Talk:Labrador Retriever/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Obedience

"The Labrador Retriever, one of the most familiar breeds of dog, is noted for its friendliness, intelligence and obedience" ... so why is mine the exception? *grins* (FT2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 21:28, July 26, 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying you have a grouchy Lab?!?! It could not be possible! Elf | Talk 03:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope, just sometimes I am convinced whoever said labs are "obedient" just did it to make fun of me :) !!! FT2 09:08, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Try bribery - never knew a Lab that didn't work with ;) -- sannse (talk) 18:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So how would you teach a 2-month old choco lab not to bite when he's being playful? He always does this when he wants to have fun and is being very hyperactive but unfortunately, since his fangs are so sharp, I always get scratches from him. Can anyone tell me how to handle him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeniheart (talk • contribs) 00:29, November 10 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a training message board, but puppies bite one another as they play, and they learn how hard that they can bite. When they bite their playmates too hard, the playmate yelps and goes away. Puppies learn that "bad noise happens, and playmate goes away". This works naturally. Puppies who are taken from their litters early and sold to the publc don't often get this "natural training". So, what you do - is yell OW if you get bitten too hard then COMPLETELY IGNORE the the puppy, that may be hard to do, but you must. - Trysha ^(talk) 03:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a 1 year old Lab and I agree with both of the above, bribery always works (Labs eat anything, treats, vegtables, etc.) A slight variance on Trysha's point, if you say "Ouch!" sharply and with a high pitch, like a yip, pulling your hand or whatever away, I find it works well. Find a trainer that is a trained, behaviorist. You'll be very pleased with the results. Good Luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.242.217 (talk • contribs) 05:38, December 17 2005 (UTC)

Labradors are notorious for "mouthiness", so here are just two little notes. Firstly, I know one woman who was on the verge of getting rid of a puppy she was convinced hated her particularly because it bit only her...and I mean hard. Turns out she uses special organic lotions and the pup REALLY loved the flavor. lol The thing I've always done with pups that want to put a hole in you is to grab their tongue or press it against their lower jaw. They will very quickly hit the "reject" button to get control of their tongue back....Works every time. I find it a really good technique because it saves you getting your hand torn by making your own exit and the "sounding like a wounded friend and going away" trick often backfires into its own game.

Back to the Wiki, it might be helpful to mention puppy rearing briefly in the obedience section...at least a few things to AVOID particularly in labs...like giving them an old shoe as a chewy unless you want to say goodbye to buying Prada for life (You would not believe how many times I've seen this!)and not letting them up on the couch when they're a cute 8 week old if you don't want them there when they weigh 80 lbs. As I'm extremely new to wiki, perhaps this is going too far (I have to keep reading the guidelines)but I think it's essential for anyone thinking of getting a labrador to have their ground rules in mind beforehand....after all, you're going to have enough rules go out the window as they work on you with those lovely brown eyes! -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 04:21, August 19 2006 (UTC)

I am curious! I have heard there are two distinct types of "lab". The "American" or "English". Is this true? Kari KY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006 68.19.225.148 (talk • contribs) 22:43, October 5 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The English lab is shorter and stockier than the American lab. Additionally, the noses are also shorter. My English lab is often mistaken for a non-purebred lab due to the difference in look from the traditional lab. See one: Jeremy 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Jsbrown

Colour

Out of curiosity, what's with the yellow colour? The lab on the two pictures seems white to me, not yellow. ^^ (Admittedly, I am somewhat colourblind, but not with regard to these colours, so...) -- Schnee 18:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both of the photos were a little washed out. I adjusted the lighting on the full-body shot, so it doesn't look quite so white, but the original lighting & contrast is such that it's hard to tell that it's not all white. This looks slightly better. I know what to expect, so I look at it and see the yellow. :-) This might be a lighter-colored coat, too; they do come in ranges. It's more like a wheaten color than a true yellow. It's usually more like this dog or this one; maybe we need a photo that better shows the coat color. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elf (talk • contribs) 00:49, October 22 2004 (UTC)

