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 20:36:41 GMT

The following are the letters that Chris asked me to post to the 
net.  They are written by breeders or fanciers that have a real
concern about the new proposed standard.

Winnie Limbourne, a Labrador breeder in Southern California wrote the
following letter to the LRC membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------

You have been asked to approve a revised Breed Standard for
Labrador Retrievers, which includes the following five (5)
disqualifications relating to: height, docking, solid color,
pink nose, and pink eye rims.   These  disqualifications are
neither necessary nor desirable.   In fact, they have the
potential to hinder progress toward combined excellence in
both conformation and working qualities within the breed by
mandating that judges focus on relatively unimportant (cosmetic),
superficial characteristics rather than evaluating the overall
quality of the dog.

The Labrador is one of the few breeds which continues to exhibit
both superiority in its intended function (retrieving) and a
reasonable consistency of breed type.   As anyone who has attempted
to preserve all of these qualities within a specific line will tell
you, this is an extremely difficult task.   It has been possible
because in the past we have been unimpeded by insidious restrictions
such as the proposed disqualifications.   The faults specified in
these disqualifications are important, but not of MAJOR importance,
and consequently should be listed as FAULTS, and NOT disqualifications.

The difference (for those who are not familiar with conformation
judging) is enormous.   Designating a fault allows a judge to
consider the entire dog, weighing the faults against the virtues,
and eventually arrive at an overall evaluation with respect to 
other dogs present.   A disqualification becomes a characteristic
of supreme importance.  This single characteristic, if present,
eliminates the dog not only from present competition, but forbids 
it from entering any future competitions, regardless of the quality
of the other dogs which may be present.  NO OTHER POINTS ARE
CONSIDERED.   Furthermore, those who breed a dog with a disqualifying
fault will surely be called "unethical," no matter how superior that
dog may be in all other respects and no matter how superior the
progeny may prove to be.

To maintain the Labrador's superiority as a working retriever breed,
it is imperative that the Breed Standard place the utmost importance
on characteristics within the breed ring which influence the dog's
ability to retrieve (i.e. coat, temperament, movement, structure).
The proposed disqualifications have NO BEARING on retrieving, as
one can readily recognize by imagining them being applied to dogs
competing at a field trial.

The stated purpose of both field trials and bench shows is the
evaluation of breeding stock.   While the two events evaluate
different aspects of the Labrador, it makes no sense to impose
disqualifications on one group of breeding stock and not the
other, since the logical outcome would be the eventual establishment
of two varieties within the breed.

Finally, none of the proposed disqualifying characteristics are
so prevalent within the breed as a whole to warrant their elevation
from fault to disqualification status.

Since we feel that the long term consequences for the Labrador
Retriever resulting from the adoption of these disqualifications
has not been properly assessed, we ask for your support in
rejecting the proposed Labrador Retriever Breed Standard which
contains them.

-Concerned Labrador Fanciers

---------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the following has been sent to all breeder judges along
with a letter for them to sign stating that the revision is
unacceptable:

WHY TO VOTE "NO" on the Labrador Retriever Breed Standard Revision:

The new Labrador Retriever Standard has been sent to you to vote on.
We, as long time breeders, judges, and club officials feel you
should vote NO!

Along with the many changes that must be made in the general text
of the standard, it is very important that we have NO DISQUALIFICATIONS.

Disqualifications are a good way to ruin a breed.

		   PROPOSED DISQUALIFICATIONS

1. And deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
   A quality individual, undersized or oversized, should not be
   disqualified, while poor quality and mediocre individuals within
   the "size standard" be allowed to win.  This will do nothing to
   improve Labrador quality.
2. A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
   Judges will not be able to differentiate between a winter nose
   and a true poor pigment.
3. Eye rims without pigment.
   A dog with such poor pigment would be unlikely to win so why
   mention it.
4. Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail.
   Altered tails would be impossible to prove by a judge.
5. Any other color or a combination of colors other than black, yellow,
   or chocolate.
   Dead coat oxidizing and turning brown, red and yellow would be 
   mistakenly confused with mismarking.

Disqualifications are very serious.   A dog disqualified by three judges
may never be shown again.   The above disqualifications are superficial
and do nothing to improve the quality of our dogs.   Not one of the
disqualifications mentioned is a real problem in Labrador Retrievers at
the present time.  Why create major problems?

