The Lab on the left is obese. However, in America, we like to breed our Labs larger, even if they aren't overweight.
Over the years, I’ve noticed something about pet-line Labradors.
People who market these dogs almost always offer two types.
One of these is the English type, which I have often heard referred to as the “Bentley.” These dogs are particularly sought after because they are derived from European show lines and are quite calm and placid.
In theory, of course.
Many of these dogs don’t live up to the hype of being super calm and some, like some golden retrievers, can be quite surly.
But of particular interest to me is the other way pet quality Labs are marketed: it’s gonna be a big dog!
Although most field and American show line Labs are in the 55-80 pound range and virtually all English Labs fit that definition, most of the Labs I see are in the 90 pounds or more range.
Large size does not have much utility for a working dog, and in the real world, smaller size does have its advantages.
I know of breeders of field line Labs that produce “canoe” Labs that are smaller than normal. The term comes from a possible linkage between these so-called “canoe dogs” that acted as retrievers for the native peoples of the Northeast and Eastern Canada. Speculatively, I have suggested that these dogs are related to the St. John’s water dogs and the Newfoundlands, which means they are possible ancestors of the retrievers. (Here’s a photo of a canoe dog. It looks like small Labrador with prick ears and a bushy tail.) Canoe dogs were about 30 pound or so in weight, and canoe Labradors tend to be in the 30-45 pound range.
The only reason to breed a super large Labrador is to sell puppies.
It’s also great for the ego.
I’m sure the conversations go something like this:
My Lab is bigger than yours.
Does it retrieve or listen to commands?
No. But he’s 130 pounds and built like an Angus bull.
I have looked at the histor of Labradors and other retrievers rather closely, and I can tell you with certainty that the St.John’s water dog, the ancestral Labrador, was never a giant dog.
Now, the other Newfoundland was historically used as a retrievers on estate shoots. In the nineteenth century, virtually all of the dogs in that particular breed were Landseers. They may have played some role in the development of retrievers, although their large size and slowness were always problematic.
However, I don’t think it’s exactly correct to think of these dogs as a model on which we could assume the conformation of the modern Labrador retriever. A big lumbering dog is by definition at a disadvantage as a retriever. It simply cannot swim with the speed necessary to do its work. It is also going to overheat more easily, simply because it is bigger. If one his hunting ducks, a big dog takes up more space on a boat or blind.
But none of this matters in the realm of selling pets.
Get a couple of guys bragging about the size of their dogs, and you soon have a perfect market.
Bigger is better.
It doesn’t matter that large size puts strain on the dog’s heart or make it more prone to various dysplasias as it grows.
Bigger is better.
I’ve noted this tendency exists in golden retrievers, but it is at a much lower level. I hope it stays this way, because goldens can’t stand any further fad breeding and remain viable as a strain.
However, it has happened to virtually all large gentle dogs that are in demand as family pets.
Does anyone seriously believe that St. Bernards always weighed 200 pounds?
If it happened to that breed, why couldn’t this happen to the retrievers?
Virtually all the pet Labs I see are huge.
It’s what people want.
I’m honestly suprised they haven’t made up a cock-and-bull story about the size of these dogs, something like the Roman Rottweilers or reconstructed dire wolf.
But maybe the desire to brag about size is enough to get people to accept such huge dogs.
These big Labs are so common, that people are often surprised when they find out how big their breed standard requires them to be.
It’s almost like you made something up or uttered the phrase “Nova Scotia Duck Tolling retriever.”
We’ve become so accustomed to seeing giant Labs that they now seem normal.
I hope for the sake of the dogs that we don’t continue to demand an increase in size.
Of course, serious Labrador people are going to breed normally sized dogs.
The pet people can just keep breeding ‘em bigger and bigger.
Some random thoughts from someone with a Lab that no one believes is a Lab:
I think it’s the pet-people that are straying the furthest at the moment.
Sometimes I think the better bunch of show people get a bad rap when it comes to their dogs’ size. There have been some thick-but-still-a-Lab breed stars the past couple of years, so there’s some indication that the show dogs may be trending to more moderate these days (I’m not convinced, but I don’t see a whole lot of show Labs, either).
And adding a little bulk to hide some faults on a dog that otherwise fits the standard (like a weaker front, or too much tuck, or such) is a far lesser sin (not for the individual dog, perhaps, but for the breed) than breeding giants.
If I wanted a Lab, I’d want a “canoe” Lab. Medium sized dogs are the best, imo.
The surprise factor exists with correctly sized Pit Bull Terriers too. I cannot tell you how many times people believe Mina is a mixed breed b/c “Pit Bulls can’t be that small!” At 38-40 lbs, Mina is the ideal size for a Pit Bull and, quite frankly, the perfect size for a pet dog. In my not so humble opinion, of course.