I changed the discussion of coat color genetics to discuss the B and E loci. This replaces text suggesting that there are two genes, one for coat color and one for nose color--I don't believe this is correct. The reference contains quite a good discussion of the matter. This is one of my first edits so I apologize if everything is not quite done to the letter. hagemani 22:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of coat genetics is really so cursory it's misleading. There are far more than two loci involved in the various colors of chocolate lab...only black and yellow come close to the interaction described here, and most people don't know the difference between single genes and loci. Variation in coat type also has a huge affect on the color presented. What is essential, the fact that breeding yellows and/or chocolates for successive generations will cause a loss of pigment, is more useful to anyone not breeding the dogs exclusively for color. Incidently, the sudden appearance of silver labs should not be called a "dilution" of the chocolate gene...that is far from proven fact and under heavy suspicion when offspring of these "silver labs" are cropping up with the typical eye colors of the "silver ghost" Weimers! -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 19 2006 (UTC)

AHHHHH!!! i'm getting a labrador tommorow. It is 10 month female (black) hasn't been neutered and I rescued it. I dont know what to expect can I have some advice plz! About anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.170 (talk • contribs) 19:24, October 8 2006 (UTC)

Someone has "edited" the section regarding silver labradors to make the color aberration appear to be anything other than a ~colorful~ marketing gimmick (pun intended). Silver lab enthusiasts, I would urge you to use sources that do not originate from "silver" lab breeders or from wishful thinking about a purchase that the AKC and the LRC refuses to recognize.

I'm concerned about the silver section as it is not unbiased. While it is not a separate color, it is a chocolate lab (just like a "white" lab is yellow) so it should not be completely discredited (which this wikipedia article does). Since other clubs and sites are quoted, how about adding the AKC's note: the AKC's note. Thank you Fberg1 12:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

health?

What can cause a very healthy labrador retreiver to have a sudden seizure? she is young and well taken are of and has never had any health problems. she is 5 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.183.112 (talk • contribs) 01:36, July 19 2005 (UTC)

This isn't medical site and I'm no expert, but it could be a tumor, epilepsy, something she ate, too much heat, liver or kidney disease, blood sugar problems (e.g., diabetes), head injury, various infections, and so on and so on. According to the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine Book of Dogs (Medical Reference), some dogs have a seizure only once in their life & then never again; others have them repeatedly. It also says that some breeds are known to exhibit inherited seizures with no apparent cause--and the Labrador is one of those breeds listed. If you haven't already been to your vet, you might consider taking the dog in, and you & vet can decide whether additional tests are needed. Elf | Talk 03:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This brings up another thought. I was rather disappointed in the health section...to mention Diabetes and not Epilepsy or "Sudden Death Syndrome" in labs seemed odd. I also believe the subluxating patella is not a problem in labs...not nearly so much as cruciate malformations or injuries. Subluxing is much more a poodle problem, at least in American studbooks. I also see no mention of screenings for labs (OFA, CERF, etc.) or PRA. There was also no mention of the elbow displasia that is quickly becoming a problem here in the US since the English imports became so popular with breeders. I didn't know to what extent the reader is expected to go to the various national/regional kennel clubs to find more information on health issues either; they are markedly different between American and UK bloodlines...just as an example. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 04:31, August 19 2006 (UTC)

Details of Labs' Origin

This article mentions the origin of the breed in Labrador, but I have heard (from several sources) that Labs were initially bred to retrieve fishermen's nets. Is there any way we can confirm this and add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.50.14 (talk • contribs) 17:52, July 29 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed in both The Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds (Cunliffe, 1999, Parragon press) and The New Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds (Fogle, c 2000, DK press). Will add. Elf | Talk 01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of confirming and quoting....why is it everything source/resource given here is about dogs in general? I find it very odd that books dedicated to Labradors don't seem to be cited, there are so many very good and important texts available from afficionados. If you love labs or are at all interested in their preservation as a breed against the scourge of their popularity, you should know Warwick, Howe, etc. Just another two cents in from the new kid.  ; ) -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 04:47, August 19 2006 (UTC)

Lifespan

Labs typically live into their teens? I was told that 10-12 was more accurate, or am I being pedantic? :D --PopUpPirate 22:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