----------

(Message inbox:10)
To:      labradors@morningstar.com
From:    Vicki Blodgett <vicki@sco.com>
Subject: response to Nick M..
Date:    Fri, 8 Jan 93 20:22:45 PST
----------

Here's my response to that mail from Nick Mickelson on the
standard in case anyone's interested.  It's sort of long.
-vicki

> Hi Nick,
> I just wanted to respond to your mail about the standard with my
> own views - just didn't get around to putting them in writing until
> now.   Obviously alot of us have strong feelings about this and
> rightly so - it is extremely important to the future of the breed.
> 
>   > view on the issue. We should get away from what's popular and on to the 
>   > philosophical point about staying within the parameters that were set in 
>   > 1931--commandments versus guidelines.
> 
> I went back and looked at the text of the original standard and didn't
> see any language pertaining to height that was different from the current
> language.
> 
>   > The heights have been the same since 1931. The ideal for bitches is 22.5"
 
>   > and for dogs it is 23.5" with a 1" deviation on either side of ideal.
>   > That's a 2" deviation for each sex in the breed. Why do we need to have
>   > a 2.5, 3, or 3.5 inch deviation?
> 
> Nobody I know is saying that we should have a larger deviation from the
> ideal.    I think that the current standard describes the ideal heights
> perfectly well.   What *I* object to, and what others are objecting to,
> is making any deviation a disqualification!   There's no reason for that!
> Surely you can't seriously argue that a bitch that is 21.35 inches will
> be unable to do an admirable job as a retriever compared to one that
> is 21.5 inches.   Or that a 24.60-inch dog is substantially less able
> to work than a 24.5 incher?
> 
>    >  It's impossible to believe that a dog that is 20" is the 
>    > same breed as the one that is 27".
> 
> Well again, I'm certainly not arguing that we should change the ideal
> heights.  As you said, they were stated as the ideals by people who
> had substantial experience with the breed.
> 
>    > The argument that one must overlook a good "short" or "tall" dog to plac
e 
>    > an inferior dog within the Standard is a red herring. It presumes that
>    > all the good dogs are out of the height Standard and that none can be
>    > found within.
> 
> I disagree with this.   If the entire population of the breed was judged
> at every show, that might be true.   But at any show on any day, the
> *best* dog in the ring could very possibly be one whose main fault is
> height (nobody claims that *any* dog is free from faults).   That dog
> should win if in the opinion of the judge the dog's strengths outweigh
> its deviation from the ideal height.   Deviation from ideal height is
> a fault like *any* other fault.   It should be taken into consideration
> just like any other fault.  But it should *not* immediately cause a
> disqualification.
> 
>    > I believe that the height requirements have been ignored and shouldn't b
e. 
> 
> Well as you say, that's your *belief* and you're certainly within your
> rights to believe that.   I happen to disagree that height requirements
> have been ignored.   We don't have a big problem in this area or anywhere
> on this coast at least!   I think in some areas of the country there are
> alot of small dogs.  Those dogs as a group do have alot of other strengths
> though.  And those lines could be potentially very useful to breeders in
> other areas who happen to have problems with large dogs.
> 
> Anyway, if the LRC powers-that-be are so worried about heights, why not
> issue some sort of statement to Labrador judges that they feel height should
> be looked at more seriously?  I know other parent clubs issue such letters
> as they see fit.  Why start with such an extreme as disqualifications?
> 
>   > go 45; if it says 45, we go 50. Just because it has become customary
>   > to ignore the rules doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> Again, I disagree that it's "customary" to *ignore* the height standard.
> 
>   > It stops when those of us who care to maintain the breed as it was
>   > intended forget what's good for our own dogs and make personal
>   > sacrifices to get back on track.
> 
> This sort of statement seems inflammatory to me.  It implies that
> breeders who have lines that tend toward small or tend toward large
> don't care about maintaining the breed as it was intended.   We could
> get into all *sorts* of arguments here about individual breeders and
> how they handle their breeding programs!!   And that would not be
> very constructive.
> 
>   > It means we have to admit that we have (inadvertently) ignored the 
>   > Standard
> 
> Again, I disagree with this as a general statement.
> 
>   > and allowed ourselves to believe that a 2.5" deviation is not
>   > really as bad as a large white spot, or a straight front, or a domed