For the record, from the standard:
“Size–The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds.
For the record – ;) – “Ideal height at withers: dogs: 56-57 cms (22-22 1/2 ins); bitches: 55-56 cms (21 1/2-22 ins)” says the breed standard in the country of the breed’s origin… No mention whatsoever regarding the weight!
As far as I know AKC has its very own interpretations on several breeds’ standards.
The AKC has nothing to do with the FCI.
Nothing.
No it hasn’t! Neither has the British KC – but the KC did accept the Lab breed standard written in 1916 by the UK Labrador Breed Club.
Well, US labs are judged by your standards and the rest by UK standards… ;)
Well, we are a bigger country.
Maybe we need a bigger dog.
But wait, by that logic, the Russians would have the need for the biggest Labs, and they use the KC/FCI standard!
Probably so! Shan’t we watch how they proceed with the breed? ;)
- And the rest of us in smaller countries just keep on breeding moderate/reasonable size labradors… :)
Luxembourg would have cavalier-sized Labs.
Monaco– papillon sized.
The Vatican– tea cup chihuahua sized.
Oh no, not a good idea! Let’s just keep within the breed standard (UK) ;)
Anyhow, that’s what I do. So, that they’ll be able to do the work they were intended to do! :)
well…Russians do have the biggest terrier, the Black Russian Terrier…Terrier in name only
I should perhaps have been more specific.
The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. is the AKC parent club of the breed. The LRC sets the standard for AKC shows.
In the US, under the AKC, as set forth in the standard by the Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. is what I quoted above.
http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed+Standard
One would think that the opening sentence of the standard…
“The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion.”
… would preclude it from being either 35 pounds or 95 pounds, but I guess people like and need rules.
There are different rules elsewhere and for different clubs and registeries. I’m too cranky to look them up. I live in Ohio and have an AKC registered Lab, so it’s the one I go by.
In the real world, Labs vary from 30 pounds to 140 pounds in weight.
In a some of the field line dogs, you get 35 pounders and 80 pounders in the same litter.
Interestingly, red wolves and Mexican wolves often had this same problem, and it was decided that if this happened, the coyotes had been getting to the wolves.
“In a some of the field line dogs, you get 35 pounders and 80 pounders in the same litter.”
Example, perhaps?
I know a golden litter where the largest dog was a tall 80 and the smallest bitch was a petite 50, but that’s the most extreme I’ve ever heard of.
Most breeders–even Lab field breeders!–would find the variation you cite above a sign that the litter is inconsistent in other ways as well, and be disappointed in the match.
Mark Derr describes two litter mates in Dog’s Best Friend that were working a plantation shoot.
The bitch was 35 pounds– a yellow. The dog was 80 pounds and black.
Interesting. Thank you.
(IMO this must be an anomaly.)
Canoe Labs at Robert Milner’s kennels:
http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/canoelabs.php
I rather think Milner is a high-class… um…. high-volume breeder, shall we say.
http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/puppies.php
http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/parents.php
And I rather think he isn’t concerned with the standard.
“Our canoe Labradors are bred to be a smaller size. They typically range from 35 to 50 lbs. [...] Our sire for canoe labs is Duckhill Paco, a fine gundog with good disposition weighing in at 42 lbs.” http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/canoelabs.php
That doesn’t mean I think they’re the worst dogs in the world someone could buy. They come with a standard health guarantee and he does the clearances, and he has honest testimonials and fans. By all accounts he has a nice operation and healthy dogs.
But he charges a sizable (not outrageous) sum of money for one hell of a lot of dogs, some intentionally bred outside the standard.
Whether that’s something someone wants to participate in as a consumer is his or choice. One could do worse, and it may be just the right thing for a person, and the Lab seems to be a pretty resilient breed, so I don’t get all riled up about it.
But I choose not pretend the man is a small-time hobbyist (despite his tweeds), I think anyone with a marketing machine like his deserves a critical look-see, and I don’t think he gives a hoot about breeding Labs that meet the standard in terms of size–if he can sell itty-bitty Labs with a hunting spin to his pitch, he’s going to do it.
My comment is awaiting moderation! Oh no!
Is it the links, or the “hell” (as in “one hell of a lot”) I threw in there?
I tried so hard to be nice about Milner without sacrificing my integrity…
That’s what happens when you leave more than two links.
Some advertizing I’d say! However the size of my vehicle – canoe or a car wouldn’t dictate the size/weight of a a dog I’d obtain…
By the way, the pedigrees of the dogs are fabulous!
remember, ‘field’ lines are often bred with little regard to the show standard, and will concentrate on characteristics that make them good for hunters (or whatever the task) even if it conflicts with the standard.
lots of field line Irish Setters have white splotches, and no one cares a long as the best bird-getters are crossed with the best bird-getters, while keeping a close eye on health and temperment
He he. Will anyone ever FORGET???
