Hello all, my first post so be gentle and all that! My wife and I are looking at buying our first dog together. We both come from families that had dogs when were kids and we loved them, so the house we now have together doesn't really feel right without a dog. We're looking at a Labrador as my family had a black cross and my wife's had a Golden Retriever, so a Lab is an easy choice.

We've been doing some research before buying on the net and by buying specialist books to try to pick up all the relevant info to avoid making mistakes. The thing that's bothering me is that the breed seems to have changed since we were kids in the 70's. We particularly noticed during Crufts that nearly all the Labs seemed to be too short in the leg. To my mind they just don't look right, almost like they've been crossed with Corgi type stock. We really don't want to end up with a dog or bitch like this so is there any way to tell whether it's been bred this way before we buy? Is looking at the parents enough? And is there anyone out there still breeding them to the original specification?

I don't think we're alone with these misgivings either as we found an article on Labrador.net by Jack Vanderwyk complaining about the same changes.......  

I would suggest that you look at the working type. The only thing in my opinion is that (for me) they don't have enough bone but they certainly look to be taller on the leg.

there will always be different 'styles' among breeds that are still within the standard, and certain people like the changes, certain people don't, they come and go... if you find an example that you like (i see you had a look at crufts, good stuff!) then speak to the owner, see if they breed and if thats something they like in their dogs- if it is you can bet they'll be out to continue it with a suitable mating.

> is there any way to tell whether it's been bred this way before we buy? Is looking at the parents enough?

well you can never guarantee anything in life and certainly not in breeding but if you like the look of the parents chances are the pup will end up looking like at least one of them.

alternatively why not see about a rescue? lots and lots of labs out there of various ages. while there are plenty reasons to prefer a pup from a breeder you could find an older one (but stilll young) that you can see the shape of and that you like.

Ok thanks for the replies. Yes it looks like the working type dog is the one we prefer. We're more than happy to rehome a rescue dog also. My only worry is that we wouldn't be allowed to adopt one. We both work full time, BUT I get al ot of days off in the week, AND we have very active retired parents who we think will be very happy to look after a dog from 9-5. In fact my father in law has a plot on an allotment that welcomes dogs, and it's idyllic for most of the year, a fantastic environment for a lab be in. We'll see anyway...  

I think so long as you have someone to come in & look after your dog then you should be fine.  My sil has a working lab in her home (not kennelled) & she has a dogwalker every day & my mil goes in too.  She had the dog from a pup so it's used to this arrangement.

We have working labs & they have the longer legs but are quite small in height.  You won't be seeing them in a show ring anytime soon ;-)

Good luck with you search, there should be a lab rescue near you as there are many across the country.

I think a lot of the hsow labd look shorter in leg than they actually are as they are so heavy in the body, someone unkind may call them fat. Those used for working tend not to carry excess flesh, probably are a little lighter in bone and so appear leggier. I havent looked closely to be sure if the legs are actually much longer.
As someone has said you can never be sure, but if both the parenbts are the build and proportions you like, then there is a fair chance their offspring will be.

I do agree with you Pompeydave, I raised that subject of different types of labs a while back.

Most of the show / Pet ones now IMO are very short legged and barrel like, I also dont like their broad heavy short muzzled heads, these are not the labs I remember growing up, seems the working side has retained more that type and I see the American Labs are still what I think of as a Lab.

Have you seen the film "The Queen"  those two Black Labs in that were fine specimens I thought, Id love to know which lines they were from etc..incase i ever decided to have a lab.

Wonder if they were from the Queens own Sandringham breeding?

>Most of the show / Pet ones now IMO are very short legged and barrel like,

Mine aren't  ;-) :-D

Neither are mine

>Most of the show / Pet ones now IMO are very short legged and barrel like, I also dont like their broad heavy short muzzled heads

I agree - I've seen some (even at Crufts!) that resemble dumpy, sawn-off Rottweilers.

So who decides that all of a sudden this short legged almost dwarf barrelled Lab is the bodyshape that should be winning all the plaudits? They just don't look like labradors. I can't beleive it's going to be easy to keep a lab shaped like that fit as the bodyshape isgoing to make overfeeding even more of a problem. I just hope there are enough breeders out there supplying the hunting community to keep the traditional line going....