>   > head, or a silver color, or an aggressive temperament, etc. They are all
>   > going to have different and varying degrees of devastating affect on the
>   > breed, but they are all wrong.
> 
> I agree that they're all wrong.   So why don't we disqualify dogs with 
> straight fronts or domed heads?   I think I could make a very convincing
> argument that a straight front is a much more devastating fault
> for a working retriever than a small deviation from the ideal height!
> You spoke of "commandments versus guidelines"; why should the height
> ideals be any more of a commandment than the description of the
> ideal head or ideal rear?
> 
>   > No amount of rationalizing and excusing is going to make them right
>   > by the CURRENT Standard either.
> 
> Certainly no argument from me that faults are faults and they should
> be treated as such!
> 
>   > The heights were not based on the personal idiosyncrasies.
>   > That's 
>   > what we hear no matter who is on the committee, no matter what they 
>   > proposed--when it's different from those who don't agrees' dogs.
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying here.
> 
>   > I think that if we all choose and breed carefully and within the Standard
, 
>   > we can have at least a good a dog as we currently have-and-within the
>   > heights.
> 
> Sure, if you decide that in *your* breeding program one of your main
> concerns is ideal height, then of *course* you can do that.  Other
> breeders might have different prerogatives within their own program
> and for their own set of faults and strengths in their dogs.   It's
> their prerogative to choose what they're working on improving within
> a given generation as long as they're working toward the ideal in the
> long run.  But why should Breeder A's dogs be disqualified for small
> deviations from the ideal height any more than Breeder B's dogs should
> be disqualified because they happen to be cow-hocked or have whippet-like
> bodies?  The proof of the pudding in a breeding program is the opinion
> of the judges and the judges all read the same standard, with the same
> height restrictions!   If LRC thinks our judges aren't doing a good job
> of judging according to the standard, then they should get on the ball
> with judges' education!
> 
>   > Lastly, the DQ DOES apply to the hunt test and field people's dogs too. I
t 
>   > applies to the backyard breeder and the puppy mill Labradors as well.
>   > But, if they don't swim in our pool, it's hard to measure their success
>   > and failure.  Unfortunately, the AKC doesn't permit field event judges
>   > to enforce the conformation rules.
> 
> Ok fine.  Assuming that's true (my understanding is that there are at
> least one or two breeds that do disqualify field dogs with disqualifying
> faults but I don't know the details - I'm working on finding out), if LRC
> is so worried about heights, why not require some sort of bench
> certificate for field trial champions, analogous to WC's for bench
> champions?   They would have to pass a certain level of conformance to
> the standard before their owners could advertise them as champions.
> I certainly think that would be good for the breed if the parent club
> required FTCH's to have some sort of minimum conformance to their own
> breed standard! 
> 
> As an aside, I'm sure you're aware that there's a certain level of
> resentment happening in the bench community because a largely
> field-trial-oriented group is mandating the text of the standard,
> and that same group largely ignores the standard in practice.  You
> yourself said that conformation is mostly "outside the field of
> expertise" of field trial *judges*.  What does that say about the
> average field-trial-oriented LRC member (I assume most of them are
> not judges)?  I know we're not alone in this sort of resentment.
> I clearly remember Nelson Sills himself expressing his resentment
> that the AKC delegates as a body could change the field trial rules.
> 
> I really wish the procedures the standard revision committee used
> this time had been different from the last go-around!   Why are they
> in such a rush to push this thing through?   Why not first send the
> text to an editor for review (obviously that didn't happen).  Why
> not publish the proposal at *least* in the LRC newsletter for comment
> before taking it to the membership for a vote?   Why send the thing
> out for a vote over the *holidays*, the time of year when people
> have the *least* amount of time to devote to an important issue?
> And why use underhanded procedures like urging a yes vote printed ON
> THE BALLOT ITSELF!   The population of members who know very little
> about the issues most likely will read only that.   Not subtle,
> not impartial, and certainly divisive!
> 
> Thanks for your views;  if you're still with me I'd like to hear
> your opinions on the above.
> -vicki
----------

