# Star Tribune Column



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune

Few are subjects about which more people claim expertise than dogs. This is particularly true among hunters, who often consider their canine companions appendages of themselves and, particularly, their egos.

That said, let's venture forth fearlessly today regarding the Labrador retriever, which by far is the most popular breed registered in the U.S. by the American Kennel Club. And by far the most popular hunting dog in Minnesota and most other states.

In 2005, for instance, the AKC registered 137,867 Labs, while golden retrievers, in second place, numbered only 52,560.

But here's the kicker: Historically, a breed's rise in popularity has correlated directly to its decline in health and quality. One example among many: the red (Irish) setter, which once was a formidable dog in the field but now is rarely seen there because of its overbreeding as a pet and show dog. Ditto the cocker spaniel, among others.

The subject of Labradors and their breeding arose last week in an e-mail exchange among noted U.S. waterfowl researchers and managers.

The conclusion of the 1970s-era study cited with this column (study result: that hunters with dogs were more effective in the field) was the catalyst for the discussion, after which many of the e-mail correspondents -- retriever owners each -- offered opinions about Labradors, specifically their growth in popularity; a possible decline in their field qualities and training; and the effect on Labradors of breeding for colors other than black.

Begin with some facts: Per capita, Minnesotans own more AKC-registered Labradors than residents of any other state except Wisconsin (Wisconsinites own 86.0 per 100,000 residents; Minnesotans, 82.3 per 100,000. Next closest: North Carolina, with 52.6). The high rate of Lab ownership in Minnesota is linked to the popularity of duck hunting here. Most years, Minnesota leads the nation in the number of waterfowlers it puts afield, even though it is far less populous than other frontrunners, such as Texas.

Another fact: Minnesota has long been home to some of the best retriever trainers in the nation, amateur and professional, and has produced its share of national field champions, dating to Cork of Oakwood Lane in 1955. Minnesota also can claim the yellow Labrador that won more field-trial points than any other before he died in 1984, FC AFC Candlewood's Mad Mouse, owned by Charlie and Yvonne Hays of Princeton.

Color a focal point

Ripe for discussion about Labradors are nearly countless subtexts, among them training methods; use of electronic collars and their effects on individual dogs and the breed itself; and genetic maladies.

But perhaps nothing about the modern Labrador deserves scrutiny so much as the breeding of them for colors other than black -- namely yellow and chocolate -- and its implications for the breed and owners alike.

History first: The breed's origins can be traced to Labrador, Newfoundland and, later, Great Britain. Facts are sketchy, but reliable treatises on the subject include "The Labrador Retriever," by Lorna, Countess Howe (first published in 1957 and revised in 1978), and a book of the same name published in 1981 by American Richard Wolters.

Most Labrador historians agree that "Labradors" imported to Great Britain in the mid-1800s carried the yellow gene recessively. Indeed, the "modern" Labrador, yellow and black alike, seems to have originated from a breeding in the U.K. in 1899 that produced Ben of Hyde, who was yellow (Kennel Club #55698), the offspring of Neptune and Dutchess. Neptune, in turn, was a descendant of Turk, who arrived in the U.K. from Newfoundland in 1871. Ben had one littermate, Juno, who also was yellow. Of the pair, only Ben tended to throw yellow in his offspring.

As Wolters said in his book, "The yellow fad had started."

Fast forward to 1925, the year of the founding in the U.K. of the Yellow Labrador Retriever Club, which exists still today. (No companion affiliate exists in the U.S.)

In the U.K., the yellow Lab was bred carefully and promoted by important kennel owners, including King George VI. After World War II, as Wolters reported, yellows grew immensely in popularity in the U.K., a trend that followed in the United States beginning in the 1960s.

Today, in the show ring and as pets, yellows are very common in the U.K. and the United States, sometimes numbering far in excess of blacks. But blacks still outnumber yellows in field trials, and generally are more popular in the United States among hunters.

Following the trend

But are yellow Labs (and chocolates) inferior in the field to blacks? And are yellows bred to be companion (pet) animals similarly inferior?

Obviously, many top-notch individual yellows exist. But as a population of field animals in the United States, yellows in some instances are inferior, I believe, and I believe as well that unsuspecting purchasers in the United States of some yellow Labradors (and some chocolate Labradors) often are worse for their decisions.

