Labrador colours, a guess anyone? Discussions

You dont have to answer, which is why I "asked" Back to the colours then. Do you see very pale chocs as incorrect with the breed standard only asking for "chocolate" and not a range of shades as in the yellow? I see them as wrong, I mentioned earlier that the blue Border was going very pale, but thankfully its been corrected with careful breeding. With "fads" as they go with dogs, do you think these colours could be exploited by some breeders who want to make a fast buck? (NOT you either! )

Sorry I know its o/t but I had to reply
Why say the 'show' type that conforms to the 'standard' is the correct type of dog and the working dog who is able to do its job all day in their field is too tall/leggy or whatever

Most of the labs I see round here are the 'show' type, squat wide and put on weight at the drop of a hat
There are a few working bred labs about here and from day 1 you can see the difference, as pups they already have more muscle and they can run rings round the 'show' type labs at any age

It just makes me sad/angry that a comittie of people with one hobby were able to sit down and say a certain colour of nose with a colour of coat was a 'fault' when it has no bearing on the health or ability of the dog

To turn the weight question around
I think show people are too used to seeing overweight dogs and so see it as the norm
imo the majority of show dogs I see either on tv or when at shows ARE fat, I have got my hands on plenty but you just have to watch them move to see it

When breeding dogs they should conform to the breed standard. The "show" type is the correct type, when breeds get split, thats when the problems arise, both in conformation and temperament.

You dont have to agree with it, its YOUR choice what hobby you do, and your choice what type of dog you have.

You are incorrect, you need to go to a show and put your hands on the dogs, what you see as fat is not.

I don't see shades of chocolate as wrong, because unless you genetically test you don't know what your dog actually carries, a darker shade could carry a paler shade genetically, so it's a bit like saying a dog with a 2:1 elbow grade is worse than an ungraded dog.

I agree, unusual shades/colours are exploited by some breeders, in many breeds, blue staffs are one of the worst. But then that's the puppy buying public, who demand the rare and unusual, or what they perceive as rare or unusual.

Agree about the blue staffords. I do think though that its the breeders that create the demand by breeding them in the first place, otherwise the public would see them. The breeders also charge the ridiculous prices, but yes, the gullible public are only too happy to pay!

You dont see pale chocs as wrong, but varying shades of that colour are not described in the breed standard, as they are with yellow, that to me says that choc is choc.

I don't see varying shades as wrong, because they're just chocolate, liver, or whatever you want to call it. I don't think you can judge a colour to be correct on the surface, when genetically it can be a completely different picture.

If you think designer breeds are cheaper than pedigree dogs you have had your eyes closed for the last couple of years!

All things are subjective regarding 'improvement'

I meet a lot of pups one way or another and I see very few whose owners have gone for a dog because of its pedigree, it seems to have fallen out of favour since various sources exposed the KC for what it was. The fact that it is making small changes to standards and 'suggesting' health tests hasn't seemed to make a lot of difference to the public perception of them.

Dogs Today is a widerly read magazine by prospective owners (IME) and they are often influential in decision making. The opther factor is that the new owners have met a dog of the type they are looking for and like it a lot. Hence the rise of designer breeds.

rune

Im sorry Lynn, there was me thinking we were talking about labs!

The KC will never be able to enforce health tests across the board because loads of breeds including mine are not requested to have any.

Have read this thread from beginning to end and have to admit it's made me smile!
I am so glad Bruce is Jet Black!

Ahh yes but he doesn't count unless he is overweight!

OT---Where are you in Cornwall?

rune

Well I've also read this thread with interest, but only because I've got a yellow lab & a black lab x .

I'm the first to admit I have no experience in breeding or showing dogs (my interests are in dog welfare & behaviour) but I had no idea that discussions on colour would be so critical to the breed .