I agree that ‘field’ lines are too often bred without regard to the standard. (Milner and his “canoe” dogs drive me nuts.) But so do the show folks. “Moderate”? Excuse me??
IME most ‘field’ lines come from breeders who are at least as attentive to if not more attentive to the standard than the show folks–they just don’t get the credit, because the show AND PET folks who breed outside the standard are given a pass on basic characteristics (like size) for some reason.
Part of my point is that there is NO “Show” standard. The standard is the standard. The standard is the basic description of the breed. When folks start breeding “canoe dogs” or whatever, they are breeding outside of the standard, and while a person can do whatever floats their boat (literally), let’s not call it something it’s not.
As far as field lines being “often bred with little regard to the [show] standard,” I agree there are some ugly field dogs out there–but when you compare today’s field dogs with show dogs of 40 and 50 years ago (this is the 60s and 70s–modern times!), the field dogs look like Labs! The show and pet dogs of today, sometimes not so much.
Most working field line Irish setters have divorced themselves from the AKC standard, BTW.
you really have to define what the ‘standard’ is. Some will say it is the ‘target’ of a good breeder. It is not. The standard is a list of characteristics a judge should use for awarding ribbons. That is all.
Now, if the dog is competing in something other than conformation, the ‘standard’ isn’t worth the paper it is written on.
Heck, if your lab is in a Frisbee catching competition, the standard is irrelevant.
Now, you take two frisbee champions who are both papered labs and you breed them, the pups are purebred, even if after a few generations of this you get a dog very different from the standard.
What suprises me isn’t that field lines differ from the standard…it’s that field lines even bother with trying to stay ‘pure’ Of course, true field lines don’t. Take a look at the top running huskies…most of those have pointer blood infused in them. Take a look at hog hunting hounds, most of those dogs are mixes of hound and pitbull.
BUT, some field breeders do decide to stick with a breed. In my eyes a breeder who creates a dog whose purpose is the same as the original dogs, they are closer to true examples of that type than a dog that matches the standard.
To use an example: Which of the two is closer to a perfect representative of the breed?
Border Collie A, who matches the standard to a T, but freaks out at the sight of sheep?
Border Collie B, who masterfully works the herd, but it’s black and white coat is matched with blue eyes, and his skull is domed?
I’d say Border Collie B is..and the shepherder to breeds to blue eyed (non merle) dome-skulled dogs together because those two dogs are the best sheep movers in the tri-state area, well, he is being more true to the DOG than any show breeder.
It’s like X marks the spot, and everyone fixates on X…not on the actual spot X is trying to designate.
“you really have to define what the ‘standard’ is. Some will say it is the ‘target’ of a good breeder. It is not. The standard is a list of characteristics a judge should use for awarding ribbons. That is all.”
Forgive my bluntness–I’m really a very diplomatic person, in person–But–You don’t know what a standard is.
“What surprises me isn’t that field lines differ from the standard…it’s that field lines even bother with trying to stay ‘pure’ Of course, true field lines don’t.”
The Lab standard, the golden standard, the flat-coat standard, the Chessie standard, the curly standard, the NSDTR standard, the poodle standard… All include temperament specifications that help to define the breed. Those who know the breeds well also appreciate the nuances of the breeds, as well as the general “retriever” temperament and working traits. “Pure” for a Lab-lover or a flat-coat afficionado has as much to do with a predictable personality and look and energy as retrieving ability. “Pure”, whatever. We want the breed. How are they not “pure field lines”? They are breeds. If you don’t like the idea of breeds, that’s a different argument.
In terms of looks–please reread my post. I was trying to assert that in retrievers, the field lines are IMO MORE true to the standard! Look at photos in old Retriever Field Trial News magazines and photos of old show champions, and then look at photos in today’s RFTN and photos of today’s champions–which ones have stayed true to a standard over the years? The working dogs! The way it should be.
I always liked the conformation standard Bill Tarrant wrote for retrievers and it really does not matter which breed of retriever either. The basic structure is constant. If the dog is structurally well built, has good musculature and has the drive then the dog will perform well in the field and in other venues such as agility and obedience.
That’s the one I like!
Lets take a look at any dog breed “standard”
You start with a working group who breed for results. This could be Pakistani tribesmen interested in dog fighting, 1800 cod fishermen wanting a net-puller, or whatever.
Intentionally or unintentionally they select for work characteristics, and often other characteristics come along as well.
Some dog fancier comes down and ‘discovers’ the breed and writes a ‘standard’ that will put emphasis on both characteristics directly related to the dog’s job, as well as those that are not. (skull shape, foot style)
Dogs will be judged on adherence to the standard rather than to the underlying purpose the standard is attempting to get at.
