Which lab belongs to who?

[Bacon1676]

My wife and I got into a debate about which lab belongs to which origin. I thought the taller, thinner lab was British and the shorter, stockier lab was American. She seems to think its the other way around. Not sure who is right. The only thing I do know is that the show labs tend to be the shorter and stockier than the field labs. Any clarity would be great.

[NEhomer]

....just don't tell the wife that SHE'S short and stocky!

[gonehuntin']

Your wife is correct, much as it hurts.

[polmaise]

If a British Dog and British Bitch are sent to the USA and they are lined,are they American Labs and do they suddenly change.
How do you tell the difference without looking at the pedigree

[ezzy333]

There was a huge difference in type that took place several years ago and it was very apparent to the eye. There are some of each type here now but it is still noticeable.

Ezzy

[polmaise]

Do you think that was an influx at that time...with a certain type ?

[gonehuntin']

The American Labs and Brit Labs have an entirely different look. The Brit dog's are shorter, blockier and heads are squares. The American Labs are performance race horses.

[polmaise]

"The American Labs and Brit Labs have an entirely different look. The Brit dog's are shorter, blockier and heads are squares. The American Labs are performance race horses."
Absolutely !
But my point is how many and what ones have you looked at ?


http://s496.photobucket.com/user/robert ... sort=3&o=2

[polmaise]

I really admire the look of an American dog with style ,pace and slender tone with no Block head

[ezzy333]

Robert, you don't need to look very hard to see the difference. The English type we have here looks very similar to a cross between our Normal Lab of 40 years ago and an English Bulldog. How many have I seen? Way too many over the years. Lets just say some where in the hundreds.

[polmaise]

Robert, you don't need to look very hard to see the difference. The English type we have here looks very similar to a cross between our Normal Lab of 40 years ago and an English Bulldog. How many have I seen? Way too many over the years. Lets just say some where in the hundreds.

That is a pity !
Shame they took over the wrong ones.

[Flint]

The confusion is between the terms “British Labs” & “English Labs”.
“English Lab” refers to the heavy boned, blocky head show dog
“British Lab” refers to dogs with pedigrees having UK field trial titles. You can’t tell a difference from American field-bred labs by looking but they are marketed in the US to fill niche the hunt test format was supposed to fill.
In the 80’s, men like Bill Tarrant, Richard Wolters & Omar Driskall lamented that American retriever trials had evolved so far away from hunting that they no longer reflected the traits the average sportsman needed. Their answer was to create Hunt Tests.
Fast forward 30 yrs & many hunters feel the same way about the hunt tests; that they test & reward the ability of the trainer more than the dog. The British trial system requires a calm, noiseless dog with a good nose & soft mouth so the idea makes sense.

[polmaise]

You can’t tell a difference from American field-bred labs by looking but they are marketed in the US to fill niche the hunt test format was supposed to fill.

Are breeders in the US marketing to what is perceived to what a dog should look like in the field of Hunt tests?

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

I have found no difference between a British lab VS an English lab but both are typically shorter and stockier than American Labs. Look at Wildrose Kennels and you will see British Labs. As for which is better? There must be a reason why Ducks Unlimited keeps using British but then again they just use them to hunt and not Trial.

[gonehuntin']

Polmaise, I lived in British Columbias for several years and saw a ton of the English labs up there. I ran against them in trials and they couldn't compete with the American Labs. I always intently disliked their looks and in a very long time with labs only owned one, which was a dud.

So I have seen a lot more than the average person. Today, the Canadian dogs are being bred to the American dog's and the differences are harder to spot.

[Bacon1676]

Thanks guys for clearing that up. I figured my wife was right, but there was still that part of me that doubted. Should have known better.

I did notice you guys talking about field trial labs (more American type) vs the British style. Was wondering what made one a field trial lab vs a non-field trial lab? My dad had a "failed" field trial lab that was by AFC Hawkeye's Viking who held or still holds the hight amount of derby points for a yellow lab, but he was great because he just wanted to hunt. You could hunt him with flushers and pointers. He would respect a point and honor it until told to flush the birds (something he did naturally). So, I guess I'm asking what makes one a field trial lab and one not?

[gonehuntin']

Looks have nothing to do with that, it's determined by ability, intelligence and tractability.

[Flint]

In most sporting breeds (Labs, Springers, Cockers, Goldens, etc.) there are dogs that have been bred for field work (field-bred) and dogs that have been bred for confirmation shows (bench-bred). The AKC registers them all as the same breed but in reality, they differ in every aspect of what separates one breed from another.

They are two distinct gene pools that haven't mixed for decades and therefore the field-bred not only looks radically different from the dogs you see at Westminster, they have abilities those Westminster type dogs lost long ago. Any thinking person can watch the heavy boned, short legged, morbidly obese examples of a Lab waddling around the pen on TV & recognize the difficulty such a specimen would have in a working environment but because someone tells them it's a "hunting breed", some poor fools believe it.

As I said in an earlier post, the term "English Lab" is sometimes used to refer to the bench-bred but the term "British Lab" refers to a field-bred albeit one whose parents ran UK style field trials rather than American style.

[slistoe]

Looks like most of you folks in your bullheadedness are missing the point polmaise is trying to make. I doubt that the pictures he posted have American Trial Labs in their pedigree

[ezzy333]

In most sporting breeds (Labs, Springers, Cockers, Goldens, etc.) there are dogs that have been bred for field work (field-bred) and dogs that have been bred for confirmation shows (bench-bred). The AKC registers them all as the same breed but in reality, they differ in every aspect of what separates one breed from another.