I've seen some very overweight Lab's being shown, one actually one BIS at an open show and it could hardly move.  It would never ever of been able to do an hours work let alone a days.

i don;t believe the royal family had much to do with production fo the film so i doubt it. reading about the corgis in it just now- they were spotted at an obedience competition. can't find anything about the labs though, sorry.

The Labs at Crufts looked more like a Labrador to me than the other end of the spectrum....................

>I just hope there are enough breeders out there supplying the hunting community to keep the traditional line going....

some of the working Labs are more suited to the whippet breed standard IMO :-O ........

.................I think a read through of the breed standard for Labradors wouldn't be amiss

I just read it again quickly, and nowhere can I find where it says, short front legs, giving an unbalanced appearance.  In order for the Labrador to do the job it was bred for it NEEDS legs!  You will find that the working/show Labs that are able to do "both" will not have the short legs the OP speaks of.
Dawn.

General Appearance
Strongly built, short-coupled, very active; broad in skull; broad and deep through chest and ribs;  broad and strong over loins and hindquarters.

Head and Skull
Skull broad with defined stop; clean-cut without fleshy cheeks. Jaws of medium length, powerful not snipy. Nose wide, nostrils well developed.

Body
Chest of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs. Level topline. Loins wide, short-coupled and strong.

Size
Ideal height at withers: dogs: 56-57 cms (22-221/2 ins); bitches: 55-56 cms (211/2-22 ins).

As you can see, the word "broad" is mentioned alot :-)
The length of leg should match the depth of chest, 22" to the withers means they are not meant to look like Gt Danes either :-D ...........why do you think they need to look like their running on stilts? :-D ..............they don't have to jump 5 bar gates to be a working Lab, surely they should be able to run under too?

>short front legs, giving an unbalanced appearance

There aren't that many unbalanced Labs being shown are there :-O

This exceptionally useful article acknowledges that "The show line labrador tends to be a little shorter in leg, but broader in body and head than the field/working type dogs." And it's that shorter leg and broader head and body that some people prefer, and others don't.

A good, fit labrador should be able to clear a fence while carrying a pheasant, and also be slim enough to squeeze under a stile if necessary.

Ooh.........Lab Health again :-)

I know that there is a fair bit of difference between show and working labs :-) , but.......

Show bred labs are bred to conform to the Breed Standard, as set out by the KC :-)

Working bred labs aren't ;-) they would never get placed at Ch Shows................if that is the type that the OP would like, then Crufts was not the place to go looking ;-) ..............going to a working trial thingybob!! would!

Personally, I would like to see all Labs meeting somewhere in the middle :-) capable of working to some degree and holding their own in a ring too .....................

I think the problem is that it is the way the breed standard is interpreted that is the problem.  The term 'broad' has led to broader and broader - to the extent that it does effect the dog's ability to do a days work.  If you compare todays show labs with the dual champions of way back, you will see a considerable difference.  Add to that, by concentration on confirmation, the breed's natural working abilities have been diluted - although that's another subject ;)

>Show bred labs are bred to conform to the Breed Standard, as set out by the KC

Not quite. :-) Show bred labs are bred to conform to the Breed Standard, as set out by the Breed Clubs, and approved by the KC if there's nothing too deleterious in it. I don't know if the breed clubs have contact with those who work their labs for their input or not.

Admittedly I'm am amateur at all this, but I do come from a family that has always had dogs and it seems to me that the official breed description that people are talking about here doesn't bear any relation to the original dogs reason for existance i.e. to retrieve game or fish brought down or caught by it's owner. Most of the dogs I see now   on programmes like Crufts wouldn't stand an earthly of doing a days work in the way the breed was originally bred for. So my question is, who thought it was a good idea to promote the shorter leg type that's becoming more and more common, and WHY did they think it was a good idea?

yes i quite agree, in the fact that many show type labs dont look like they would be capable of doing a days work. I breed working type labs simply because i prefer the leaner longer legged type, athough yes they do tend to be a smaller dog. I think it all comes down to what you prefer the look of, wether that be the working type or show type, even if the working type dont conform to breed standard whats wrong with that, if thats what you like.