The people who want the dog for the working purposes won’t care much for the standard at all. That doesn’t mean they disagree with statements of the standard. In fact both the worker and the standard writer will probably key in on many of the same things. These guys don’t breed small sleddogs because the standard calls for the siberian to be small vs a larger breed like the malamute, they breed small
BUT, when you are breeding a dog to do a task…rather than doing a task so your dog has something to do, the standard takes a back burner to performance. These guys don’t breed small sleddogs because the standard calls for the siberian to be small vs a larger breed like the malamute, they breed that size because that size is fast…which is why the dog got bred to that size in the first place before the standard ever got written.
Take mushers for instance, you think for an instant they care much for the siberian husky standard? No. They are going to breed the dogs that run the best, and not set aside a dog whose ears are too big, or who likes to pull with a crabbing style.
Yes, many have taken it so far as to simply cross in pointer blood for more speed and endurance. The question is, why are some serious mushers feeling free to disregard some of the nuances of the written standard even bother running pure lines at all. If you have no problem breeding your ‘pure’ Siberian Huskies with half-erect ears because the dog that had that trait was your best runner, then why not take the full plunge and cross with a pointer, greyhound, or whatever.
I don’t know the first thing about mushing and sled dogs, except that I find it interesting.
I know a good deal about retrievers. A Lab is a Lab; a flat-coat is a flat-coat; a golden is a golden; a NSDTR is a NSDTR; etc. The standards help to define the breeds; they are all retrievers; good breeders know dogs, retrievers, their breed, the standard, and balance accordingly depending on where their breeding program is and where they want it to go.
I have a Lab from a CH/MH sire and a dam from a dual-purpose kennel–his breeder certainly cares about both the breed standard and the performance standard, and while I don’t know what my next Lab will come from, I know I wouldn’t go to a breeder who does not care about the standard. Yes, he’s a retriever first–but he’s a Labrador retriever. I won’t have trouble finding a breeder that breeds for performance and knows and cares about the breed and the standard.
I have flat-coat from a CH/MH sire and a CH/MH/UD dam. She is a retriever first as well–but she’s a flat-coat. I won’t have trouble finding a breeder that breeds for performance and knows and cares about the breed and the standard.
I appreciate the breeds; vive la difference. I have friends with all kinds of retriever breeds; some with more than one kind. They feel the same way.
Some performance people don’t care, true. But you are painting WAY too broad a brush to state that performance breeders don’t care about the breed standard–at least in retrievers.
IMO the look of the Lab should be more of from field lines – i totally agree the old RFTN has the best looking labs. some of the labs i see now are just plain ugly. I have 3 “field” labs. they’re the perfect standard. I’ve been told by “Show” people they’re to small and thin – the girls 21.25″ 54 pounds the boy 24″ 73 pounds. they’re all lean mean hunting and agility dogs! Not one ounce of fat! Ton’s of energy in the field or doing agility. Great lap dog at home. IMO there’s 2 different standards for labs – Field and Show
“…and no one cares a long as the best bird-getters are crossed with the best bird-getters, while keeping a close eye on health and temperment”
Andrew, are you really serious? Health and tempererament do play a big role in field line breeding!
I can’t imagine there is any market for dogs of questionable health & temperament background…
” (you quoting me) “…and no one cares a long as the best bird-getters are crossed with the best bird-getters, while keeping a close eye on health and temperment” (end quote)
Andrew, are you really serious? Health and tempererament do play a big role in field line breeding!”
maybe you are not familiar with ‘keep a close eye’ but that means it IS important.
‘Keep a close eye on that steak so it doesn’t get too well done!’
my whole point WAS that health and temperament are considered.
Andrew, sorry! I apologize! I should of known the phrase!
From now on I’ll keep a close eye on the text I’m referring to. :)
Ah. Must have been the links.
But I’m cranky today. Not enough dog training.
hellhellhellhellhell.
There. Feels good. ;)
Carry on!
Fat bottomed girls make the world go around
Not particularly.
Oh yes, I heard it on the wierd radio
I think the fire ants are getting to you.
Yes, we do.
And I have often said if someone can breed a Lab who retains the size, proportions, breath, and general outlook on life of an 8 week old puppy and yet eventually attains the maturity to be housebroken and quit trying to eat all my stuff, I’m IN. I don’t care what it costs.
Maybe Canoe Labs are a step in the direction I’ve requested.
Meanwhile, I’ve both bench bred and field bred Labs, although admittedly I tend to choose my bench bred Labs from the high energy / high drive side of the continuum. There are benefits and drawbacks to each.
I once fostered a field bred Lab who stook 27 inches at the shoulder, and actually was quite underweight at 80#. He was snatched up in a heartbeat by a guy whose life is devoted to hunting pheasants in South Dakota. That big dog for that big land was just what he wanted.