Return-Path: liza@pangea.stanford.edu
Return-Path: <liza@pangea.stanford.edu>
Received:  by leland.Stanford.EDU (5.57/25-eef) id AA09801; Wed, 6 Jan 93 22:36:26 -0800
Received: by pangea.Stanford.EDU (5.57/inc-1.0)
	id AA29183; Wed, 6 Jan 93 22:36:25 -0800
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 22:36:25 -0800
From: liza@pangea.stanford.edu (Liza Miller)
Message-Id: <9301070636.AA29183@pangea.Stanford.EDU>
To: lizalee@leland.stanford.edu
Status: O

Winnie Limbourne, a Labrador breeder in Southern California wrote the
following letter to the LRC membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------

You have been asked to approve a revised Breed Standard for
Labrador Retrievers, which includes the following five (5)
disqualifications relating to: height, docking, solid color,
pink nose, and pink eye rims.   These  disqualifications are
neither necessary nor desirable.   In fact, they have the
potential to hinder progress toward combined excellence in
both conformation and working qualities within the breed by
mandating that judges focus on relatively unimportant (cosmetic),
superficial characteristics rather than evaluating the overall
quality of the dog.

The Labrador is one of the few breeds which continues to exhibit
both superiority in its intended function (retrieving) and a
reasonable consistency of breed type.   As anyone who has attempted
to preserve all of these qualities within a specific line will tell
you, this is an extremely difficult task.   It has been possible
because in the past we have been unimpeded by insidious restrictions
such as the proposed disqualifications.   The faults specified in
these disqualifications are important, but not of MAJOR importance,
and consequently should be listed as FAULTS, and NOT disqualifications.

The difference (for those who are not familiar with conformation
judging) is enormous.   Designating a fault allows a judge to
consider the entire dog, weighing the faults against the virtues,
and eventually arrive at an overall evaluation with respect to 
other dogs present.   A disqualification becomes a characteristic
of supreme importance.  This single characteristic, if present,
eliminates the dog not only from present competition, but forbids 
it from entering any future competitions, regardless of the quality
of the other dogs which may be present.  NO OTHER POINTS ARE
CONSIDERED.   Furthermore, those who breed a dog with a disqualifying
fault will surely be called "unethical," no matter how superior that
dog may be in all other respects and no matter how superior the
progeny may prove to be.

To maintain the Labrador's superiority as a working retriever breed,
it is imperative that the Breed Standard place the utmost importance
on characteristics within the breed ring which influence the dog's
ability to retrieve (i.e. coat, temperament, movement, structure).
The proposed disqualifications have NO BEARING on retrieving, as
one can readily recognize by imagining them being applied to dogs
competing at a field trial.

The stated purpose of both field trials and bench shows is the
evaluation of breeding stock.   While the two events evaluate
different aspects of the Labrador, it makes no sense to impose
disqualifications on one group of breeding stock and not the
other, since the logical outcome would be the eventual establishment
of two varieties within the breed.

Finally, none of the proposed disqualifying characteristics are
so prevalent within the breed as a whole to warrant their elevation
from fault to disqualification status.

Since we feel that the long term consequences for the Labrador
Retriever resulting from the adoption of these disqualifications
has not been properly assessed, we ask for your support in
rejecting the proposed Labrador Retriever Breed Standard which
contains them.

-Concerned Labrador Fanciers

---------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the following has been sent to all breeder judges along
with a letter for them to sign stating that the revision is
unacceptable:

WHY TO VOTE "NO" on the Labrador Retriever Breed Standard Revision:

The new Labrador Retriever Standard has been sent to you to vote on.
We, as long time breeders, judges, and club officials feel you
should vote NO!

Along with the many changes that must be made in the general text
of the standard, it is very important that we have NO DISQUALIFICATIONS.

Disqualifications are a good way to ruin a breed.

		   PROPOSED DISQUALIFICATIONS

1. And deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
   A quality individual, undersized or oversized, should not be
   disqualified, while poor quality and mediocre individuals within
   the "size standard" be allowed to win.  This will do nothing to
   improve Labrador quality.
2. A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
   Judges will not be able to differentiate between a winter nose
   and a true poor pigment.
3. Eye rims without pigment.
   A dog with such poor pigment would be unlikely to win so why
   mention it.
4. Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail.
   Altered tails would be impossible to prove by a judge.
5. Any other color or a combination of colors other than black, yellow,
   or chocolate.
   Dead coat oxidizing and turning brown, red and yellow would be 
   mistakenly confused with mismarking.

