lab or a collie though. They should have breed type so they also look like a lab or a collie and thats where the standard comes in, it gives a description of breed type so that  a Lab looks like a lab a collie looks like a collie a springer looks like a springer and so on.