My yellow lab died when he was 13. While many labs live up to that age, I think that it's relatively rare for them to live any longer than that. 10-13 years seems to be the typical lifespan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoa8212 (talk • contribs) 20:05, January 15 2006 (UTC)

The first reference I looked in (dated 2000) lists 12-13 years for Labs. One challenge in getting accurate info on dog longevity is that it has changed a lot, and rapidly, over the last decade or two, for a variety of reasons: Better food, availability of medical care, willingness of owners to provide medical care, fewer working/outdoor dogs wearing themselves out/living in nonideal conditions/being disposed of at the first signs of illness or lack of fitness. So what might have been accurate info a decade ago might be too low on the estimates now. (Based on a discussion with my vet and some reading.) Another challenge is in the absence of carefully tracked statistical info for dogs, compared to what's available for humans. Elf | Talk 23:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - pity they don't live to 17 or 18 but never mind! As I speak, my 8 year old guide dog pup in training is wrecking a mattress and it's gonna get in serious trouble - lol --PopUpPirate 23:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pity they don't live til 40 or 50, once you finally go through all that work of teaching them not to eat furniture! Elf | Talk 01:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I added 12-13 number from reference doc. Elf | Talk 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

puppies with longer hair

my choc lab recently had puppies. three of them have longer hair than the rest. is this common —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.162.55 (talk • contribs) 02:02, December 1 2005 (UTC)

Define "longer". It is possible for there to be more than one father to a litter...if it's truly "long" hair and not simply a difference in the wave/texture of the coat (which can vary) you may have a mixed litter. I once knew a litter that at 3 weeks looked all the same but at 8 weeks it was really obvious that two of the pups were Cocker Spaniel crosses! {And yes, the breeder did register them as full-blooded labradors with the AKC. grrrrr} Usually it's easier to tell what a pups coat is going to be after the first "puppy" shed. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 03:54, August 19 2006 (UTC)

Is there any chance that one of the parents was actually a Chesapeake Bay Retriever? They look like a chocolate lab with slightly longer hair... great dogs too. I think they look so much like a lab--and are such great hunting and family pets--that I'm debating using one to stud my chocolate lab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs) 14:04, October 10 2006 (UTC)

Toilet paper brand?

I am somewhat perturbed by the fact that underneath 'famous labradors' a toilet tissue brand known as 'Cottonelle' is mentioned. If 'Cottonelle' is mentioned, then why is 'Andrex' not mentioned? That also has a labrador puppy as its mascot... Kyarorain 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think that it was apropriate, so I removed the link. Was the dog even in more than one commercial? If the puppy was represented as an individual in the manner of Spuds MacKenzie, sure, but I don't think that this merits inclusion. - Trysha ^(talk) 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed both of these once again, as the dogs themselves are just nameless individuals in the commercials. - Trysha ^(talk) 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of cottonelle. I doubt many people in the UK have. Meanwhile - the andrex puppy Hakluyt bean 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

HTML Coding Doesn't Work in Firefox?

I'm using the Firefox browser. The photos in this article do not show up (they do with (ugh!) Explorer. What's with the coding problem? I haven't run into any problems before with Firefox. Askolnick 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just tried it with Firefox on my Mac and it loaded fine. If you continue to have problems, you might try investigating at Help:Contents/Technical_information. Elf | Talk 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am getting just fine on Firefox as well.--Counsel 05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Im using it now and its fine. --70.165.71.229 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol use

I have posted a question at Talk:Dog_health#Alcohol_as_treatment_for_antifreeze as to whether the anon's posting has any truth. If it does, it belongs in dog health possibly, not in a breed article. And I think it's a very bad idea anyway to post an idea of a dog appearing to drink alcohol recreationally. Elf | Talk 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even if there is any validity to that claim, there is no reason that it should be on the Lab article.--Counsel 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with that. You can treat poisoning with a poison. People use that stuff to kill dogs, alcohol does the same thing. If the dog has ingested antifreeze he's best taken to vet where he'll probably get something like charcoal to bind the toxin then something else given to make him vomit. Also a B12 injection to help the body deal with any that may have gotten into the blood stream. LdyDragonfly 23:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wish to comment an observation - has anyone noticed how many of Lab owners go blind?

