Worrying Trend In The Show Ring

[huski]

I am confused why anyone would be confused that there are differences between the sexes. You should always be able to tell by a glance who is a dog and who is a bitch.

I'm not saying they should be the same but I wouldn't agreed there should be "vast" differences. And I certainly wouldn't call what is generally slight variation in the size between bitches and dogs a vast difference. This is standard across majority of breeds.

Edited June 10, 2014 by huski

[labadore]

If you have to train a dog to retrieve to hand by force fetching, then surely how fit the dog is for its original purpose also must be questioned?

It seems some ARE questioning it. This article makes interesting reading.

Seems that the Americans are having to compensate for the manner in which they have modified the Labrador for field trialling whereas the British still rely on selective breeding.

I find the idea of hard mouthed dogs in this breed of far more concern than excess body weight.

interesting article, thanks. Hopefully AUS follow the British on selective breeding and yes the soft mouth is such an important characteristic of the Labrador and I share your concern. I belong to an American Labrador Retriever forum and there are always lively debates on show/bench vs working/field lines :)

[RuralPug]

With many breeds there IS a significant difference, with some others there is a slight difference and there are a few breeds where there is little or no difference between the sexes.

It is not uncommon to hear a ringside comment that so and so has a lovely feminine head or such and such is a bit on he small side for a male etc.

I guess it is how you determine the adjective "vast" - certainly any differences between the sexes within a breed should not exceed the differences between one breed and another.

[sandgrubber]

The Labrador came out of dogs used for extreme cold water work in Newfoundland.

They were stocky dogs, which makes a lot of sense from a perspective of staying warm when working wet in the Bay of Fundy. A little blubber might also be helpful for work in cold water. The photo below is from the 1850s.

I think the bitch in the OP is reasonably true to the look of the early Labs. Jed is correct: you can't be sure the dog is fat without feeling her. She has a heavy coat and black hides shadows. I'd guess she's carrying a bit or excess weight, but not a lot.

Edited June 10, 2014 by sandgrubber

[sandgrubber]

p.s. One could also say lank and lean Labradors were a worrying trend. Here's a quote from Mary Roslin Williams Advanced Labrador Breeding (1988 with reference to the previous ~ 50 years) talking about how the show/field split developed after WWII...."the tempo had changed from wanting to find out the real merit of a shooting dog to just a plain 'first-past-the-post' red-hot competition. The dice was now loaded against the keeper and amateur's home-trained Labrador and went in favor of the professionally trained and handled hot-rod type of racing machine, bred and looking like a Greyhound, yet with, as almost its only asset, the ability to take hand signals rather than using its own nose.

To get this, first Greyhound blood was used which gave speed on to a racey long-loined lightly got-up Trialler, and then much later and indeed fairly recently the black and white working Collies now known as Border Collies. Thus the speed and agility of Greyhound was wedded to the handlerability of the sheep-dog, the present day Trial dogs showing both these crosses". . . (p 110).

Edited June 10, 2014 by sandgrubber

[Aziah]

Always enjoyable reading posts written by people who refuse to clarify or back-up their claims of breeds being unsound

Thank you for the early morning dose of frustration mixeduppup (and that you are)!

[pepe001]

I just googled Labrador to see some photos of field vs show lines and it seems some are doing both. Here was the first breeder who appeared http://www.blackboykennels.com.au/dualchampions.html . Beautiful dogs.

[LisaCC]

I just googled Labrador to see some photos of field vs show lines and it seems some are doing both. Here was the first breeder who appeared http://www.blackboyk...lchampions.html . Beautiful dogs.

A Blackboy pup is currently #10 lab on the dogzonline breed leader board too

[WreckitWhippet]

The bitch is very interesting to look at in other photographs in natural light. I'd love to put my hands on her and feel that coat.

[JulesP]

No one seems to have hissy fits with halter and running Quarter horses, with halter and endurance Arabs and with the various types of Welsh Mountain ponies. What's the big deal?

You gotta be joking :laugh: For the last 30 years the halter Arabian horse has got further & further away from the performance Arabian..... & now with more interest in the desert racing Arabian, the Arabian breed is changing again, a lot of breeders have turned away from the compact Crabbet type to breed a stretchy, taller type, more suitable for the racetrack & in particular the lucrative 40km desert races of the UAE.

Are people saying that there is only one correct type and the others shouldn't exist?

Yes the racing type is much taller, many individuals now are measured at 15.3hh & even 16 hands. While there is no standard height, commonly the Arabian horse stood between 14.1 - 15.1hh. The incidence of taller individuals is much higher these days. The French horses in particular look like Anglos (Thoroughbred x Arabian).

Sorry, I didn't really address your question, but yes there is heated debate. :)

There has never been just one type of Arabian.

[The Spotted Devil]

If you have to train a dog to retrieve to hand by force fetching, then surely how fit the dog is for its original purpose also must be questioned?