I've seen several people say that temperament & health are most important & I completely agree. But a question to all of you experienced breeders ~ why is coat colour so important to the "breed standard"? Just because the breed standard says that dogs of a certain breed should be black, or yellow, or various shades of brown, why is this such an important factor & why should a dog that does not conform due to the colour of its coat, be deemed a "failure"? Is the KC that all-knowing & that all-powerful that everyone just accepts what is says without question? Or are there proven health/welfare/functionality differences between the various coat colours?

As I understand it, historically dogs have been bred to do a job, to perform a function for humans, so the coat, morphology, temperament, size etc etc were determined in accordance with the most favourable for that particular job or function. So, showing my ignorance here, why have labradors been divided into "show" types & "working" types? What was the point of breeding for the "show" type?

On another point, genetics is an extremely complex subject & there's plenty of scientific evidence to show that there are links between the genes for physical appearance & morphology & the genes that influence behavioural traits. So provided that dogs are bred for temperament & health, isn't that the most important factor? Or is the commerciality & saleability & fashion of a particular colour coat, or eye colour, more salient?

Sorry if I'm going off track here, but I'm genuinely interested & if you think another thread should be started, I'm happy to do that.

Great post Wilbar.

rune

I like you immensely, or at least your post, all brilliant questions ;-)

Showing dogs was a way to market your dog initially, before it ever became a hobby, or to some a vocation even. So if you had a brilliant working dog you took it to be compared alongside other similar types of dog, and some people also sold their dogs from showing them. So the working folk were at the very beginning of showing.

Some breeds have separated to a much greater extent than Labradors, generally speaking, into two distinctive 'types', whereas with Labradors, you get some nice representatives of the breed in both spheres, but you also get a great variation. The show vs working debate has been done many times before, and although I count myself as fairly new to the breed, and pretty much inexperienced, it really does sadden me to see a lot of the nastiness that can go on, with one side decrying the other entirely.

I do think that it's important that we keep to the breed standard, otherwise you don't have a breed, but the problem is the interpretation of any breed standard, there are very few measurements, and no colour charts, just words that give a guide. And you'll have gotten the idea of the way interpretation can differ and it can become quite contentious ;-)

The chocolate/liver debate has always been one to cause a bit of a stir, as has been said on the thread, these were deemed undesireable and drowned at birth, even though they predate the introduction of yellow into the breed. The prejudice against chocolate Labs has been around for a long time, the amount of times I've been told mine are untrainable, unworkable, and worse. And yet there are more chocolates being worked and competed with than ever before, which can only be a good thing for the breed overall in my view, but others can, and probably will, think very differently.

Probably 95% of 'slimmer' Labs you see are not working bred at all (or even show bred for that matter). Most of them come from backyard breeders which is hardly a practice we should encourage.

Who was it said `No good dog is a bad colour`?
Unfortunately - try telling that to those who breed for showing - especially Boxers & GSD breeders when a white one appears. Yes, I know in some cases it is associated with other problems - but in some cases it isn`t, and in the case of the GSD it is in their breed heritage. The argument I`ve heard against white GSDs (being visible at night) really only applies if you are intending to do covert operations with the dog - which most people wouldn`t. The other argument - that they could be mistaken for sheep when herding them - well....

A big sheep with pointy ears you mean??

Then you get into the 'who is a backyard breeder' arguement.

I think you have as much chance of getting good temperament and health from a so called backyard breeder as from a show type or working breeder.

Most round here are working or farm bred.

rune

Bruce isn't over weight, but he is quite stocky! Had him weighed just over a week ago at 24 weeks and he was 19kg.

We are in Cubert which is 4 mile from Newquay, 6 miles from Perranporth. Where are you?

You can't say whether a dog is healthy or not (screening for genetic health) without testing, which backyard breeders do not do, so that simply isn't true.

Ask the average Lab owner what linage their dog comes from and you'll be met with a blank expression. Most people have no idea.

Nope---but they like the way they look! Which is maybe not the way you like your dogs to look.

Valid either way.

rune