Behavior

I currently have a Labrador, and its behavior seems very unusual when compared to other Dogs of various mixed breeds I've had. He seems to desire less attention, eventually tires of being petted, dislikes running long distances(10km+), enjoys being inside more than outside, does not make noise or posture to encourage me to do what he wants, immediately trusts anyone, and does not seem emotionally disturbed when neglected for a day. I've been told these are typical Labrador behaviors, but they seem so unusual that it seems they should have more emphasis in this article especially if these specific behaviors have made it the most desired suburban house dog in the UK and America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.43.7 (talk • contribs) 18:43, May 12 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. You don't state the age of your dog or if it's mixed breed? A very young Lab or a senior dog shouldn't be run long distances everyday. It's hard on the joints both ways and depending on the ground that you are running them the paws can become sore, tender and cracked. I've been breeding and training Labs, and the like, all my life. Some Labs don't always want attention but would sooner just sit at your feet. If your dog, of any breed, starts to exhibit behaviours outside of what he normally does (even for that breed) you might want to take him to your vet for a consultation. He could be ill and that visual lessening of interest could be a warning sign. Remember dogs hide pain and illness so well that's it's not until it's a serious problem that we notic it. LdyDragonfly 23:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. Another is that while as a rule labradors have certain traits (They're very biddable, friendly, mouthy, water-loving, food-focused, etc...) each one has a unique character. My first lab was an absolute saint, miraculous as a retriever, and had a vocabulary bigger than most three year olds. (You couldn't even SPELL her favorite words!) My last lab I nearly gave away because even with two rounds of obedience school everytime I called her name she would look me in the eye with the "I KNOW you're not talking to ME" face and walk away. (I had never even heard of a lab like her for arrogance and voguing it for cameras. Truly a Diva, and labs aren't divas. Maybe she was a terrier or poddle re-incarnated?) Anyway, every lab I've had was a character one way or another...just never the same way twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 05:41, August 19 2006 (UTC)

Height ?

what about the height ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.106.185 (talk • contribs) 14:18, July 24 2006 (UTC)

How tall do black labs get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.105.183.66 (talk • contribs) 06:14, July 27, 2006 (UTC)

How tall a lab CAN get is not the same as the standards set by the kennel clubs, but the standard will give you some idea. I once knew a lab named Bluto who was actually taller than the Great Dane he kenneled with...but that's extreme! -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 05:44, August 19 2006 (UTC)

"Flat-Footed Retrievers"

Has anyone heard of this variation? I havent, but someone posted about it on here. I removed that reference. If someone could prove to me that they exist, I would love to learn more about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olayak (talk • contribs) 15:57, July 24 2006 (UTC)

I would assume the poster was confused by the Flat-coated Retriever, another breed of black retriever that is often called a "long-haired" lab. (I don't see how...they're heads and conformation aren't anything like a lab!) In terms of flat-footedness....it's an interesting discussion in and of itself. For many years breeders, and in fact the standard, described the foot of a lab as being a compact "cat foot". If you have seen labs with the extreme version of this, or if you've had one, you know how prone to "knocked up toes" (a soft tissue sprain involving tendons/ligaments) they are because there isn't enough length or flex in the digits. I think the preoccupation with the "cat-like" description was really about describing the labrador's strong and compact paw in oposition to regular hounds which are too loss and weak for the kind of swimming labs do ...water is a different stress on the design of a paw, after all. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 04:07, August 19 2006 (UTC)

dog theft

I think the dog theft section should be reworded to avoid the word "theft". Dogs are not inanimate objects and I think a term such as abduction or kidnapping may be more appropriate. --Ted-m 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another note on "theft" and labradors: The problem with the breed isn't so much that they're very desirable for the money that can be made on them. An unregistered adult labrador isn't going to make a thief a great deal of cash even if they sell it to a puppy mill or laboratory as suggested here. The problem is that labs love people and are extremely gregarious...they'll get into anyone's car or follow them home just for the company and attention. They're also notorious explorers (particularly on garbage collection days!) and can disappear with little fanfare to check out some scent they've picked up. Because of this it is essential that you "chip" your dog and that it have YOUR name/address on collar and tags but NOT the dog's. A dog's name is a very powerful thing, and to a lab it's almost the only thing necessary to acquire a bosom friend for life. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 (talk • contribs) 05:53, August 19 2006 (UTC)