My first bench bred Lab “washed out” of the show ring because he was too tall. The one who was supposed to be my foundation bitch washed out because she’s too small. Goldilocks had better luck than I finding “just right”. But for all that, the ones who came later who met the size standard fell short in other ways. The numbers really are the least of it.
It’s just a very diverse breed. And that’s OK.
I found the song.
Oh good grief, how could you not recognize Queen? I am disappointed.
Not a Queen fan.
Kids today. Hmmph.
Knew there was something fishy about you.
I’m not a big fan of Elizabeth II, even though I have been within 20 feet of her.
FWIW: I just found out that Brian May is now Dr. Brian May, PHD in astro-physics, Thank you.
See there is intelligent life after all.
I love and miss Freddy Mercury to this day, but he lies.
I’ve been waiting 30 years to be in charge of making the world go round.
Me, too.
I may have posted this earlier but it deserves another look regarding field and show dogs and also 6 body styles found in labradors today:
http://labradornet.com/index_e.html
Posts/articles/opinions in the internet are not carved in stone – no matter how convincing they may sound to you… :)
Nobody said they were, the link was only to illustrate some of the variations that can occur.
The different types of the lab morphology were presented already decades ago. For instance, I’ve red a book from the 60s’, which had about the same kinda classification. Labrdornet has not invented that thing by itself.
HTTrainer–it’s an oft-posted cite, but I personally don’t know anyone who pays any attention to these supposed body styles.
Am I out of the loop? Do people you know who breed and show Labs refer to these “body styles”?
Serious question–just in case my tone doesn’t come across right.
Please see note above, I do not think they cite these “body styles”. However, it does make you wonder when breeders strut their stuff if the judges do know which end of the leash is being shown.
in Belgians, originally, the dogs could range from 19 inches to 28″ in height. a lot of the military/protection line dogs are in the 70+ pound range. I’ve had an 80 pound Belgian (yes he was a purebred. No he was not fat. He was 27″). My current pack has dogs that are between 45 and 51 pounds. What’s with that? Well, different sizes for the application. Man work requires a dog with enough mass to bring down a guy. Even though Belgians make up for their smaller size with speed in comparison to GSDs, you still need a minimum amount of mass to bring down a person. The US army sets it at 55 pounds. you don’t need a dog that’s 80 pounds for working sheep or cattle. You DO need one “big enough” –size does matter on the long haul when one is working livestock.
I don’t pretend to know if the hunting environment in the US differs sufficently from that of the UK to justify a larger range in size in hunting dogs. However, it is in the nature of people (not just in the US) to want something “bigger” (or smaller, hence “teacup” dogs), different colored, more rare or in some other way uniquely different (and “better”) than the other guy’s dog. The issue of obesity and fat dogs is sadly, a symptom of many dogs and more related to our current lifestyles than anything else.
Peggy Richter
How anyone prefers the blocky, rolling, clumsy pet/show type labs over the lean, leggy, pictures of pure atheticism that most true hunting types represent, is beyond my comprehension(NEITHER dog in the above photo is a good example of what I consider a real hunting lab, either!). I have seen the pet types advertised commonly as”Large, block-headed type labs for sale”, and this seems to be the current fashion in labs for pets, the term “block-head” actually being considered a prestigious thing, in this case!!!! Then many get these blocky labs, overfeed them and underexcercise them(and is it just me, or do labs put on fat easier and thicker than any other dog breeds?), and they end up looking more like a very large beach ball, rather than a dog. The oversize issue is rampant in many breeds, and AKC standards DO NOT limit it very well, from what I’ve seen. Let a dog be UNDERSTANDARD in size in the show ring, and boy howdy, you can bet it will be penalized for it! But all manner of silly(and ignorant) excuses are made for allowing–yea, even rewarding OVERSTANDARD in size–two breeds I’ve seen this blatantly done is in Alaskan Malamutes, and Black-And-Tan Coonhounds(AKC versions). The excuse for malamutes is that oversize is okay, as long as it helps the dog perform its original function–ditto for the Black-And-Tans, and conformation show people wrongly assume that BIGGER sled dogs or hunting dogs mean better workers. WRONG. Larger size means less stamina, clumsier movement, not too mention usually lesser life span(and less of a work life, too). I had two HUGE malamutes way over 100 lbs.(zero fat), and they were quite impressive looking, and had SUPER work attitudes, and could pull huge amounts of weight 50 feet or so, but the poor boys couldn’t run a mile without breaking down or overheating(no matter how cold it was)–couldn’t even keep up with me very well on a hike–pitiful for this(what SHOULD BE) very icon of a rugged, outdoor, working breed.(I still loved my boys, though…) And this is common among malamutes, alas. And the AKC people who think over standard Coonhounds are just fine has obviously never been on a hunt with them and compared them with the lean, rangy, medium-sized hounds that can run for days effortlessly and REALLY get the job done. A really big misnomer involving hounds that hunt large, dangerous game(bears, cougars, lions, wild boar, etc.), is that BIGGER dogs can fight BIGGER animals better! Only someone who has not actually hunted such game with dogs believes that! With any of these dangerous animals, any hunter will tell you that dogs over 70-75 lbs.(and that’s pushing the limits) cannot dodge and parry quickly enough when such game is at bay, and WILL get killed purty fast. In fact, much smaller dogs are often MUCH BETTER at holding large, dangerous animals at bay, a case where UNDERSTANDARD size dogs can actually perform the work better than oversized ones!! If you look at ALL the dog breeds, most fall under the medium to medium-large size range–especially real working breeds. There is a real, practical, historical reason for that, impressive as the giant breeds appear, and cute as the toy dogs are……
Check out the size of these plotts:
http://www.pocahontasplotts.com/
They are used to hunt bears in West Virginia, and none of them are huge dogs.