Disqualifications are very serious.   A dog disqualified by three judges
may never be shown again.   The above disqualifications are superficial
and do nothing to improve the quality of our dogs.   Not one of the
disqualifications mentioned is a real problem in Labrador Retrievers at
the present time.  Why create major problems?

----------

Return-Path: labradors-request@MorningStar.Com 
Delivery-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:07:40 -0800
Return-Path: labradors-request@MorningStar.Com
Return-Path: <labradors-request@MorningStar.Com>
Received: by pangea.Stanford.EDU (5.57/inc-1.0)
	id AA11584; Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:07:40 -0800
Received: from volitans.MorningStar.Com by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.1/4.7); Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:07:10 PST
Received: by volitans.MorningStar.Com (5.65a/92042102)
	id AA13996; Wed, 23 Dec 92 14:05:17 -0500
Reply-To: labradors@MorningStar.Com
Errors-To: labradors-request@MorningStar.Com
Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu by volitans.MorningStar.Com (5.65a/92042102)
	id AA13991; Wed, 23 Dec 92 14:05:01 -0500
Received: from alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu by Paris.ics.uci.edu id aa23356;
          23 Dec 92 11:01 PST
To: Labbers <labradors@MorningStar.Com>
Subject: revised letter
Organization: University of California, Irvine: ICS Department
>From: Cindy Tittle Moore <tittle@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 11:01:57 -0800
Message-Id: <19728.725137317@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu>
Status: O


I revised my letter a bit as per comments.  Any further comments?
In particular the new sentence near the end talking about the
non show ring point of view of disqualifications?  Should I leave
that in or take it out entirely?

Thanks,

\documentstyle[12pt]{letter}

\address
{P.O. Box 4188 \\ Irvine, CA 92716-4188}

\signature
{Cindy Tittle Moore}

\begin{document}
\begin{letter}
{
Dr. Bernard Ziessow\\
32695 Redfern\\
Franklin, MI 48025
}

\opening{To Whom It May Concern:}

I am writing to you about the proposed standard of the breed for the
Labrador Retriever.  I feel that it has some serious problems and
should be rejected in its present form.

Not the least of its problems is the embarrassing quality of writing.
There are misspellings (``snippiness'' for ``snipiness''), errors of
grammar, and other mistakes that would make any self-respecting
proof-reader cringe.  At the least, the document needs to be edited
thoroughly for these mistakes.

The most significant problem, in my mind, is the inclusion of
disqualifications in the proposed standard.  For example, calling any
variance outside the height recommendations a disqualification is
ludicrous.  We may as well shut down the Puppy and Novice classes in
the show ring --- any young dog that has not yet reached its adult
height will not be shown for fear of banishment from the ring should
it collect enough disqualifications.  Conversely, what of the dog that
is shown young and gains its Championship while it is within the
height limits, and then grows too tall?  Should its Championship be
stripped?  And what of the dog that is an excellent specimen in every
way except that it is over- or under- height?  Is it then the
ruination of the breed?  I think not, for height is one of the easiest
variables to control, and breeding with a larger or smaller dog, as
appropriate, will keep the offspring from becoming too large or too
small while preserving the other outstanding qualities of that dog.

The disqualifications listed for coat colors are unreasonable.  A dog
that is out of coat, shedding a winter or summer coat, or growing out
sun-exposed hair may be subjected to an unfair disqualification.
Describing coat deviances as faults as is currently done is more than
sufficient.

The sections describing the general appearance of the Labrador
Retriever are generally good, with the exception of the
listed disqualifications.  I would like to see some description of the
Labrador's ideal expression added.

The section on movement starts out very well, however it concludes
with the following:

\begin{quote}
A short, choppy movement or high knee action indicates a straight
shoulder; paddling indicates long, weak pasterns; and a short, stilted
rear gait indicates a straight rear assembly all are serious faults
(sic).  Movement faults interfering with performance include weaving;
side-winding; crossing over; high knee action; paddling; and short,
choppy movement, should be severely penalized.
\end{quote}

Why on earth is the standard describing some of the {\it causes} of
poor movement?  The standard is not an educational document, it is a
description of the ideal for the breed.

