Yup agree with all of that Julie I think height does matter at the extremes though. You can see in the tiny cockers that are about these days that some of them can't get game off the floor to retrieve so I think some sense is needed for height but I do think the standard slightly too prescriptive in that area I've also noticed since this discussion that Obi has more angulation than Riley on his legs. When we put pictures up I think someone suggested Rileys forearm was a little straight. I doubt it will make a noticeable difference especially as they're such different dogs but it's interesting that I'm noticing these things more
Charlie doesn't have great angulation (and although I love it, the set of his tail on his back is WAY too high) and....oh, lots of other faults! My understanding is that the height range in the UK breed standard has been the same since at least 1950, and possibly 1916, but I'm not sure about that earlier date. The US breed standard increased the height range, I read because of lobbying from working line breeders, but I don't know whether that is true. A few undesirable things have crept into the US breed standard though, that does encourage over weight dogs (these are not in the UK of AUS breed standard).
There was no height range in the 1916 standard - so it must have been introduced in 1950. The 1916 standard said there was one colour - black.
Cooper has pretty straight back legs. Much more than either of our previous labs. She is a tall dog anyway, and if her head is down, her butt is higher than her shoulders. I believe she exceeds the American height standard for a female. She is about 75# at 10 months, and is a pretty skinny dog.
Homer has quite straight back legs and is narrower across the chest than some labs, but at nearly 4 years old there is no sign of any problems. He moves and runs quite gracefully in my opinion and is commented on by many ordinary people we meet, although some try to convince me he is a cross with a ridgeback.
I'm curious about what in the US standard encourages overweight dogs? I do see some very large Labs, some over 120 lbs, but not necessarily fat, and certainly not fitting the breed standard. US Standard 22.5" to 24.5" at the withers and 65 to 80 lbs for a dog, 21.5" to 23.5" and 55 to 70 lbs. for a bitch. Cooper is about 24.5" and 75 lbs and is a very tall skinny Lab. American Field Labs are generally a lot thinner than English (Style) Labs. Most serious breeders that I see info for, are breeding American style Labs. They generally mention Field Trial or Hunting Trial qualifications in the description, and seldom mention Show championships. (Note that I'm generally looking in the Pacific Northwest.) I believe I read somewhere that members of the American Lab Breeders Assn. were not allowed to mention Show Championships, unless the dog had also won a Field or Hunting Title. I don't think most breeders are members of the Assn.
The term 'English' Labs, has nothing to do with the Labs actually being English - I mention it just in case you think England only has what you call English Labs. The breed is split in the UK, as it is in the US, into what is normally called Show and Field. The specific point that I was talking about in the post you quote above - included in the US breed standard, which does not appear in the UK breed standard is this: "The underline is almost straight, with little or no tuck-up in mature animals."
Thanks. I had not picked that up in the standard. Most field dogs do have a significant tuck up at the waist. Perhaps that is why most of the labs I see in shows are English (Show on your side of the pond) style. While the AKC standard was changed in 94 to accommodate the taller field style dogs, I think most of the AKC standard still favors "English" style Labs. I understand there was quite a ruckus among the US breeders, because some of the Show Labs weren't tall enough for the revised standard. Our English Style Lab is probably too short for the Standard (and our pup is too tall). Cooper can stand across Tilly. They remind me of Mutt and Jeff (American cartoon characters from long ago). Cooper is still a pup, but she has a lot of tuck up. She would probably be knocked down for being "Tall and Leggy" I googled Lab height, and in the "Images of Labrador" tab there was a page called "Different breeds of Labrador Retrievers" It had Pictures going back to the the St John's Water Dog and forward though the years. Up though the 1930s the pictures were of leggier dogs than the current dogs. They actually looked more like modern Field Labs. I don't know how accurate the pictures are, but the transition was interesting.
You will never see Field Labs in shows - well, if you do they won't get very far. Field labs are too far removed from the breed standard these days to be competitive in the show ring. The pictures of the dogs from the past look very different from both today's show line dogs, and field line dogs. They do look taller and finer than some show line dogs, and they often have nice Labrador heads, substance, otter tails, and a double coat - all often missing from today's field line dogs. It's not all doom and gloom though - there are still some nice looking dogs around from both show and field.
Cooper definitely has the Lab double coat and the most Otter tail of any of our 3 Labs. Her guard coat is longer than Tilly's and coarser. She does not get as wet in the rain. One thing I really like about Coopers conformation, is that her ears hang more forward rather than flat against the side of her head. It may be coincidence, but Tilly with her flat ears has a lot more ear problems. I think they keep her ear canal damp, while Cooper's stays drier.
Perhaps that's because Field Labs have, as a lot of show Lab people think, been crossed with hounds at some point - that's why they have hound like ears, not Lab ears. Personally, so long as they are silky and the dog in question likes them being stroked, I don't much mind either way. Lots of hounds have the most fabulous ears going. But, that's not quite the point in the show ring - you could argue unfortunately. I'm up for a 'best ear to stroke' class, for sure.
When Cooper was a younger Pup, we thought she might be the worlds first Base Jumping Lab. (Think Dumbo) They are still big and silky, but don't look quite so huge. Incidentally it is the Labrador Retriever Club (AKC Recognized) that has the rule. ARTICLE VI Standards for Use of the Title "CH" SECTION 1. Restriction. No member of the Club shall use the title "CH" in front of the name of a registered Labrador Retriever dog until said dog, having won a conformation championship, shall also receive a working certificate or the equivalent as defined in this Article. It is a serious attempt to keep the Labs as a working Line. They also have a conformation certificate that says a dog meets the breed standards for conformation and temperament. They don't have to be perfect, just meet the standard with no DSQs.
I've heard this said a lot, but it always confuses me - what it meant by "hound"? Fox hound? Because there are loads of different types of hound, obviously, and Basset hounds have somewhat different ears to fox hounds, to Afghans, to dachshunds... I can't really tell from your comment (or from looking through pictures of show Labs / hounds of different varieties) - what is the desired ear shape for Labs. Googling "show champion Labradors" shows loads of different ear positions, but it's hard to say what is the naturally hanging position. Looking at my two, who are definitely the opposite of what Labs should look like, I'm guessing that on Labs with good conformation, the ears should be flat against the head, smaller and set farther back than on my two? Ditto! I love just how silky-soft a Labrador's ears are, whichever direction they choose to point
I would say most working line Labradors remind me of Viszlas - in their chest shape, rib cage, snout shape, ear shape and tail, but I'm sure opinion differs on that!
Houndy ears are rounded at the bottom and are too long for their width (from a Labrador perspective). Labrador ears should be triangular when hanging relaxed. They should almost look like they are set a little far back on the head rather than set too far forward. The tip of the ear should be able to reach the inner corner of the eye on the same side (if gently moved to cover the eye).
Not large or heavy, hanging close to head and set rather far back. A medium sized ear correctly set with a flap of medium thickness gives protection to the ear and balance to the head. The ear should hang moderately close to the head, be set rather far back, and somewhat low on the skull. The shape is triangular. Heavy ears set too low give a houndy look, while small high set ears give a terrier look. Both these types of ears are undesirable and give a foreign expression to the head.
Difficult to tell from Shadow's picture, as his ears are tilting back with his head. Willow looks pretty typical for a working line Lab (which is not at all unattractive, by the way, I'm a sucker for big dog ears more to stroke). Willow's round eyes are a bigger difference than her ears from most show line Labs though.
