>On the contrary, 'compromise on both sides' means the end of extremism, with the result that the breed stays fit for purpose as a good steady all-round working dog, that's also suitable to be an active companion.

Sorry, I disagree. When you are in the field, working a dog, you want the best dog you can have which is the fastest and most efficient at the job and also easily trainable and biddable. You are not going to want less of that for the sake of having a dog which looks a bit more like some arbitrary definition the show world has dreamt up.

Dogs were not originally bred to compete at dog shows. Dog shows only began in the 1800s. Dogs have worked alongside humankind for millennia, guarding, herding, hunting - and more - any deliberate breeding which has occurred, has been for performance only during these millions of years.

The cart has been put before the horse when someone thinks that what a dog looks like matters more than what it does. That approach to things is evidently seeing a huge decrease in the health and welfare of many different breeds of dog - the Labrador amongst them, just look at the obese chocolate Lab which won at Westminster only a couple days ago.

> The cart has been put before the horse when someone thinks that what a dog looks like matters more than what it does. That approach to things is evidently seeing a huge decrease in the health and welfare of many different breeds of dog - the Labrador amongst them, just look at the obese chocolate Lab which won at Westminster only a couple days ago.

I saw that - I couldn’t believe a judge could really look at that dog and think yep that’s the best lab with the best characteristics there, appalling imo.

I agree with the majority of what you’re saying 1234. Although I do breed labs for working and pets, mine have a sprinkle of show ch in their lines to add the labrador head and tail. I may never produce a ft ch, but I guess personally I’m not purposefully breeding for champion status...mainly family dogs that can put their hand (paw :D ) to anything, like I think most labs should be able to do. They have been shown at crufts in the gamekeepers ring but obviously aren’t ‘chunky’ enough to be competing in the labrador breed category itself - something I’m not too worried about seeing as the majority of show labs that are televised are overweight and wouldn’t last for a days shooting let alone anything more tiresome.

IMO I think that’s the closest to ‘dual purpose’ you’ll get in labs, competing in the gamekeepers ring at shows and competing out on field trials?

>When you are in the field, working a dog, you want the best dog you can have which is the fastest and most efficient at the job and also easily trainable and biddable.

But no, you don't want the fastest; they are often the ones that overrun the game. You want the steady one that marks well and goes straight to quarry rather than the one that rushes around like a mad thing, coming a cropper on rough ground and laming itself.

>just look at the obese chocolate Lab which won at Westminster only a couple days ago.

That poor dog is a total caricature of what the breed should be. A walking (waddling?) disaster. That's what extremism gets you.

Just looked at the Westminster Labs, the Bob, bos and the select dogs and bitches. Now that is what I call and overly heavy body.. look so wrong.

I had to go watch the video of the lab judging to see, it's really depressed me, they were actually waddling, poor things. Not one of them could do a days work at that weight, they might be nice enough dogs it's impossible to tell till they loose a few kgs!

>But no, you don't want the fastest; they are often the ones that overrun the game. You want the steady one that marks well and goes straight to quarry rather than the one that rushes around like a mad thing, coming a cropper on rough ground and laming itself.

Er, actually, you want it all. You want the dog which is incredibly fast when sent, but which is steady until they are sent and accurately locates game. There are many of them. That's what it takes to make up a FTCh - or even win a Novice trial, frankly.

Of course speed is desirable, the dog which completes retrieves fastest is most efficient and the purpose of a working retriever is to get game in the bag as quickly as possible for humane reasons and to reduce the risk of it escaping wounded to die a slow death.

No sensible handler who wants the best working dog is going to take any less of that just because it has a slightly better head or an otter tail...

Although the name might suggest Labrador Retrievers came from Labrador, Canada, the breed actually originated in Newfoundland in the 1500s. At the time, small water dogs were bred with Newfoundlands to create a breed called the St. John’s Water Dog or Lesser Newfoundland. These dogs were owned by fishermen and jumped into icy water to bring back fish that had fallen off the fishing hooks. They would also pull in fish-filled nets. The breed was perfect for these jobs because their coat repelled water and their webbed paws made them excellent swimmers.

So this I took an extract about the breed. Nowhere does this indicate speed is required or needed on ground.A skinny slender dog wouldn't last 5 seconds in icey water nor some of these very thin coats I'm seeing in many working lines, not all I must admit. Skill at retrieving and swimming whicb goes back to what you are saying. Steady workman like. Get on with the job in hand.

I also took a look at that video, far too heavy, fat in most cases & altogether ugly dogs. Friends of ours bred what they called dual purpose Labs, why I never understood, all show dogs in the pedigree, Bob took one bitch to a driven shoot, she brought back a mangled pheasant that he very quickly put in his game back, she had a mouth like a crocodile. I used to say they're a bit fat Bob, no he'd reply, they're in show condition ! Mind you, a few handlers in that vid look like they're in show condition as well.