They just need to be tough to run up and down those mountains and have enough courage to not run from the bear should it charge.
” any hunter will tell you that dogs over 70-75 lbs.(and that’s pushing the limits) cannot dodge and parry quickly enough when such game is at bay, and WILL get killed purty fast. In fact, much smaller dogs are often MUCH BETTER at holding large, dangerous animals at bay”
Retrieverman’s posted about how that’s more or less how elkhounds hunt large prey – and that’s how they move, even in play – and they, too, are decidedly medium sized.
Then again, I do recall reading an article on dogs kills by wolves in Norway, broken down by breed and, although the hounds were #1 prey, they were followed by elkhounds. Even given that, proportionately speaking, they probably account for a lot more dogs in Norway than elsewhere, it does tend to suggest there’s an advantage to being bigger if you’re going to withstand attack without a human to back you up. No mistake, I guess, that flock guarding dogs like the pyrenees and such are bigger.
Bigger does not necessarily help:
http://stephenbodio.blogspot.com/2010/07/transferring-old-world-traditions.html
Lane said, “Then many get these blocky labs, overfeed them and underexcercise them(and is it just me, or do labs put on fat easier and thicker than any other dog breeds?), and they end up looking more like a very large beach ball, rather than a dog. ”
Labs DO seem to get fat more easily and in a “thicker” way than a lot of other breeds.
When you put your hands on a Lab, it’s one of those dogs that has a ton of loose skin. It doesn’t necessarily look like it, but they do. There’s a layer of fat with all that loose skin. It’s great insulation and is touted as one of the reasons they seem to be so weather-proof. I know my flat-coat doesn’t have that layer of fat and skin–but I think goldens might, to an extent, and I think Chessies do, I’m not really entirely sure about curlies but it looks like they do to a degree. But Labs are king of this characteristic.
They are kind of like seals–slick top-coat, dense hair, loose skin, layer of fat.
Just my theory, but I think that layer of fat can really blow up!
That’s how I think of Labs.
They are the seals or otters of the dog world.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have people trying to breed Mini-Australian Shepherds, Pocket Beagles, and Teacup Yorkies. Blech.
Yep, IndyGeorge, above I was thinking of larger working type dogs–in toys it will be the LARGER that will be penalized, and the teeny ones that get reproduced. If that’s what some people like in a pet, as long as genetic/health problems don’t arise, I say fine. But, of course, exagerrations either way tend to lead to health problems. I CAN see why the smaller terrier and dachsund breeds maintain a particular size range, as for work they have to be able to get down those holes….And Margaret, I heard from Vladimir Beregovoy(the Russian fellow who introduced the splendid Nordic hunting breed the West Siberian Laika to the U. S.) on that very subject–Elkhounds getting nailed by wolves where wolves are reestablishing in Scandinavian countries. Elkhounds tend to range out far from the hunters(as do most scenthounds off leash), and this makes them more vulnerable being away from human protection–whereas the close-ranging Laikas rarely get killed this way. A large size MIGHT help a dog in a fight with a single wolf, but single wolves regularly kill very large dogs, and even multiple dogs set on them at one time! Wolves tend to have so much more powerful jaws, longer teeth, and move so much faster, that it is a rare dog that can stand up to a healthy, mature wolf, regardless of size. And on top of that, wolves rarely travel alone! Livestock Protection dogs get killed all the time by wolves, alas…..
The big one looks like its about to keel over. Very funny picture.
Department of Justice’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
“The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.”
A guy in Hawaii will certify my dog today and sell me tags and a vest. I think I just found a very convenient way to fly my dog (in the cabin!) wherever i go!
Added bonus: I can (threaten to) sue anyone who asks why I need said service dog Win-win!
yes you can. And being the a**h*** you are, you probably would do it.