Appearance Requirements

The table and much of the article discuss things such as colors that dogs' noses must be. It should be made clear that these requirements are only for the show ring.--Counsel 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Labs

I just cleaned up the famous labs section pretty substantially, but wanted to note a few specific reasons for the edit. First, the Zanjeer entry is still way too long; Zanjeer doesn't warrant three whole paragraphs in a list. Second, I removed the following dogs:

• Maggie -- No supporting details
• Chloe, the yellow lab that is a great hunter and campanion -- Non-notable, probably dog vanity
• Napo, from the TV series Chore & Napo -- Only 3 results on Google for "Chore & Napo" and 0 for "Chore and Napo"; Unsupported claim

Finally, I wikified the list. Just noticed that it could use some cleanup so I cleaned it up a bit. --MMX 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the reference to Old Yeller; in the book, he was a dog of unknown (but likely mixed breed) origins while in the movie he was played by a Black-mouth Cur, not a Lab, according to the article on the book. --H-ko 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Temperamant

It says that "they instinctively enjoy holding objects and even hands or arms in their mouths, which they can do with great aggressiveness." Isn't that supposed to be gentleness? I'd edit it, but I don't know enough to be sure. Dcteas17 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, "the steady temperament of Labs and their ability to learn quickly about attacking" seems an obvious vandalism. Anybody know what it should say? Dcteas17 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, and yes. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Lab appearance

Can we get a section on the actual standard appearance of a Lab. Things such as the target weight, color of nose, height of the withers relative to the back, shape of the head and other anatomical features would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.252.228.213 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I started the section on the standard appearance of Labs. There is more to come later, including refreces so don't worry. Feel free to add or correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.171.218 (talk • contribs) 21:16, December 9 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that some stuff is worth pointing off-site, such as to breed standards (in the info box). So pick and choose what you'll include, especially to illustrate variation or common themes, rather than trying to "put it all in". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Content review

The following edits have been made:

• Removal of "Canis familiaris" in intro; relates to dogs generally, less so to labradors. Consider adding back somewhere more appropriate?
• More neutral tone re water love. ("...fantastic companions..." etc edited)
• Appearance material retrieved from history, placed alongside show standard crietria from present article, under the title "appearance". (Note that there are different show standards for labs in Europe and North America.)
• Wording "to shore" instead of "in" -- more clarity.
• Rvt obvious vandalism
• "Mouthfeel" isnt a word.
• Rmv what seems to be an excessive statement "Such dogs can become quite destructive if left too much on their own. " -- if this is notable in frequency or accurate specifically for labs, please source, cite and re-add.
• Rmv duplicate reference to "rudder" tail
• Rmv "Most Labs have a strong will to please." - seems to be adequately described already beforehand ("very trainable" etc).
• Encyclopedify and cite the comment on "eat anything nailed down".

Work to do at a minimum:

• The article's a bit of a mess in some ways - multiple lengthy "appearances", "color" and "variant" sections (at least one of which introduced by the above edits as a compact summary) - needs clearing up.
• I haven't removed the skills section yet but this seems very specialized - for duck hunting or gun dogs generally, and for hunting dogs only, the commands they must be trained to understand. That should probably be moved to a suitable "dog training for hunting" type of article.
• Cites and further review needed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mouthfeel may not be in the dictionary yet, but it is a technical term used by hunters and breeders in refrence to their dogs. I have heard the term hundreds of times and have seen it written in various magazines that specialize in the subjects of hunting and working dogs. Granted, the word does appear in quotation marks sometimes, but it is widely used and understood within a group. Basically, that is all that is needed for a word to be considered part of the English language anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.141.112 (talk • contribs) 02:44, December 12 2006 (UTC)