I suspect that in common with a lot of breeds puppies that look mature and win well are more likely to become heavier adults.

the leggy immature pups do not fare well in the ring against the more mature ones, so with the depth of competition in the breed people with late maturing pups loose heart and stop showing.

You then end up with overdone adults once their chests finish developing.

Fortunately there are people who want a dual purpose Labrador and like to have dogs that look good but can work.

A lot of the workers bear little resemblance to a Labrador as their appearance is irrelevant to their breeders who are only looking at the work aspect.

Ideally all breeders should be looking at breeding the whole dog.

In countries that require working dogs to have prizes at shows and show dogs to have prizes at work you do not get this exaggeration/lack of type between show and working dogs.  My own breed is one such,a nd I think the HPR breeds have benefited from this too.

Here are soem pictures from the Finnish breed clubs club show http://www.labradori.fi/ these dogs woudl have to pass working tests as well as show.

Oops the clubshow link is: http://www.labradori.fi/nay/clubsh07.html

We lived on the edge of the Fens for a number of years and I used to beat for a shoot there where a lot of the Labs were bred from the Sandringham line. These were big tall dogs used for working in open ground, the ones I've seen elsewhere with shorter legs are bred for working on heavy undergrowth land, where there would a lot of hedges and rough cover of which the dogs would have to push hard through when working.

Working bred labs aren't  they would never get placed at Ch Shows................

And unfortunatey, neither would the dual champions of he past - which speaks volumes.  The breed standard itself hasn't changed - only the interpretation of it and fashion.

Pompeydave - there are plenty of nicely bred working puppies as well as some more moderate show bred labs, and an awful lot of pet bred labs too, good luck in your search.  Most important of all though, is to check that both parents have been hip scored (and preferably elbow scored too), have clear eye tests and as a bonus, optigen tested.  Make sure you see the certificates for these tests too.

My friend breeds working labs. He likes his stud dogs to be lighter built and faster than those seen showing . His are the athletes of the lab world. The only problem with this is that his makes poor pets. These have genertaions of working parents behind them. They are highly intelligent and built for working and training. They are not easy pets to own as they need constant work and mental stimulation.

I think this goes for all working breeds. Rescues are full of working Collies driven mad by being house bound !

I once saw a website that had a dog questionnaire on it. It asked you life style questions and it gave you the best sort of pedigree that suited you (rather than the other way round,,,which I think is interesting). But I cannot remember where I saw it.

Can anyone else help...has anyone seen anything similar?

Generally the top 10 dogs of the KC give you a reasonable indication.

Anyone like me who thinks it is such a shame to see the split between "Working and showing" types of the same breed?Surely the whole idea behind a STANDARD is to produce a dog who is capable of doing the job it was originally bred to do? I can to some degree accept the there will be slight differences in working dogs that have to work in differing environments, such as has been stated, Labs to work maybe the fens or the moors or heavy cover, but they are ostensibly ONE breed and should conform more or less to the same standard. (Are there not many Retrevers of varying types to cover all types of work?) It's a bit like the Cockers, working Cockers are not so flashy with less coat, then surely the show Cocker is too heavily coated? We should not be putting glamour into the working breeds, there are lots of breeds from other groups that have been bred to be pretty companion dogs and they have all the flashyness needed. Even the poor Yorkshire terrier who in the show rings has copious flowing coat would never be able to go ratting unless the coat was cut off.
The other thing that makes me shake my head in wonder is why do so many people get glamour coated dogs like OES, Shitzu's, (sp) Laso's etc.. and then chop off the coats for "Ease of grooming? If you choose a coated breed then look after it, and if it is too hard for JP to cope with then maybe it should not be like that in the first place? I am sure the old "Bobtail" as it was originally known never had the coats now seen on the OES, the working drovers would not have spent their evenings with a brush and comb!!
Just My thoughts (Head down under the office desk now!!!)
Aileen

>It's a bit like the Cockers, working Cockers are not so flashy with less coat, then surely the show Cocker is too heavily coated?