It seems some ARE questioning it. This article makes interesting reading.

Seems that the Americans are having to compensate for the manner in which they have modified the Labrador for field trialling whereas the British still rely on selective breeding.

I find the idea of hard mouthed dogs in this breed of far more concern than excess body weight.

Personally I'm not going to argue the merits of show vs field bred. I've always said each to their own.

But I will say this: FF is NOT used because the dogs won't retrieve. It is not how I will ever train but that's the predominant method used in the USA. In my opinion the dogs are hard mouthed because of training methods.

[Aidan3]

FF is used, like most methods in dog training, because of confirmation bias. Trainers believe it is the only way to get a reliable retrieve.

It's the same reason people believe that lines are sound or unsound or fit for purpose or only good for the show ring or whatever their bias is.

[alpha bet]

To go back to the Original Post - Personally feel there is a trend for many of the show lines to be presented - in not ideal condition - perhaps it is not just overweight but without the muscle tone to really enhance the individual dog. However this could be said for most of the much loved pet dogs we see in peoples homes.....

Certainly with breeds like the OP's query the Labrador there are concerns that a show as high as the Westminster Show would be rewarded a dog who does not show the overall balance one would expect from this breed. A labrador is after all meant to be a working gun dog.... perhaps not to run all day but have the strength and agility to walk across the fields for a few hours, leap into water and swim to retreive and then stand ready for the next task....

Aussielover - mentioned that she is not sure what is happening in the Aussie show ring - I don't enjoy nor do I have the time to show but as a breeder I try to keep in touch with what is happening and what young dogs are coming thru, so attend the occassional show and generaly Vic Aussie Speciality every year to see what is around. At the 2013 Speciality they had an American Judge Nannette Newbury - and was very impressed with her judging....plonked myself down where I could hear her record her critique on the all the placing. I was not surprised that she actually mentioned many times that some of the dogs were shown overweight and not in working condition. Quite a few of these were from the better known names on the Aussie Show Scene.... they are a working dog and should be lean and muscled, some just carry too much condition perhaps from spending hours in crates and pens instead of wandering around the Ranch as was intended.

Someone else mentioned that it would be interesting to have a machine to measure the dogs. Well in fact you can - If you search - many of the breeds do give measurement ratios..... height/width/length, head ratios, weight ranges and even angles of shoulders and croup. - There are even some breeds who conduct official surveys and the GSD is the one I had experience with when I bred dogs in the 80's - I assume the club still runs it currently. They produced an annual Survey book which was every breeders bible when it came to researching dogs of interest, not only for a sire you liked but also to look up the offspring to see how they stacked up to the standard.... especially for information on bite and detention.

It is interesting to look back at the quality of the GSD back in the 80's and see strong bone and toplines and hocks without such the exaggerations also very uniform in size and type - Nowdays see many males who would tower over these previous dogs and bone as huge as my foream..... very loose hocks and often movement that paddles instead of glide.

So what can breeders do to improve - Have started conducting my own Survey on the Aussie Shepherds that I have bred = I have brought the calipers and measuring sticks and started recording the measurements for dogs I have bred and have been very surprised at the results.... firstly it is easier to do than I thought and with some of the dogs I thought were too big and rangy have proven to still fit within the ratios, same with ones that I thought might be too small....

I wish my breed club could bring out a survey system for Aussies like they have for the GSD would be invaluable to have a more detached result as well as an official data base for hip/elbow and dna results.

Oh well I can dream......

Edited June 10, 2014 by alpha bet

[OSoSwift]

I looked up the BOB Labrador winner from Crufts and in his photos he looked like he was fit not fat. He did look to be in differing body condition from the OPs photo of the Wesminster- I think- Labrador.

[mixeduppup]

Ok so I'll answer seriously as yesterday I was generally in a pissed off mood. My apologies to the people.

How much to hip scores really mean when the dog can hardly walk? Maybe we should have hock scores too? I agree that HW's top one was a vast improvement on the breed from what I've seen and I've seen a lot of showline GSDs that have competed and are going to compete in the ring. I'm glad they are now rewarding better conformation than before and the issues are being recognised. Congratulations to them.

I see it in kelpies also, the vast difference between bench and working. I agree that some bench have working instinct but you would rarely if ever see a bench in a true working environment for a variety of reasons.

I'm starting to wonder if genetics are being altered as we we remove the dog from its original purpose to show it. Like in the silver fox experiment where the foxes were bred to be more docile and changed body shape and colour. I wonder also if this could be a similar thing and not fully on purpose just evolution of two unique lines.

Edited June 11, 2014 by mixeduppup

[Leah82]

Seems we're not the only ones talking about it...

http://slimdoggy.com/when-did-overweight-labs-become-the-new-normal/

and the crufts winnners

http://slimdoggy.com/crufts-labrador-winners/

While I realise this particular website has it's own agenda they still make some good points and you can't deny the difference between dogs that may have actually been spending time in chilly waters and the Westminster BOB and BOS

[mixeduppup]

Always enjoyable reading posts written by people who refuse to clarify or back-up their claims of breeds being unsound

Thank you for the early morning dose of frustration mixeduppup (and that you are)!