Making the lives of people with REAL disabilities even more difficult, as the actions of people like you to exploit the law may lead to regulations requiring the disabled to prove their disabilities and discuss them with people who have no business with that information.
BTW, you don’t even need to pay the guy in Hawaii. The ADA does not require any proof.
What, bill, exhibiting asshattery? Surely not!
Easy there, Ellen. I was just kidding.
Anyway, it seems like you counterparts in Miami have beaten me to the idea en masse:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/11/1726095/service-or-menace-pit-bulls-skirt.html
I assume you make an exception for their service dog fraud, no?
what exactly in your post signifies that you were “kidding”?
what actual evidence appears in the Miami Herald article that anyone is committing fraud?
No food for trolls! :)
i reread the article (and the one in the LA Times as well), and actually you’re right.
Fake dog trend story, my bad. I might be more skeptical if i had a real live trained service Lab, or helper monkey, but whatever.
I thought it was pretty funny though, people trumping a dumb local law (bsl) with an even dumber federal law (any dog is an official service dog as soon as it’s owner says so).
if you were disabled you wouldn’t even think of finding the use of service dogs “funny” or the law “dumb”. These dogs enable people to live more normal, safe lives. Disabled people don’t need as*h***s like you questioning how they live their lives.
Service animals aren’t allowed to run rampant whatever fantasies you might have.
Emily,
I think you’ve gotten your softball uniform in a bunch for no reason.
I was able to get reasonalby up to speed on this topic last month because i was able to cheerfully accomodate someone with a service animal.
In the process of renting my beach condo, the renter called to let me know that she was bringing her service dog (i dont even have a no-dogs policy, so bring two surly filo brasilieros for all i care, serioulsly. its a gulf coast condo during an oil spill).
I said “of course! what else can i do to the condo for you?”
She said no preparations were necessary, the dog was under 15 lbs.
Fascinated, I said “You are kidding! 15 lbs.? what is it trained to do?” (not knowing at the time that my question was totally illegal)
She volunteered that it was a therapy service dog for depression. I chuckled and said again, “of course, have great time.” Thinking that my renter was just a wierd old lady.
She was not. just playing by the letter of the law, good for her. But you are disabled if you think that the ADA makes sense when it comes to service dogs free for all. It is a dumb part of that law.
If im scared to fly, and if fear of flying is a classified disorder, and I have a dog that makes me feel better about it while on the plane, YOU are the jerk for making me feel bad about bringing him along. Like just because i dont have on dark glasses and a cane, my disability is somehow less. That’s a petty intolerant stance.
There is a definite difference between “therapy dogs” and “service dogs”. There are also Psychiatric Service Dogs and Emotional Service Dogs, Assistance Dogs for disabled people, Guide dogs for the blind, and Hearing Dogs included in the latter definition. An excellent source of information on all types of Service Dogs is IAADP (International Association of Assistance Dog Partners).
To put it very briefly, Service dogs (of any sort) are trained to perform specific tasks for the human partner. They do more than just “be there” for the human.
People with disabilities have worked long and hard to get access and acceptability for their dogs. Others who misepresent their dogs as service dogs in order to get access where they would not be able to otherwise, are endangering all that has been so hard-won.
And by the way, I’ve met several “pit bulls” who would make excellent service dogs. (And others who would not)
MRS,
I know there are distinctions, but it sure doesnt sound like the law makes those very real distinctions.
Could it be argued that being trained (and declared an emotional service dog) to “just be there” for a clinically depressed person in a movie theatre is just as critical as keeping a blind guy from walking into traffic?
If the answer is not “yes, definitely!”, then the ADA law is a dumb law that invites people to exploit it.
If you dont define “disability” and also dont define any special skills a dog must have to qualify as a service animal, you are dumb.
bill, if one wears glasses, one is less disabled than if blind. Nevertheless, telling me I can’t wear my glasses would be a violation of ADA. The issue is that it’s not obvious if a dog is “assisting” someone who has clinical depression. It’s fairly obvious that a seeing eye dog is assisting their blind handler. The more difficult it is to spot the disability and/or what the dog does as assistance the easier it is to cheat. And there are some people who do cheat. But for those that do not, it is inappropriate to assert that because their disability isn’t “bad enough” they shouldn’t be able to use a service animal. is the person who has stability issues “cheating” because they are using their Bouvier as a stability dog and it’s not obvious to you? How much of a stability issue do they “need” to have?
Frauds can be prosecuted under the law — and have been.
Of course, if we had a general policy in this country that you could have your dog with you as long as it was well behaved, a lot of the temptations to cheat wouldn’t occur.
German shepherds are a common military and police dog. They are also still commonly used as assistance dogs.
Just because a dog “Could” be dangerous or belongs to a breed /landrace with that reputation is not a proof that they are. One should judge a dog based on it’s behavior. Disruptive, obnoxious service dogs can be denied access. Too bad so many well behaved dogs are also so denied.