It's not just the coat - it's the shape of the head, the length and set of the ears ... they're totally different breeds now. From the ones I know, working cockers and working springers are identical apart from size, yet show cockers and show springers are noticeably different breeds.

But JG my point was that they are The same breed..should a show cocker not be able to do the work the breed was invented for? As far as I am aware there is only one KC recognized Cocker, not two.(Not counting the American!) I can understand that breeding from good workers will produce good workers but conformation wise they really should be the same?
Aileen

But the working fraternity are not selecting on conformation at all other than that the dogs can move, but a mongrel can move well.  The resemblance to the breed is purely incidental for some, though of course there will be working breeders who like a handsome dog that looks like it's breed.  There are also breeders who breed to the standard that want to retain and prove workign ability.

I would say that the working side have changed in looks as much or more (but not selecting for type in visual terms) than the show side that have allowed some exaggeration, and loss of working ability.

American and English cocker's were originally the same breed but the Americans changed them totally.  Now there I would agree that the change has gone beyond what would make them able to work, unless all the coat was clipped off, and with such short muzzles what could they retrieve well?

>my point was that they are The same breed..should a show cocker not be able to do the work the breed was invented for?

Yes they should, and some do. Show cockers are capable of doing a day's work (maybe not very well, but they can do it) but a working cocker bears little resemblence to the breed standard and would come nowhere in the ring.

Neither 'side' is innocent in this drift apart. :-(

I see your point JG it's more likely to be those breeding for working qualities who change the conformation of a breed...so maybe it's us showing fraternity who are breeding the dogs as closely to their original purpose on the whole then, that kinda' puts the cat among the pigeons then as those who work tend to blame the showers for ruining their breeds!!!
OMG I shall be on the Hit List now!!! LOL
Aileen

But the working fraternity are not selecting on conformation at all other than that the dogs can move, but a mongrel can move well.
To be fair, I'm not sure that is entirely true, ok - some do not care, but for others while working ability, health and temperament is paramount, they also want a good looking labrador ;-) it's just their interpretation of a good labrador and the breed standard is not that of the show folk ;-).  In the same way that most show folk have never been on a shoot and have no idea what is required of a working lab, let alone breeding for those traits.  The breed standard has not changed over the years, so why have show labs changed so much from the times of the dual champions? - surely it is down to interpretation of the breed standard.  Sure the description of broad is repeated in the breed standard, but how broad - there comes a time when too broad and it interferes with a dog's athleticism.  There are a handful of breeders breeding dual purpose labs (from predominently show lines), but I'm sure even they will admit they cannot compete on working terms with a working bred lab.

Here's a few comparisons. Clearly both sides must take responsibility for the divide, but most lab fans tend to have a preference, and I doubt things will change. 

Knaith Banjo -the last Dual Champion back in 1946
http://www.retrieversport.hu/images/dual/knaithb.jpg

SH CH TULLOCHMOHR FINAL EDITION JW - Winner Gundog Group 2004
http://www.labradors-of-poets-corner.de/English/England/Crufts_2004/crufts_2004.html

Two working bred labs - one a FTCH  (it's near impossible to find a photo of a working lab in a show stand lol)
http://fp.rennolds.f9.co.uk/riversway/Bosun%202005.jpg
http://fp.rennolds.f9.co.uk/riversway/Raven%202005.jpg

I know which pics I prefer ;-) LOL ...........although it would have been nice to see the bottom two of the list in a standing position to compare more easily :-)

Blimey!! Those show Labs are diddy on the legs and don't look anything like the big old Labs I can remember from years ago. I bet everyone can remember a big black dog Lab in their neighbourhood when they were a child, who would be tall, wide, with a a big broad head, kind eye and would be as strong as an ox?
I prefer the first picture from 1946. Which would you choose to own?

In Response to JenP

Yep I did qualify later that some do want their workers looking like the breed, but it in reality it is of secondary importance.  Quite a few working breeders have never read the standard in the same way as the Pet breeders haven't.

