From: lizalee@leland.Stanford.EDU (Liza L Miller)
Subject: Re: Proposed Standard for Labradors
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:35:29 GMT

In article <16B548AB8.CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu> CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:

>Thanks Liza.  Would you mind posting the letters to the AKC from people
>you were talking to before (if that's allowed)?  If you don't still
>have them, I do and will post them if you like.  They were very good,
>well thought out letters that I think would add to our discussion.
 	Sure, I'll go ahead and do that.  
> 
>LL>  Objections to the New Proposed Standard (NPS):
>LL>
>LL>  1. 	Poorly written.  This document cannot be passed by the AKC as it
>LL>  	is not even written properly.  The grammar, spelling and punctuation
>LL>  	are appalling.
>MB>  TOTALLY AGREE!!!  I may not be the best speller in the world or
>MB>  the best at grammer, but in any OFFICIAL document I write I make sure
>MB>  the my spelling is correct at least.
>Well since I can't spell worth a hout ;-), this doesn't mean alot to
>me.  Other than it gives evidence to the claim that they were trying to
>ramrod this through so fast that they didn't have time to spell check it.
 	The real thing issue here to me is that they couldn't even take the
time to hire an editor to look over the document.  That is absurd and shows
a very poor reflection of the club leadership, imho.

> 
>LL> 2.	The disqualifications are, in my opinion, not only unnecessary but
>LL>  	dangerous.  Disqualifing perfectly good or even outstanding dogs on the
>LL>  	basis of one and only one criteria strikes me as being short-sighted in
>LL>  	the slightest.  There is not currently a problem with height in
>LL>  	Labradors and thus, fixing what "ain't broke" does not make sense.
>LL>  	The other disqualifications (pigmentation and docking) are either
>LL>  	better addressed as serious faults, or are already addressed in AKC
>LL>  	regulations.
> 
>MB> I agree too.  Height is a crazy disqualification for Labs.  (A Fault
>MB> or a Major Fault may be necessary for extremely small or extremely
>MB> oversized Labs).  I prefer a larger Lab (I use to have a 110 lb female
>MB> Lab/golden that looked exctly like a large yellow Lab).
>MB> I think maybe the color disqualification is justified (brindled or
>MB> black with tan spots), but the other pigmentation should be serious faults.
>MB> Docking is covered in the AKC rules I believe.
> 
>Not being a conformation person, I find any DISQUALIFICATION due to
>minor devitions from the ideal to be absurd.  Note that I said minor
>devitions, this means that the more sevear the devition, the more it
>should be penalized (ie. penalize a dog that's 28" tall more than one
>that's 26").  It's like in a hunting test, a single cast refusal in a
>Master isn't enough for the dog to fail, but it sure better not have
>10!
	Regarding the height.  If it were a serious problem in labs, that 
would be one thing, but I don't believe that it is.  Also, if dogs were
regularly winning in the ring that simply were too short or too tall to
hunt, that would be another.  I don't believe that either of those situations
are occurring.  And, I think that it is best handled through judge's 
education rather than a disqualification.  As Chris points out (hey,
for once I agree with you Chris! :) :) :), it also gives the issue of 
height too much importance to breeders.  You'll have dogs being thrown
out of breeding programs because they are too tall when they have many
other wonderful qualities such as correct conformation (otherwise), good
health, and good hunting abilities.  It's just not that important an
issue.
	On color, well, simply stating that the correct colors are black,
yellow, and chocolate takes care of the issue. I doubt that many folks
would try to show their black/tan Labrador (yes, it does happen :( so
there is no need to make an issue out of it.  

>LL>  3.	There are apparently some procedural problems with this new
>LL>  	standard that are troubling.  Of the fifteen members of the
>LL>  	Standard Committee, only seven were at the meeting and voted
>LL>  	on this new standard.  This strikes me as being a serious breech
>LL>  	of proper procedure.
>MB> Sounds really fishy to me.  I think it better get a second run threw.
>Don't they have to have a quarum of committee members present (a quarum
>generally being 2/3's)?  This sounds like grounds for the AKC to
>reject the proposed standard, even if what was written were flawless
>(it isn't).
 	Well, as I tried to indicate by saying "apparently", this is
something I heard second hand and I don't have confirmation of it so 
don't take it as gosple.  If it is true, I'm horrified!

>I would add #5 to this:  I beleive the proposed standard should not
>only include language that indicates that the dog LOOKS like it can
>work, but it should have to prove at least a minimum degree that it
>DOES work (ie. Make them be able to do at *least* JH work).
>(oh, I can see the flames comming over this....   ;-)   )
 
	Well, let me say this about that.  The LRC in its wisdom has long
required it's members to get a WC on their champions before they can advertise
them as such.  I'm sure that Chris doesn't think much of the WC test, but
it does show the basic instincts of a hunting dog.  Ability to mark, 
willingness to retrieve on land and water and to re-enter the water.  It
is an easy test, no doubt about it.  Something that I've seen proposed
(and ignored) is that for Field Champions, there should be a similar 
requirement.  The LRC should come up with a Conformation Certificate
(CC) that FCH's would have to obtain before they could advertise their
titles.  The CC would simply state that an AKC licensed conformation judge
has examined this dog and found it to be within the standard for the
breed (much as the WC says that the dog has the BASIC instincts necessary
to be a retriever).  I think that requiring a JH is like requiring a
FCH to be pointed in the breed ring.

>LL>  POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE NPS:
>LL>  The general description of the Labrador as written in the NPS is
>LL>  pretty good and represents an improvement over the current standard.
>LL>  In particular the section on "temperament" is particularly
>LL>  good.
>MB> YEPPPP!!!
>*nod*
> 
> 
>MB> You have a ligit. gripe is you as me.  We just revised the collie
>MB> standard and there was a huge fight over the sentence..
>MB> "In judging the collie the head qualities are of most importance."
>MB> When too much emphasis is placed on only one aspect of the breed, everyone
>MB> suffers.  Each dog should be evaluated on the OVERALL dog.
>MB> Then those dogs comming closest to the breed standard in all other areas
>MB> should be placed higher than those that have some faults according to the
>MB> standard.
>MB> The standard must not be biased to specific areas.
> 
>I agree.  Anytime one aspect is made more important than the whole, you
>just lost the whole.
> 
 	Bingo!!!

-=lizalee

-- 
Liza Lee Miller         My dogs are labradorable!     liza@leland.stanford.edu
Cibola Labradors            Field * Show * Fun                    415/326-5309
Cibola's Misty Mountain Hop--Hopper                   Mistypoint Kashmir--Kash
	            Campbellcroft Cibola Rosette -- Rosie
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs