# what do you guys think?



## hdroc (Apr 8, 2008)

what in your guys opinions is a better looking dog lab or chessie


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

The one coming towards you with a pheasant in its mouth?  
Canuck


----------



## Gamefinder (Jan 11, 2007)

Depends on the owners lifestyle and experience. Also, depends on the individual dog; they are all the same.


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

hdroc said:


> what in your guys opinions is a better looking dog lab or chessie


That's an easy one......Chessie hands down!!!! :beer: :wink:


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

a lot of that depends on the breeding too.

If you get a classic lab they are real nice looking. Square head, big boned etc. Sometimes now you see labs that look like grey hounds or St. Bernards if not bred well.

I think same goes for chessies. I've never owned one but have researched them quite a bit. Most are gorgeous with big heads, wavy coats, big bones etc. However, I've seen pictures of some that look like shaggy mongrels or don't look much different than a choc lab.

I think if you get a well bred one in either breed they are great looking!


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

And like the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I just read an article in the current issue of "Gundog Magazine" about this very topic. The article basically talked about having a dog that conformed to the breed standard that could also hunt (all gundog breeds, not just labs and chessies). Going back to the old saying that"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I personally do not like the looks of some of the gundog breeds from Show Lines..... I have absolutely no desire to own a Springer like the ones you see at Westminster regardless of how well it hunts......I like the looks of a well built Springer from Field Lines, but that's me and I'll say the same for English Setters and Irish Setters.

But I agree with Verg.....I've seen a few Chessies and Labs that were hard to tell exactly what breed they were.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

speaking of springers Stonebroke. The show line and field line *almost *don't even look like the same breed. Usually there is a small difference in show/field lines in all breeds but man..those loooong ears on a show springer. I bet they could almost be registered as seperate breeds?? Are they the same size? Pictures of field springers look larger and more muscular.

My family had two irish setters when I was a kid. Man they were pretty! they looked like show dogs but could hunt. That was long ago-there seems to be big distinctions between the show and field lines now.


----------



## Gamefinder (Jan 11, 2007)

I have always believed that when form fit the function and the critter worked well that it was beautiful. There is nothing more beautiful to watch than a well balanced dog using its athletic ability affield.

When I actively judged trials and shows I always looked for the animal built to do the job most efficiently. There is nothing more beautiful than the heads of Irish setters or flat coated retrievers but if the wheels and power system arn't there they are pretty useless. All to many of the show dogs in sporting breeds fit some misguided form of suburban ladies eye for elegance rather than the practical.

As a youngster I was taught that dogs that drive through cover get hurt and tired while dogs that move with ease seeming to just float stay sound. Looking at xrays of older animals and comparing conformation from the elegant high withered show types to the better balanced animals with correct angles for work and the old sages advice certainly seems to be accurate.

To me the best looking dog is the grey muzzled old timer that brought many a bird to hand and still leaps to it feet and is calmly waiting at the truck when I get set to shoot some more.


----------



## gonedoggin (Mar 20, 2008)

The correct answer is: Lab. Black or dark yellow.

There's no reason to get a Chessie unless you hunt geese in big, icy water.

There's no reason at all for a chocolate Lab.

:stirpot:


----------



## whitehorse (Jan 28, 2008)

gonedoggin said:


> The correct answer is: Lab. Black or dark yellow.
> 
> There's no reason to get a Chessie unless you hunt geese in big, icy water.
> 
> ...


I think the chessy has some awesome camo, and for the big icy sloughs, would be killer on those longer than anticipated hunts... also, as states, good labs are much much easier to come by, and if i'm not mistaken, more affordable... I would like a small compact lab personally, those big bruisers take up a lot of room in a truck or boat...


----------



## Gamefinder (Jan 11, 2007)

When I read a post like the one from our repondent in sunny Texas I see someone who has a preconceived notion for 3.2 Coors and is reluctant to Taste Carlsburg Luxor. If you are satisfied with the familiar name brand breed great but some of us appreciate the qualities of something a bit more special. Have had Labs, great dogs in my book but just that DOGS. I prefer Chesapeakes or Flatcoats because both in home and affield I want a dog that thinks for itself, offers challenges for a trainer but when the going gets tough they never falter waiting for instructions, get cold feet or become confused when they have to do something to protect my home, collect my birds or just be great companions. For each his own but repect that some just want a bit more.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

You know..I check out a couple different sites now and then and it seems there is more and more talk of chesapeakes. Do you think they are getting more popular? I know I hope to own one someday when the time is right. I would guess guys like gamefinder and stonebroke are hoping the popularity stays as is and I would tend to agree. We don't need another outstanding breed gaining fancy and being ruined.
Gamefinder and Stonebroke..what are your thoughts on the breeds popularity? Do you ever have problems selling your pups? Do you fear a fancy for them or do you embrace it?