How did the Finnish show dogs (where the labs have to work to qualify for show titles and vice versa) in my links compare with the Working show divide.

I personally liked the Yellow older puppy winner for example.

Can't tell the proportions at all of those two FT Ch, but I liked the rugged Dual champion.

I liked the two working bred labs, went to a game fair the weekend they looked completely different to ones i saw at crufts.

Maybe it's time the KC insisted on a basic working qualification for the working abilities of breeds before allowing puppy registrations? It is done a lot on the continent and seems to work OK. I for one would be happy to comply, mine you a bit of cart pulling would be a lot easier for me and my breed than say, a quick round up of a few reindeer for some of you!!! and of course it would be a huge problem getting a working qualification on a bulldog? might upset a few? LOL Can just see you hunting down a few Elk in rural somethingshire Brainless!!!!
Aileen

As a breeder of `Working type labradors` I have just read this post ,firstly go to `ukgundogs` and you will find a good breeder in your area ,there quite a few of us.I personly would not swap my dogs for the show type .My pups go to be trained for the field and also as family pets.They are well suited for both as the original lad was a dog who worked.

Interesting. Do you think that the working type would be ok in a family 'pet' environment? I'm worried that we might get one and find the poor thing going stir crazy if we don't take it out shooting every weekend! Do they need much more exercise than the stubby, show types? 

We used to have a working-bred labrador (several FTChs in her pedigree, and the ones that weren't titled were regularly worked during the season), which we had purely as a family pet. She was brilliant - the easiest dog to train we've ever had - and I'd have another one like her tomorrow.

The working type is great as a pet ,I have 4 and all live in my home .Out of my last litter I have given one to my grandchildren aged 5 and 8 .,they have grown up with my dogs as i have looked after them while parents worked since they were babies.They do need to be walked and are very easy to train.A garden is needed ,out of my 4 I have 2 thet lie in garden and 2 that still like to run about chasing each other ,oldest is 6 yougest is 17 months in the house they are calm and I wouldn`t be without them .I would suggest you get a home breeder as they are already used to the home.I am one and there are others .I hunted for 6 months and was lucky .As for amount of exercise my friend has show type(wants one of my pups)we walk dogs together and my dogs run faster and have more energy as they`re not as fat.Mine are more resposive to training also.

ah but many 'working' variations of a breed are NOT suitable as pets and there's the dilemma - should we be continuing to breed dogs with temperaments suitable for a hard days work when the most they are likely to do is get walked once round the block and spend the rest of the day confined to the kitchen or garden ?- surely by maintaining   high working drives in some breeds, we are condemning many of them to a life of frustration and a quick trip to rescue ?

Border Collies, Springers and Spaniels from working stock can be a nightmare in the average home and in my own breed the working only bred Malinois are quite frankly dangerous in  a domestic setting. In all these breeds it is the show type that have a more placid easy going temperament which suits them to the 'job' they now do.....and that's my point really - most of the tasks that these working dogs are bred to do are now rarely or never performed by the majority of the  breed - they have a new job - and  a very important one too- to be steady easy going family pets, should we as breeders not be changing their temperaments to suit the environment they are going to be living in ?

Personally I aim to breed Groenendaels that are NOT over active - that are able to cope easily with new situations, noises, people and other animals ....and I am proud that two of my dogs are registered PAT dogs - to achieve this I have deliberately chosen  temperaments which are not typical of the working type of BSD - could my dogs do the job they were originally  bred for ?- I doubt it - are they able to be happy equable family members - heck YES !!!

Yvonne

I believe John mentioned that some of the working dogs were  no longer just the sensible working type but bred very 'hot' specifically to succeed in trials at the highest level, so that there are differences even among the working dogs, and that the dogs that are bred and used as a shooting companion are not the same as the competition dogs.

I still beleive we should be breeding dogs that are capable of doign the job they are bred for, but winning at competions for work is not the same thing as still having hunting/retrieving/herding instincts. 

Comparing to cars we don't need them all to be sports models, but a useful responsive model that will go fast  enough to get you around, and not a Smart, that might not cope with hundreds of miles up and down motorways.