I'm upset about what is going on with the breed that I love, the Labrador Retriever. I've seen some discussion on this board about the GSD and its history, and where it is going as a breed.
With Labs, if you don't know, what is going on is that from one breed, two "varieties" have been developed. They both deviate from the breed standard, both the international and the AKC standard, in key ways. The "show" variety has become this huge, blocky dog, weighing anywhere from 85-125 pounds, with no working ability or drive. The international standard states that adult males should be 65-70 pounds!
The "field trial" variety are rangy and hyper, and don't even look like Labs anymore! This "variety" is bred for drive, which is why they are so hyper, and the physical standards for the breed have basically been thrown out the window in favor of these tall, slender dogs who will destroy your house if you don't work him every day.
The Labrador Retriever is supposed to be short coupled, broad shouldered, and deep chested, not tall and rangy. The Lab is also supposed to have working ability, not be a sloth who looks pretty. He/she should be able to be calm around the house, yet work hard all day when there is a job to do.
It just makes me so mad to see the breed being destroyed like this! And I just don't understand why people deviate from the standard???? The Labrador Retriever is built the way it is for a reason; the form is suited for the work (of course, part of the problem is that people keep wanting to make the Lab suitable for the work that the dog was not bred for, i.e. hunting large game). The Lab is supposed to BOTH look like a Lab and have the ability to WORK like a Lab! How can people get away with this???? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Maddening, isn't it?

The same thing is happening with the GSD and Malinois. Its so hard to find good working ones anymore and partially because many people equate sport dogs with working dogs. Schutzhund has its place, but certainly not as a breed worthiness test. It angers me that so many people are blind to it. A properly bred working dog will most likely not do well on a sporting field. Sport has done as much harm as good to the working breeds. And many breeders don't even realize it or won't acknowledge it.

I don't think that in the case of the Lab it is neccessarily a sport vs. work issue, and I don't want to get into that debate again. Basically, it's an ethics issue, in my mind. To me, field trials can certainly showcase a Lab's working ability. The question is, why alter the breed? The AKC is supposed to preserve breeds, not change them. I think that for a dog to compete in show or in field trials, it should conform to the breed standard for both physical structure AND working ability. Unless it has both, then it should have no place in any AKC sanctioned event. Apparently the international community is doing such, but the AKC has yet to catch on.

Sorry, soapbox for me.

I agree that its an ethics issue. Unfortunately working ability and temperament always takes a back seat with the AKC when they should be at the forefront. Form will follow function.

That's OK. My intent was not to start the sport vs. work debate again....far from it. I'm just really bummed that the breed I love is being changed for the worse, right under the noses of the very people who should be working to preserve it. And people actually defend the practice. Here is one such excuse. I won't give the person's name, but I just want to give an idea of the mindset around this issue:

"Have you ever hunted with a Visla or a Weim? If the answer is "NO" there is a reason. Labs a smarter, faster and easier to train. Field Trial labs may look different than show labs, but they still have the same "Labrador" personality and are still Labs. Personally, I feel, that the reason that they are more high strung is because most of them are couped up in kennels 95% of their lives. Plus, most show labs are(n't) doing what they are bred for, at least Field Trial labs are hunting.".

I don't know that much about labs. But if the lab is like most breeds, they will change. Look at pictures of most breeds in the 1920's they don't look the same as they did in the 1950. And the dogs from the 50's don't look like the dogs we have now.

They change because people will breed to the dogs that win. The big blocky dogs win in the breed ring. The rangey dogs win in the field.

If you want to change the way things are going, I think you need to breed dogs that conform to the standard and beat the rangy dogs in the field. I think the breed ring is far to political for you to change unless you play the political game.

But WHY do the big blocky dogs win in the show ring when they don't conform to the breed standard? Why do the rangey dogs win in the field trials when they don't conform to the breed standard? Why is there a breed standard if it doesn't even apply? What is the point?
I'd like to see a popular movement to preserve the Labrador Retriever by breeding for the original standard, including physical structure, temperament and working ability. There are a few breeders out there who share my feelings, but I do believe that they are in the minority (at least, in the US). From what I see, most breeders and Lab enthusiasts buy into the whole "two varieties" mindset. It's ridiculous.