Trendiness is indeed the culprit. Because color phase in Labradors is simple recessive -- meaning blacks can only produce yellows if they carry the yellow gene recessively, and meaning also a yellow bred to a yellow will produce an all-yellow litter -- many breeders, backyard and professional, breed Labradors today oftentimes based more on their color (to meet market demand) than on more important traits.

Women in particular seem to prefer yellows over blacks, and help drive demand. Yellows, some women believe, shed hair that is less detectable on carpets. Another possible reason for yellows' popularity among women: They are more often used than blacks in women's-magazine advertisements, possibly resulting in a conditioning bias.

The bad news for consumers -- thousands and thousands of consumers -- is that ill-bred yellow Labs often have physical maladies, including, but not limited to, allergies. And they can be ill-tempered and hyperactive.

(Increasingly, because of the black Lab's popularity, the same problems afflict it.)

Instead of color, breeders more properly should choose stock with hips, elbows and eyes that are free of genetic defects; sound temperament; keen intelligence; natural retrieving ability; sound and aesthetically pleasing conformation; a soft mouth; a "kind" eye; thick coat; "otter-like" tail; and a willingness to be trained.

If those Labs are yellow, and they trace their lineage to similarly well-bred animals, then -- as with black Labs possessing the same qualities -- they are candidates for breeding.

Upshot: Great individual dogs can spring from any breeding, and good or bad Labradors can be yellow, black or chocolate.

But the percentage chance an owner will purchase a healthy, high-quality yellow (or chocolate) Lab from a breeder who places color in his or her breeding decision ahead of health, temperament, intelligence and demonstrated field traits, is low.

And so long as consumers, uninformed as they often are, continue to buy these dogs, they will continue to contribute not only to their own troubles, but the breed's further decline.

Dennis Anderson • [email protected]

Hunters using a dog had higher duck kills, retrieved a higher

proportion of their kill and killed more birds per day than those

who did not use a dog. Both groups hunted about the same

number of days." 1974 Canadian Wildlife Service study.

"

"

"I'll bet a greater proportion of the Labs back then were black compared to today. Chocolates and yellows are real trendy nowadays. But in my opinion, a lot of smarts, nose, and other desirable characteristics were sacrificed to get those colors, and it's going to be a long time before the trendy colored dogs can stand up, on average, to the blacks in terms of sheer hunting ability, if ever."

A waterfowl researcher to colleagues in an e-mail discussion last week about retrievers


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Blah... blah... blah...

So much fluff. :eyeroll:


----------



## DakotaDog72 (Sep 27, 2005)

I hate say this, but I actually agree with Dennis on this one. Improper breeder is going to ruin the breed. You ask many hunt enthusaists about the "best breed" they will say the GSP is best for upland game and the Chessie is tops to waterfowl. Just my 2 cents.

btw...proud owner of a black "pointing" lab. I say it that way because she doesn't point. Oh well.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

You forgot the title of the article "*With Labs, best to be colorblind*" and the secondary title of : 
The immense popularity of Labrador retrievers will contribute to the breed's decline, as long as consumers continue to value the dogs' color ahead of traits such as intelligence and health.

Good insight on why a waterfowler should have dog at the tale end of the article.

And have to agree with Dennis on the breeding part. Biggest concern to hunting dogs is breeding for attributes other than hunting/health.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

Dennis nailed it!!! (I'm in shock, this is one of those people that has bought into the British dog is better than the American dog ploy) Another marketing gimmick.

Anyway, I especially like this quote:



> But the percentage chance an owner will purchase a healthy, high-quality yellow (or chocolate) Lab from a breeder who places color in his or her breeding decision ahead of health, temperament, intelligence and demonstrated field traits, is low.
> 
> And so long as consumers, uninformed as they often are, continue to buy these dogs, they will continue to contribute not only to their own troubles, but the breed's further decline.


A pedigree that shows yellow - yellow - yellow generation after generation speaks for itself. They are selecting for color first because yellow sells. This is what seperates a "puppy mill" from a breeder looking to improve the breed. The breed should come first, the money should come second.

Hydro - who just bought a yellow pup out of two blacks, the best way to buy one.


----------

