field lab? WHY

MomOf7 - It was definitely you I was thinking of! I love the look of your labs.

I wonder if part of the issue here is people who own BYB labs who are really off standard, and then call them "field labs" just because they are taller and thinner? We discussed a while ago somewhere this new type of lab that people have seen - tall and thin, with a pointy head, small eyes, and extremely difficult temperments. We refer the them as "mock Labs". You can spot them as soon as they walk in the door, and I have yet to meet one who didn't drive me up the wall. They don't look like either the show or field labs in the pictures above, and I don't think they qualify as either - they are just badly bred.

I think your Chloe is gorgeous! That's MY idea of what a lab should look like- like a bench lab's cuter, more athletic cousin .
The first pic of a show lab not only looks thick, heavy boned, he looks F-A-T.

That's the other difference I've heard people trying to compete in both complain about- that the weight they need to carry to place in the show ring is too fat for working- but that comment was actually a Viszla person, not a lab person.

I agree with you on this. mock lab would be a great discription. I have helped many people who have mock labs learn how to train them. They are very wired and high strung. Often uncontrollable for the average person.

98% of the labs we get in for boarding at work are "mock labs" and I dislike every single one of them. Part of it has to do with the fact that their owners got sucked in by the overwhelming cuteness that is a Lab puppy with no inclination how to control and train the dog who has the additional handicap of being the idiot product of BYB overbreeding. Part of it just has to do with the fact that they're the idiot product of BYB overbreeding.

There are select handful of labs I know that I like, so I'm not totally against the breed. I adore my Virgo and treasure her because I know she's a "rarity" in the sea of "mock Labs".

Excellent posts !! To me it's like putting the cart before the horse . If I could show you a picture of CH. Lorelei's Golden Rip ( circa 1946 ) you would say he's nothing like today's show ring . Yet this dog was winner in the ring and in the field ( and by the way my first Golden's Daddy ) Unfortunately , the " Ring " has taken away many attributes of what the breed was bred for . That's why I didn't show or breed to show ( yet my mentor did take some of my pups to show ) I think I could truthfully say that no Golden today could do what Rip accomplished ... Show , field and obedience . Don't forget , all good breeders stay in the standard rules . But few seriously show in all fields .

great post!

i persoanlly think breeding to a standard is important because if not wed lose the breeds we all know and love, but at the same time, i think that standard should include the dogs origional purpose!

if i was looking for a boarder collie or a lab, id look for a breeder who is lightly involved in showing but is also involved in working their lines...dogs that look like there supposed to and can do the job there ment to too...
i think in our search for "the perfect" resembalance of the breed we moved more to vanity and lost site of the big picture.
id personally like to see the ring favour slighter built WORK CAPABLE labs, boarders with less coat but more drive.

Even great danes, look at the european lines you can see that strenght, the power, the mastif in the breed and the personality to match, american lines tend to be slimmer, they seem to have lost that origional goal for the breed. and id love to import a german dane if i was ever to consider breeding danes. i personally prefer the european lines that to me would better suit the dogs origional purpose.

im rambling...

there are two different lines of all breeds, the working lines and the show lines

there are many amazing breeders who produce a line that can do both and this is what i personally what i would class as a good responsible breeder.

because of people just focusing on getting good conformation dogs, they have bred dogs for good conformation not for good hunting instinct, which really is not good,
conformation is set upon what the dog is originally bred for, show labs just tend to be more chunky because there line has been all show dogs without the exercise and agile life that keeps them fit with muscles.
There are many field labs that could make there CH in the show ring, but many judges are so used to seeing the chunkier labs that they are looking for a good chunky lab, not a good hunting lab.
The ideal judge for the labrador retriever breed would be a breeder who is a experienced hunter with his/her dogs and who is also very experinced in the show ring, therefore they would be able to pick a dog judginf by which dog would be the best hunter.
I dno if i made any sense but i just think that because show labs are so much more chunkier that the judges are looking for characteristics in chunkier labs, whereas they would class a field lab as out of standard when that dog could be a CH hunter which would really make it to standard in a way as the dog has proven itself as good for what it was originally bred for.

wow! thanks for all the great relpies. i have a better understanding now.