They are two distinct gene pools that haven't mixed for decades and therefore the field-bred not only looks radically different from the dogs you see at Westminster, they have abilities those Westminster type dogs lost long ago. Any thinking person can watch the heavy boned, short legged, morbidly obese examples of a Lab waddling around the pen on TV & recognize the difficulty such a specimen would have in a working environment but because someone tells them it's a "hunting breed", some poor fools believe it.

As I said in an earlier post, the term "English Lab" is sometimes used to refer to the bench-bred but the term "British Lab" refers to a field-bred albeit one whose parents ran UK style field trials rather than American style.

You may be right but what you are saying is completely foreign to me. The two terms you speak of are interchangeable since they both refer to the type of Lab we see coming from England. Personally, I don't remember ever hearing the term British Lab but I am sure it has been used to reference the type of dog we have seen imported quite a few years ago.

The short thick type of dog can work well as a water retriever but physically are not well suited for upland hunting. But they are more than just show dogs though it is quite evident that is the direction the conformation shows have gone. But I do not know what you see that seperates them as a breed. I first saw that type in the mid-sixties when I was showing my Labs and Britts.

[crackerd]

Looks like most of you folks in your bullheadedness are missing the point polmaise is trying to make. I doubt that the pictures he posted have American Trial Labs in their pedigree

On the money, Scott - Robt.'s put a few in the US but they aren't coming across carrying North American performance Lab DNA. Dave Flint's take is spot on, too and then there's the little notation to be made that at least a handful of "British Labs" (quote-unquote because they were whelped in North America of imported pedigree) have competed in US FTs over the last few years. Some of the other comments - as awry as coming out of left field could be about Labs.

MG

[gonehuntin']

Looks like most of you folks in your bullheadedness are missing the point polmaise is trying to make. I doubt that the pictures he posted have American Trial Labs in their pedigree

May be the way it is now Scott, but not the way it was.

[polmaise]

I reckon a lot of things are different now Gonehuntin' .
Our country is no different.
100 years ago some guy's went out walking in a line with a Lab at their heel and when a bird got up they shot it then one of the dogs went out and retrieved it. They called it a trial ,so some folks wanted to be better and make it a better sport . Then came along some dude with a dog trained on a stop whistle who could handle the dog to where the game was and the game became competitive.

Back in them days there was no difference in appearance between all Labrador Retrievers .
The smart ones bred for train ability while others went dog-idly for looks.

I suppose the same (r)evolution evolved in the States with Carr' and the advancement of e-collar.
The games get better and the dogs get better and I for one am a supporter of this and those that are still set on the looks past and present have not advanced at the same pace with the good of the breed in mind.
.........
Which Lab belongs to who? was the OP statement. I believe that's where the 'perception' started and incited
If the gulf between the two get's wider then that's fine with me ,But there is no such thing as a 'British Lab' or an 'English Lab' or an American Lab' .There are however (imo) Labrador's world wide who are bred and worked and trained and trialled and tested in the field ,and there others who are not.That is the difference/distinction between the two not the origin of where they came from.

[gonehuntin']

I believe you are probably right about that. Sounds right to me, especially in this country. Truthfull, it's been 20 years since I was heavily involved in field trialing labs, then I went to pointing dogs. I bow to your expertise.

In the years I ran, the Brit's were really homely dogs, IMO. Squat, block heads, short bodied. I didn't like them at all.

[Flint]

Google " British Lab Pic" and then " English Lab pic". These are the first two images that came up in each respective search.
I'm not arguing that these terms are necessarily meaningful, just trying to help clear up confusion when discussing them.

As for my statement that they are effectively different breeds, that's because they don't have any common ancestry (for many generations), they don't look similar, they don't have the same capabilities, etc.

The "British lab" shown looks just like the Labs you see at an American field trial or hunt test. The reason some in the US are drawn to pedigrees with UK field trial titles is because UK judges look for & reward characteristics, namely composure & nose that are not evaluated as much ( if at all) in the American games.

[gonehuntin']

That picture of the "English Lab" is what the Canadian Labs also looked like. Flat out ugly dogs.

[Flint]

That picture of the "English Lab" is what the Canadian Labs also looked like. Flat out ugly dogs.

Sad isn't it?

[polmaise]

Google " British Lab Pic" and then " English Lab pic". These are the first two images that came up in each respective search.

With respect, if you google the collective 'noun' for a group of pheasants you may get the variance of either Bevvy' , Nye' , or 'Bouquet' .
The french would agree with one, whilst in our land Northerners would disagree with those south with a 'Nye'
atb
R.

[Trekmoor]

I never think of the two main lab "types" here as being British lab and/or English lab. I classify them as "Work bred" or "Show bred." I want nothing to do with show bred labs but I am pretty open minded about what a work bred lab should look like.

30 or so years ago here there was a tendency towards more lightly built , racy sort of labs. Then many shooting folk decided the pendulum had swung a bit too far in the direction of "racy" and a more substantial sort of lab became popular again. The point is that both "types" could be bred for from the same gene pool.

I noticed that along with the racy build a tendency towards thin coats also arrived. Personally I think labs should have good double coats. I kind of liked the speed of the racy type but as one old field trailer said ....." It isn't a race."

Bill T.

[Bacon1676]

I always thought of it as show breed and non-show breed labs as well until I was told otherwise.

[USMC]

You can’t tell a difference from American field-bred labs by looking but they are marketed in the US to fill niche the hunt test format was supposed to fill.

Are breeders in the US marketing to what is perceived to what a dog should look like in the field of Hunt tests?

Form follows function,