Years ago, one sharp exchange between two lab folk went like this. Field trail man: Fat, fatter, show champion. The rebuff: Ugly, uglier, field trail champion. I see nothing has changed.

Well I do think that Field Trails do have something to do with it. As competitive trails, they strongly reward fast, exceedingly precise dogs performing feats that are only tangentially related to real hunting. The pressure is on to go faster, straighter, drivier, more e-collar obedient, whether these things are actually useful to a hunter.

And since everyone likes to breed to a winner, it's very easy for genetic drift to set in and lead to dogs that look nothing like the original stock.

Genetic drift and bad judging decisions are also at work in the show ring, especially as there's no requirement for show dogs to have any working ability.

On the other hand, non-competitive hunting trails such as NAHRA (where dogs are scored according to whether they performed well in practical hunting conditions, but not placed against one another) see a much wider (and more correct in conformation) range of dogs entered and there are some 'show' lines that have produced dogs that go onto advanced levels, though they tend not to be the extreme 'show' ones.

The basic problem with the AKC is they feel no need to improve the breeds they register. In fact for the working breeds they would prefer to interfere with the proper working temperament. The AKC's only purpose is to make money by regestering as many dogs as possible. Their comment is that they don't write the standards, they don't judge the shows, they just register the dogs and keep the records. Until recently, and under extreme pressure, they have started to crack (down very mildly) on the blatantly unethecal among their registers. They had never really ever investigated prior to that. If you had a complaint and could completly prove it they may do something.

There are some types of work they feel is acceptable for dogs, most of it useless, and they want to discourage anything else. The thought of protection training and working dogs is so alien to the powers that be you may as well suggest puttng a saddle on the dog and riding it.

There are other organizations that do provide shows for the rare breeds. One of which is requiring a TT to reach the rank of Grand Champion. If some people got together and could get support for a new type of show there could be significant improvements in all the breeds and could use the AKC registration to identify pure breed dogs. It could go something like this:

1- Dogs are entered in a conformation show to identify if the dog meets the breed standards. Once the dog reaches a set level of standard (say 3 certificates). The dog is awarded a Championship.

2- Dogs could be graded in the show ring for placement, BiB, Group, and BIS compitions.

3- Working breed dogs would be required to pass a Temperament test, or present a title for a protection title at some level (PH1, Sch I, NPL 1). Retrievers could be required to have a minimum of a Water certificate (or other test of retrieving ability). Same for pointers, terriers, sight hounds, etc...

4) Dogs having met both the above requirements could compete for a Grand Championship against other Champions. Having met basic breed requirements (conforming to the breed Standard, demonstrated working ability) you could breed the dog and advertise the recognition of meeting the breed chacteristics.

The idea being that neither the conformation titles nor required protection work would be so high as to scare off the Show or protection people. Everybody could participate, prove their dogs and then either continue for higher levels of titles or breed decent dogs in their chosen fields.

Just a thought.....

J wrote:

*****My intent was not to start the sport vs. work debate again....far from it.*****

Sorry, J, I just couldn't resist... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I know this subject was touched on before, but I don't remember anything concrete or tangible coming out of it. Something about Marks' post intrigued me, so I wonder if he could clarify it for me and some other people who may be thinking about engaging in such questionable activity.

Marks wrote:

*****Schutzhund has its place, but certainly not as a breed worthiness test.*****

Why not? What would you offer as an alternative?

*****A properly bred working dog will most likely not do well on a sporting field.*****

Again, why?

*****Sport has done as much harm as good to the working breeds.*****

Now, this is a really interesting statement. You admit that sport has done as much good as harm--I read this as 50-50%. So what exactly is the good 50% and the bad 50%, in your opinion?

If you feel that this question does not belong in this thread, maybe you can start a new one?