I should add ( just for my ego .. LOL! ) That my mentor was a Golden breeder , judge and showed his dogs in all three categories . Mostly obedience. I bred one of my females to one of his males ( line breeding ) and he wanted pick of litter . It was a beautiful whelp and I thought for sure I knew which he would pick . He wanted a female . At 7 weeks he came out again to evaluate. Didn't take him long ! He picked the runt !! Most lively , animated and full of **** and vinegar . Yup ... she went on to Championship .

Out of curiousity, I looked for him. Here he is!! http://www.shilohpark.net/CH%20Lorelei's%20Golden%20Rip.jpg

VERY DIFFERENT!! lol

the labs i see (pet labs) dont look ANYTHING like labs to me. i am thinking maybe they are mock labs. they are big, tall, lanky, stupid as a box of rocks, extremely mouthy, droopy ears, droopy eyes, droopy jaws, but a very pointy sort of muzzel...
and they just look awful to me.

either way field labs dont look like labs to me. but i guess thats because i go by the show standard. but everyone who replied to this thread made great sense!

Rabbits - something I see quite often is people calling any hyper leggy Lab a "field Lab", without knowing or seeing any evidence that the dog came from actual lines. With some people it's black or white - show or field - when in actuality there are so many varieties: bench, field, BYB, puppymill ... very different looks and temperaments. I'd say that Momof7's field Labs don't look too far off from the standard.

the labs i see though... are owned by people that hate puppy mills, knows about them, and found repitble breeders. so maybe these are field labs, but they dont look like the ones in the pic.
one lab i know has a very block head, he is tall and lanky, white, and has the droopyness.
labs seem to all look diffrent

Thank you I am trying. A few other field breeders are also taking in consideration looks/conformation which I am happy about. Its tough

There should be a happy medium, but in many breeds it is near to impossible. Try finding a top winning CH Collie with performance titles! lol There are a few CHs with working titles, but you won't see a herding CH at Westminster.

OMG Colliewog !!!! I've googled him but nothing came up !!!! Thank you , thank you !!! The two I have are action pictures . I met his Daddy too ... who was old and deaf but did all his obedience etc with hand signals . How did you find it ???? His breeder has been dead for years , way before computers . I'd love to look up other champions !! Rip was a dark Golden , but my Point puppy turned out honey colored . THANKS !!

Personally I hate to see short and stocky bench Labs just as much as I hate seeing tall and lanky field Labs. There is a nice medium and fortunately there are breeders that breed that medium. But there are also a ton who breed only for conformation and a ton that breed without conformation in mind at all. If you ask me, both are breeding a dog to suit their needs (winning in the show or field), instead of preserving the breed, which is what they should be doing in the first place.

All in all, conformation, instinct, temperment, and health are all important in PRESERVING the breed. Improving it, well ... that's anyones opinion as to who is actually improving it. In my mind, there are very few breeders who are actually improving it. In someone else's mind, anyone who health tests and has dogs with a CH in front of their name is improving it. I'd rather preserve the breed, but maybe that's just me.

I do want to breed Labs someday. I will compete in conformation (maybe not to the point of a CH but definetly enough to prove that they have good conformation). I will compete in hunt tests. I will most likely also compete in obedience and have them certified as therapy dogs. And I will health test for everything that is prevelent in the breed. I will also give them the best health care that I can and provide them with the best life I can. Anything less than all of that is unsatisfactory, in my opinion. If I'm just breeding a pretty dog, I might as well have gotten into a breed that's original purpose WAS to look pretty!

wiggle butt.. I LOVE YOUR SIGGY!!!! So cute!

Thanks!

I'm pesistent! lol I found him here - there are several other older Goldens there ... http://www.shilohpark.net/Ancestors.htm