\begin{quote}
    True Labrador Retriever temperament is as much a hallmark of the
breed as the ``otter'' tail.  The ideal disposition is one of a kindly,
outgoing, tractable nature; eager to please and non-aggressive towards
man or animal.  The Labrador has much that appeals to people; his
gentle ways, intelligence and adaptability make him an ideal dog.
Aggressiveness towards human or other animals, or any evidence of
shyness in an adult should be severely penalized.
\end{quote}

I am delighted to see this description of the Labrador Retriever's
temperament.  I hope that this remains in the proposed revisions.

\begin{quote}
Disqualifications:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item Any deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
    \item A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
    \item Eye rims without pigment.
    \item Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the 
	tail.
    \item Any other color or a combination of colors other than black, yellow
	or chocolate as described in the Standard.
\end{enumerate}
\end{quote}

I have serious reservations about the inclusion of disqualifications
in the proposed standard.  It is my opinion that this will encourage
the appearance of dogs that merely do not disqualify in the ring,
rather than dogs that strive to meet the standard of an ideal
Labrador.  A positive description in the standard would encourage the
latter rather than the former.  It is my opinion that the above items
should be considered faults and penalized appropriately (as they are
now).  In addition, since the standard is intended to describe {\it
all} Labradors, the inclusion of disqualifications is ludicrous from a
non-show ring point of view.

In spite of some of the admirable sections of the proposed standard, I
feel that its flaws render it unacceptable and urge you to futher
revise it into a document that the Labrador Retriever fancy can be
proud of.

\closing{Sincerely,}

\cc{
A. Nelson Sills\\
President, LRC\\
RD 1, Box 122D\\
Houston, DE 19954\\

Christopher Wincek\\
Secretary, LRC\\
9690 Wilson Mills Rd.\\
Chardon, OH 44024\\

Jim Edwards\\
AKC Standards Revision Committee\\
51 Madison Avenue\\
New York, NY  10010\\
}

\end{letter}
\end{document}



(Message inbox:13)
To:      labradors@MorningStar.Com
>From:    Vicki Blodgett <vicki@sco.com>
Subject: standard again
Date:    Thu, 31 Dec 92 17:55:28 PST
----------

I've included a letter here that I got from Nick Mickelson
about the proposed standard revision.  Thought it might be
of interest.   I disagree with him and intend to respond but
haven't done it yet.
-vicki

---------------------------------------------------------
On the Standard and the disqualification for height. I'd like to offer my 
view on the issue. We should get away from what's popular and on to the 
philosophical point about staying within the parameters that were set in 
1931--commandments versus guidelines.
I was not a proponent of the DQ. I still think it would have been better to 
have made it a serious fault for 5 years, evaluate the results and affects, and
move 
from that point to a DQ if needed. But I have been giving the issue a lot of 
thought and am convinced that we need to do something about the continuing 
trends in heights--on both sides.
The heights have been the same since 1931. The ideal for bitches is 22.5" 
and for dogs it is 23.5" with a 1" deviation on either side of ideal. That's a
2" 
deviation for each sex in the breed. Why do we need to have a 2.5, 3, or 3.5
inch 
deviation? We are heading toward cats (soft, double coats, lovable and small)
and 
elks (tall, rangy, and wild). It's impossible to believe that a dog that is 20"
is the 
same breed as the one that is 27".
The argument that one must overlook a good "short" or "tall" dog to place 
an inferior dog within the Standard is a red herring. It presumes that all the
good 
dogs are out of the height Standard and that none can be found within.
I believe that the height requirements have been ignored and shouldn't be. 
I also believe that the height standard is like a speed limit--if it says 35
MPH, we 
go 45; if it says 45, we go 50. Just because it has become customary to ignore
the 
rules doesn't mean it's right. It has to stop somewhere. It stops when those of
us 
who care to maintain the breed as it was intended forget what's good for our ow
n

dogs and make personal sacrifices to get back on track.
It means we have to admit that we have (inadvertently) ignored the 
Standard and allowed ourselves to believe that a 2.5" deviation is not really a
s

bad as a large white spot, or a straight front, or a domed head, or a silver
color, or 
an aggressive temperament, etc. They are all going to have different and varyin
g

degrees of devastating affect on the breed, but they are all wrong. No amount o
f