If I was looking for a good working lab I would look for field trial breeding, it guarantees certain things: you know they had a good mouth, didn't whine, had a good nose & were trainable, I can't imagine anyone would want to introduce the sort of dogs in that vid into a working line.

>So this I took an extract about the breed. Nowhere does this indicate speed is required or needed on ground.A skinny slender dog wouldn't last 5 seconds in icey water

I think you'll find things have moved on a bit since the origins of the breed about 100+ years ago, when they weren't even used to hunt upland game.

Just as a top-winning show bred Labrador today looks nothing like one did in 1900, so a top field trial dog performs very differently to one in 1900. The difference is in what has been selected for, and for what purpose.

>Of course speed is desirable, the dog which completes retrieves fastest is most efficient and the purpose of a working retriever is to get game in the bag as quickly as possible for humane reasons and to reduce the risk of it escaping wounded to die a slow death.

If that were true they'd use a lurcher.
Most people who work their gundogs have very little interest in field trials; they are for the extremists. They wants a dog that'll do a good job all day, without burning themselves out early on. The steady 'peg dog' is generally much more desirable than the field trial dog.

> Mind you, a few handlers in that vid look like they're in show condition as well.

I’m so stealing that! I’m not fat, I’m in show condition.

>If that were true they'd use a lurcher. Most people who work their gundogs have very little interest in field trials; they are for the extremists.

I think you're just showing that you don't understand much about field trials now. Obviously a lurcher isn't going to be steady, able to walk at heel off lead for 3+ hours, have a soft mouth, and is unlikely to be able to be handled and cast from a distance, is not going to sit to the flush of game and not chase it and so on. It is possible for speed to be one attribute amongst many others which a dog should have. Having speed doesn't mean a dog loses all the other attributes and somehow becomes the equivalent of a lurcher...

Field trials are not for extremists, they are intended to replicate a shooting day (as per the KC field trial J regs) and so are run as closely to a typical shoot as possible:

"1 A A field trial should be run as nearly as possible to an ordinary day's shooting." - taken from the J regs.

A well-bred field trial dog is an asset in the shooting field and in fact you'll find many of them gaining the experience they need before competing, on shoots - as well as working on them after they retire. You'll find that the majority of us competing in field trials are also valued members of many shoots.

I don't really understand why you want to debate this, except it is difficult for you to be wrong.

I've got a steady, soft mouthed lurcher who has won Junior gundog tests with my nephew....

Surely to be called a Labrador,.or any other purebreed a dog needs to look like it's breed?

Otherwise why even have seperate retriever breeds?

Just mix all Retrievers in one pot by ability, ditto Spaniels, HPR etc?

Surely there should be both physical and mental characteristics that make a typical example of a breed that has the basic abilities and traits.

Again I come back to the Scandinavian system where to win Show or Working titles, the dog must pass muster in the other arena, have working ability and meet the physical attributes according to breed standard.

>You'll find that the majority of us competing in field trials are also valued members of many shoots.

Ah, there's the rub. People tend to think their particular interest is the only one worth following, and can't see the wood for the trees.

> Surely to be called a Labrador,.or any other purebreed a dog needs to look like it's breed?

I’d agree with this, hence why I use studs that compete in field trials and show in the gamekeepers ring too. Almost all the studs I’ve used have either gone on to be or have been a ft winner, and most recently used a ft champion. Their owner like me is passionate about them still needing to look like a lab. Their bodies are fit and a lot more lean than the show labs (who I think are too big) but their heads and tails still make them look like a lab…I’m seeing a lot of labs with heads that are more like a weimaraner, big but too thin.
Personally I think labs also need a little bit of show in (I’m talking about somewhere in the lines, I don’t use a show lab for the sire) to ensure they have that off switch. I’m seeing more and more labs that are more like a HPR and not as easy going as the lab once was. A lab should be able to go out do a days work, whatever that may be eg. Shooting, therapy work, etc, and be able to settle and switch off no matter what.

OF course working Labradors still look like their breed. If you showed me 150 working Labradors, I could tell you what they were. I could identify them against all other gundog breeds. So could just about anyone.

They just don't look like show bred Labradors, because what they look like is decided through selection for working ability and not appearance. That's how dogs evolved into separate breeds in the first place and is how things should be.

You will always have dogs which fall off the tightrope one way or the other - too slow and not driven enough and too fast and unsteady - because you are breeding for almost two conflicting things, in breeding for steadiness, calmness and quietness, but also intense speed and drive and urgency when sent. You will get a few dogs with the right combination but many falling off one side or the other. It doesn't mean you need show blood to produce steadiness, you just need the right working stud who is calm and to inject more of that side of things.

The only reason I can see for show blood, is to reduce COIs.