VR, Peggy Richter
“it is inappropriate to assert that because their disability isn’t “bad enough” they shouldn’t be able to use a service animal.”
Exactly.
Furthermore, I suspect that someone who doesn’t understand that gray area exists in many laws, not just ADA, may in fact be ‘dumb’.
At least one serious service dog person disagrees with you completely. New York Times, May 21, 2006:
“The DOT guidance document was an outrageous decision,” said Joan Froling, chairwoman of the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners, a nonprofit organization representing people who depend on service dogs.
“Instead of clarifying the difference between emotional-support animals who provide comfort by their mere presence and animals trained to perform specific services for the disabled, they decided that support animals were service animals.”
I cant beleive you poeple are really in favor of the current free of all re: service animals and think that some minimum standard or even clear definitions, of a service dog, would be somehow cruel or biased against those with depression or agoraphobia, etc.
And how in the world could a fraud be prosecuted if there is no agreed upon definition of a “trained task”?
There’s much more relating to Ms Froling’s comment than is obvious in this very short quote. One of the cases that sparked the whole debate was an attempt by a woman to being on board an airplane her “emotional support animal”…a rather large (unhousetrained) domestic hog.
As for Pyschiatric Service Dogs, they also are trained for specific tasks: they can recognize severe mood changes and other symptoms, and react in a manner that will ameliorate the symptoms. One case I heard of was a veteran with PTSD; when he began feeling overwhelmed or threatened, the dog was able to bring him out of it.
Remarkable creatures, our dogs.
I have a solution to all of this.
Require that the dog be a sporting or working breed, and no “white” retrievers allowed.
Anyone willing to perpetrate fraud who is willing to get a dog bred to appear useful to also be well-behaved under the stress and drudgery of public life and lack of true work will deserve to get away with it. The others will give up.
Suddenly it’s a moot point.
Tongue only somewhat in cheek,
I’ve been a rehab nurse for more thank 20 years. There are a lot of physically disabled people who agree with Bill that unless the dog is fetching, alerting, etc, that it doesn’t count, and that psychiatric service dogs should not be given the same priviledges as theirs.
Disabled people use all types of mechanisms to mitigate their disabilities – medicaltions, mechanical assistive devices such as wheelchairs and prosthesis, etc. The dog is just one more tool at their disposal in trying to “normalize” their lives. We wouldn’t walk up to someone and ask “why” they need their oxygen or their wheelchair. They might be using them just to get the good parking spots and seats nearest the stage, or they might drop over dead of a heart attack at any moment. We don’t know, and it’d be pretty boorish to ask. We don’t have the right to impose on their privacy by asking about “why” they need their dog either.
There is a difference between feeling stressed or bummed, and finding that petting your dog cheered you up and being so terrified of leaving your house that you can’t, or so obsessed with washing your hands that you can’t function. Like it or not, psychiatric illnesses DO count as real illnesses, and people DO get disability for psychiatric conditions.
Yes, there are some people who will abuse the system. We have people who will abuse ANY system. Their mommas just didn’t raise them right.
Similar to the idea that it’s better to let many guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man, I believe that it’s better to let a few unethical people get away with taking their dogs places they shouldn’t than to keep one truly disabled person chained to their house or their misery when a dog could set them free.
Poorly behaved or disruptive dogs, even service dogs, CAN be ordered removed. If the dog’s not disruptive or problematic, what’s the difference? Jealousy because “we” can’t do that? I’m not so jealous that I’d trade my UNdisabled life for theirs, that’s for sure.
Thank you.
Spell check! I want SPELL CHECK, darnit!
Sorry for the errors in the previous post.
Spot on, Eleanor.
And IF –if only!– the majority of dogs in this country were sufficiently well-mannered, perhaps wider access would be allowed. It is a bit eye-opening to visit the UK and see dogs travelling with their owners on the trains and busses, lying quietly under the table in pubs and cafes, walking sedately at heel through shops and malls and train stations.
France is a great country in which to be a dog.
I am thinking the mothman may be using an
alias on this blog.
I don’t know.
I don’t actually believe in the mothman.
You are making a big mistake, he monitors all innerweb
traffic for peope talking shit about him
I’m not pissing anyone off.
Do you spell the name Gimi?
My guess is they probably have better internet in Romania than West Virginia.
and prettier golden retrievers
Is the training of a dog to recognize and assist with severe dark moods more involved and expensive than a traditional service dog? Where does one find out more about these dogs? (which breeds are most successful, washout rates, proofing, etc.)
Actually, teaching them to sense / scent the chemical changes is no big deal. Many dogs can do it naturally, just as they can detect diabetes, cancer, and seizures.
Teaching them to break out the banjo and sing off-color ballads in response to those changes is quite a feat.