Struck me theres no real need to use that term when "They are also known to have a very soft mouthfeel" can be equally well phrased as "They are also known to have a very soft 'feel' to the mouth". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Skills

I disagree that the skills section is highly specialized. This dog is a Labrador Retriever. These skills are the reason that the breed exists. To arrange the article such that the only distinguishing feature of Lab, with respect to other dogs, is appearance is to assume that Conformation Showing is the only legitimate purpose for dog ownership. This strikes me a POV. There are dogs which are products of the show ring which might well be covered by articles which do not address any sort of ability, but the Labrador Retriever is a gun dog. Saying that appearance alone is enough to explain what a lab is is akin to defining a New York Yankee as a man with a pin-stripped suit.--Counsel 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that presenting the article as only addressing "Labs as household pets" is missing an important aspect of the breed. In that sense while it's not really "biased", it is missing an equally important other side to the article, that of labs as working dogs. So there I have no disagreement.

My disagreement is that there is a difference between (1) discussing labs that are working dogs and which are taught hunting skills, and (2) adding a section discussing in depth the skills and commands which hunting and retreiving dogs are commonly taught. The appropriate level of detail for this article would be that working labs are often trained as gun dogs, and a brief overview what that means. We then put a link to a separate article for the full details of hunting/retrieving dog skills and their training, which would make more sense. We already have articles on gun dog and gun-dog training, the detail can readily go in there, or in a separate article "Working dog skills and training". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, however emphasis placed on certain hunting skills is often breed specific. Placing all of that information on a hunting dog article would make it difficult to find and render the hunting dog article very long. By the same reasoning, we culd alter this article to say that labs are used as show dogs and entered in conformation shows. Then the actual details of the standard and the colors allwed etc. would be placed on the show dog page. This would required the reader to visit multiple articles in order to cover material specific to this breed. This is certainly do-able, but I am not convinced that it is the most efficient way of presenting the information. The working skills and characteristics now listed may seem general, but that is because it is still relatively short. There is a great deal more that could be placed here regarding tolerance of cold, pattern of work, biddability, hard vs. soft mouth, endurance, pointing labs vs. flushing lines, field trialing and hunt test organizations and those are just the things that come immediatly to mind. All of these considerations are taken into account when selecting a gun dog breed. Some of these things may be similar to other retriever breeds, but labrador and chessie conformation is very similar as well. Most of this information is very breed specific and should be part of a gun dog's breed page.--Counsel 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't specific to Labs. They're specific to retrievers (of all kinds, as well as other breeds if any) which are to be trained for retrieval in hunting fowl etc. Not just labs. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many of the skills are common to retrievers, however they are less similar than the information in the Temperament for example. The whole Temperament section could be pasted into a German Shepherd article and no one would know the difference. I do not see why we would take something as important to the history of working breed and deemphasize it because it is similar to that of another dog. These are the traits that truly distinguish the breeds and are the traits that have the greatest impact on an owner's choice of dogs. A GSP housepet and a Lab are not significantly different. A working lab and a working GSP are entirely different. This information is certainly more relavent to this breed than whether or not silver labs are permissible. I have really tried to think of a reason that it should be excluded and cannot think of a good one. The Field Trial and Hunt Test standards are even more breed specific than the conformation information. While one could be a conformation judge of multiple breeds, such is very rare in the working dog world. As there are differences between field lines and show lines is is conceivable that two articles could be created "Labrador Retriever(show dog)" and "Labrador Retreiver(working dog)" but this would surely create more acrimony. See the Talk:Irish Setter for an example of how this sort of split can go. I just recently merged those articles after months of heated debate.--Counsel 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the skills information could go on the Retriever page, properly linked, with a smaller amount of infomation here related only to those skills which are truly different from general retriever skills. How does that sound?--Counsel 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My thought here is that a section "Working labs" that covers the skills, approaches, summarizes the core aspects of training needed, and other differences, would be good. Its the detail of what all the commands are and what the dog is supposed to do for each, that belongs in an article related to hunting/retrieving dog training, not to the article on the breed itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Labrador Retriever/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

OK...could use help.But its not bad

Last edited at 14:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)