From: saavik@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Marla Belzowski (K-9's))
Subject: Re: Proposed Standard for Labradors
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:38:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.234553.17665@leland.Stanford.EDU> lizalee@leland.Stanford.EDU (Liza L Miller) writes:
>By popular demand, here is the new proposed standard for the breed.
>I will try to read rpd in order to participate in the discussions on this
>topic and, of course, will remain available via email for further discussion.
>
--Standard deleted...
>----------
>(Reminder, the following opinions are just that OPINIONS!!!!!)
>
>
>Objections to the New Proposed Standard (NPS):
>
>1. 	Poorly written.  This document cannot be passed by the AKC as it
>	is not even written properly.  The grammar, spelling and punctuation
>	are appalling.

 TOTALLY AGREE!!!  I may not be the best speller in the world or
 the best at grammer, but in any OFFICIAL document I write I make sure
 the my spelling is correct at least.


>
>2.	The disqualifications are, in my opinion, not only unnecessary but
>	dangerous.  Disqualifing perfectly good or even outstanding dogs on the
>	basis of one and only one criteria strikes me as being short-sighted in
>	the slightest.  There is not currently a problem with height in 
>	Labradors and thus, fixing what "ain't broke" does not make sense.
>	The other disqualifications (pigmentation and docking) are either
>	better addressed as serious faults, or are already addressed in AKC
>	regulations.

I agree too.  Height is a crazy disqualification for Labs.  (A Fault
or a Major Fault may be necessary for extremely small or extremely
oversized Labs).  I prefer a larger Lab (I use to have a 110 lb female
Lab/golden that looked exctly like a large yellow Lab).  
I think maybe the color disqualification is justified (brindled or
black with tan spots), but the other pigmentation should be serious faults.
Docking is covered in the AKC rules I believe.


>
>3.	There are apparently some procedural problems with this new
>	standard that are troubling.  Of the fifteen members of the
>	Standard Committee, only seven were at the meeting and voted
>	on this new standard.  This strikes me as being a serious breech
>	of proper procedure.  
>

Sounds really fishy to me.  I think it better get a second run threw.  

>4.	The standard of the breed is meant to be a descriptive document
>	which outlines the ideal Labrador Retriever.  This document goes
>	beyond the call of duty and starts to lecture on problems and their
>	causes.  These topics would better be addressed in a book on Canine
>	Structure than in the standard of the breed.
>

Defininatly should not lecture on causes of faulty movement.  Any
competent judge should be able to see this!

>POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE NPS:
>
>The general description of the Labrador as written in the NPS is 
>pretty good and represents an improvement over the current standard.
>In particular the section on "temperament" is particularly 
>good.  
>

YEPPPP!!!

>
>
>-- 
>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


You have a ligit. gripe is you as me.  We just revised the collie
standard and there was a huge fight over the sentence..

In judging the collie the head qualities are of most importance.
					       ^^^^^^

Yea, right, so I can bring a stuffed collie head into the ring and
if it's better than any other dog's head in the ring I win.....beeepppp!!
WRONG!!!!

That is still the cause of a huge fight in the collie world.
I think way too much emphasis is placed on head and eye 
properties.  I've been seeing too much else get neglected because of
it ,(like a prejudice against NORMAL eyes because they are slightly
larger (well at least the dogs can SEE!!!)).  

When too much emphasis is placed on only one aspect of the breed, everyone
suffers.  Each dog should be evaluated on the OVERALL dog.  
Then those dogs comming closest to the breed standard in all other areas
should be placed higher than those that have some faults according to the
standard.  

The standard must not be biased to specific areas.  

I hope this helps some!!
Again, these are my opinions too.


---------------
Marla Belzowski      saavik@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Mauii Nikki Belzowski CD CGC TDI CERF
Brittish Legend of Beowulf CD CGC TDI CERF  tri-color collies
Legend's Year of Jubilee  S&W collie
RIP:  Mandy  2/78 -- 3/90  (golden/lab)