rationalizing and excusing is going to make them right by the CURRENT 
Standard either. The heights were not based on the personal idiosyncrasies.
That's 
what we hear no matter who is on the committee, no matter what they 
proposed--when it's different from those who don't agrees' dogs.
I think that if we all choose and breed carefully and within the Standard, 
we can have at least a good a dog as we currently have-and-within the heights.
It 
will take some changes to our decisions and to our model, but it can be done by
 
breeding the best of what we have to the best of what is correct. There is
nothing 
that says that we can't have a good looking, sound, working retriever that is 
within the 21.5" to 24.5" size. There must have been some at one time or they 
wouldn't have written the Standard the way they did.
Lastly, the DQ DOES apply to the hunt test and field people's dogs too. It 
applies to the backyard breeder and the puppy mill Labradors as well. But, if
they 
don't swim in our pool, it's hard to measure their success and failure.
Unfortunately, the AKC doesn't permit field event judges to enforce the 
conformation rules. That's because the majority of the field, and a lot of hunt
test, 
people don't breed and are not qualified to judge on conformation (No more than
 
the strictly conformation people are capable of evaluating a dog's working 
ability!). That doesn't mean that they can't appreciate a good dog, but they 
shouldn't be making decisions out of their field of expertise.


----------

(Message inbox:6)
To:      labradors@MorningStar.Com
>From:    ltoms@oclc.org (Laura Toms)
Subject: the proposed standard
Date:    Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:11:40 EST
----------

I thought y'all, especially Vicki, would be interested to see Sally Bell's
"Prez Notes" regarding the proposed standard.  She defended the LRC last
time but this time she doesn't.  She's *very* influential in this area and
I know she's already told at least Chris Wincek what she thinks.  I'll also
add that I have recieved a letter from the LRCSC urging me to vote NO on
the proposed standard, and a copy of a letter sent by the board of the LRCP
condemning it.  People are pissed, as well they should be; a little more
effort would have turned this into a workable, acceptable standard, but it
seems the LRC *still* believes the way to do this is to "railroad it 
through", to quote Nick Mickelson on what they tried to do last time around.

Laura

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends:

The LRC is again attempting to revise the standard of our breed.  When this
was tried several years ago, it accomplished only dividing this already
fragile club into warring camps.  This revision is better, yet not what many
of us had hoped for.  The new proposal calls for a height disqualification.
The Labrador, the most popular of all breeds, has many problems, however,
being under 21 inches or over 24 inches is not one of them.  We only occa-
sionally see an unusually large dog that consistently wins, and when one
does, it has to have enough other merits to accumulate 15 championship
points in today's heavy competition.  The proposed standard does not even
allow leeway in inches of any kind.

Regional clubs across the country are donating funds for a mailing to move
for, at least a time period of discussion and input, money that could be
spent in other directions if this was no necessary.  Again the LRC, in a
hurry to push this through, sent out the balots in the Christmas mail to
be returned by January 15.

The new standard, although definitely an improvement over the last attempted
revision, is long and negative.  The description of our breed should be a
positive effort to bring into your mind the ideal Labrador.  Disqualifications
will complicate our lives and they are unnecessary.  Pink noses and eye rims
will be difficult to prove; it could simply be winter fading.  And why are
the people on the standard committee so possessed with the idea that show 
dogs have docked tails?!  In my 28 years in the breed, I have seen no dogs
that I was convinced had docked tails.  Could it be that so many Labradors
in field competition have tails so long that they make the bench dogs short
in comparison?!!

That is their problem, not ours and it is foolish in the standard -- it sounds
very much like on person's bug-a-boo.  The height disqualification is absurd
and will serve only to make a larger division in our club.  It seems obvious
that if it is so strongly felt that to be an ideal Labrador it must fall
within these height perimeters then it should pertain to all Labradors in all
competitions.  Surely those running field trials would not want to ruin a dog
untypical of the breed.  Let's diqualify over and undersized Labradors in all
AKC events if this is truly what the LRC wants!

The standard was not published in the LRC newsletter as promised, it was
rushed through at a time of year where everyone's life is complicated.  Mr.
Sills is disappointing and Mr. Ziessow should follow his own guidelines.

I defended the LRC's policies in the past.  But I feel alienated and taken
advantage of.  The LRC is not listening and seems not interested in doing so.

It's time to take a stand.  Vote NO on the standard revision.

Fondly,
Sally


----------

-- 
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