Rude. Just because I chose not to respond due to being annoyed in my actual life and thought I would leave it til today. That's hardly a reason to say something like that. Remember real people are reading your words. kthnxbai

[benshiva]

Ok so I'll answer seriously as yesterday I was generally in a pissed off mood. My apologies to the people.

How much to hip scores really mean when the dog can hardly walk? Maybe we should have hock scores too? I agree that HW's top one was a vast improvement on the breed from what I've seen and I've seen a lot of showline GSDs that have competed and are going to compete in the ring. I'm glad they are now rewarding better conformation than before and the issues are being recognised. Congratulations to them.

I see it in kelpies also, the vast difference between bench and working. I agree that some bench have working instinct but you would rarely if ever see a bench in a true working environment for a variety of reasons.

I'm starting to wonder if genetics are being altered as we we remove the dog from its original purpose to show it. Like in the silver fox experiment where the foxes were bred to be more docile and changed body shape and colour. I wonder also if this could be a similar thing and not fully on purpose just evolution of two unique lines.

I don't believe this can be placed firmly in the hand of those showing dogs. As has been discussed here, performance dogs in a lot of breeds barely resemble the originals of their breed either.

[mixeduppup]

Ok so I'll answer seriously as yesterday I was generally in a pissed off mood. My apologies to the people.

How much to hip scores really mean when the dog can hardly walk? Maybe we should have hock scores too? I agree that HW's top one was a vast improvement on the breed from what I've seen and I've seen a lot of showline GSDs that have competed and are going to compete in the ring. I'm glad they are now rewarding better conformation than before and the issues are being recognised. Congratulations to them.

I see it in kelpies also, the vast difference between bench and working. I agree that some bench have working instinct but you would rarely if ever see a bench in a true working environment for a variety of reasons.

I'm starting to wonder if genetics are being altered as we we remove the dog from its original purpose to show it. Like in the silver fox experiment where the foxes were bred to be more docile and changed body shape and colour. I wonder also if this could be a similar thing and not fully on purpose just evolution of two unique lines.

I don't believe this can be placed firmly in the hand of those showing dogs. As has been discussed here, performance dogs in a lot of breeds barely resemble the originals of their breed either.

I said evolution of two unique lines. Sometimes three for sporting lines. I think we have taken the breed and used it for so many different things (for breeds with a show/working/sporting split that we now have 3 totally different types for the job in hand. That's fine as long as it doesn't negatively impact the dog's ability to live day-to-day. I know someone that shows and competes in agility with their dogs (BCs) and their dogs a generally thicker set (not fat) and have a much denser coat compared to the person who just breeds for sporting and working and their lines are much less coat, much more streamlined and generally of a rather more intense temperament.

[benshiva]

Ok so I'll answer seriously as yesterday I was generally in a pissed off mood. My apologies to the people.

How much to hip scores really mean when the dog can hardly walk? Maybe we should have hock scores too? I agree that HW's top one was a vast improvement on the breed from what I've seen and I've seen a lot of showline GSDs that have competed and are going to compete in the ring. I'm glad they are now rewarding better conformation than before and the issues are being recognised. Congratulations to them.

I see it in kelpies also, the vast difference between bench and working. I agree that some bench have working instinct but you would rarely if ever see a bench in a true working environment for a variety of reasons.

I'm starting to wonder if genetics are being altered as we we remove the dog from its original purpose to show it. Like in the silver fox experiment where the foxes were bred to be more docile and changed body shape and colour. I wonder also if this could be a similar thing and not fully on purpose just evolution of two unique lines.

I don't believe this can be placed firmly in the hand of those showing dogs. As has been discussed here, performance dogs in a lot of breeds barely resemble the originals of their breed either.

I said evolution of two unique lines. Sometimes three for sporting lines. I think we have taken the breed and used it for so many different things (for breeds with a show/working/sporting split that we now have 3 totally different types for the job in hand. That's fine as long as it doesn't negatively impact the dog's ability to live day-to-day. I know someone that shows and competes in agility with their dogs (BCs) and their dogs a generally thicker set (not fat) and have a much denser coat compared to the person who just breeds for sporting and working and their lines are much less coat, much more streamlined and generally of a rather more intense temperament.

I know several people who show and do agility/obedience with their BC's and are hugely successful at both. One of our breeding won the Goldstein GOLD medal at the Sydney Royal last year. I believe this particular dog fits the breed standard as it is written and what we, as breeders, have to measure our stock by.

Yes I believe there can be a variation in "style" or "type" but basic conformation SHOULD be the same. Well in my opinion at least.