----------



## hdroc (Apr 8, 2008)

i agree verg that would be bad if the chessie gained popularity


----------



## Gamefinder (Jan 11, 2007)

I am very firmly in the opinion that the Chesapeake Bay retriever requires a special sort of owner. In short they are not the breed for everbody or even not a suitable breed for most owners.

There are plenty of people that want Chesapeakes but the breeders problem is to single out the want to bees that are suited to owning a very active dog with a logic and mind that is all its own. They are not suited to constant reginmentation programing and if abused either quit altogether or strike back. So the constant headache of a person breeding that cares what happens to his pups is weeding out the ones that can do well with Chessies and to firmly but politely steer the other to other breeds that might suit their personalities or lifestyle better.

One of the breeds greatest challenges is the number of suburban woman who want to be big breeders but have never hunted or dealt with animals before. Whether this is a need to get back to nature, a big ego trip, a cash cow or a psuedo family of furry four legged humans I don't know but from what I have seen over the past 30+ iears is this strong trend and I do not think it is helping to maintain the breed as hunters, as sound healthy critters and as good citizens. Like it or not it is not something that any of us can reverse.

Once the dogs become above all else pets and family members the other virtues seem to get forgotten and structure, health, temperament and trainability all suffer. I do not mean to say this is just a Chessie issue it is impacting all breeds of hunting dogs. Those gals that want a Chessie and like to work and train them to hunt are certainly not the ones I am questioning. In fact in many ways Chessies are very sensitive dogs and some respond better under a woman's hand.

Over popularity never helped any breed. For a Chessie it would be a disaster.


----------



## gonedoggin (Mar 20, 2008)

Gamefinder said:


> When I read a post like the one from our repondent in sunny Texas I see someone who has a preconceived notion for 3.2 Coors and is reluctant to Taste Carlsburg Luxor.


That's not it at all, he asked for an opinion so I gave him one. I've got lots of em.

Redheads > blonds
OU > SxS
#5s > #6s
Chevys > Fords

What else you wanna know? :wink:

The truth is, I don't have any Labs anymore. I'm a Springer and Golden man now but I recognize that Labs are the easiest, most reliable choice for a waterfowler to train, especially for a first dog.


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

verg said:


> You know..I check out a couple different sites now and then and it seems there is more and more talk of chesapeakes. Do you think they are getting more popular? I know I hope to own one someday when the time is right. I would guess guys like gamefinder and stonebroke are hoping the popularity stays as is and I would tend to agree. We don't need another outstanding breed gaining fancy and being ruined.
> Gamefinder and Stonebroke..what are your thoughts on the breeds popularity? Do you ever have problems selling your pups? Do you fear a fancy for them or do you embrace it?


Verg,
I can't say as I've seen an increase in the popularity of Chessies recently. Judging from the dogs I see in the field, the pups advertised in the newspaper, on websites, etc. the Lab is still by far the most popular gundog. 
The majority of the Chessie pups I place are with people who have an old Chessie that has passed on, had a Chessie at some point in the past and want another, etc. I also place pups now and then with people who have had Labs and want to try a Chessie to see what they are like. I rarely get calls from people inquiring about a pup who have never had a Chessie or a Lab. I've placed a couple pups in homes where they were their first gundog, but it doesn't happen often. Oddly enough (or maybe it isn't odd....I don't know), but the couple I can think of that I've placed with people who had never had a gundog before were very, very pleased with their pups. As a matter of fact, I placed one with a gal from Texas several years back and she's getting another from my current litter and so are her father and her sister.
As far as the demand for the pups I have, I don't have trouble placing the pups, but I only have a litter or two a year. I usually have a few pups reserved before I do a breeding but I don't have a two year waiting list or anything like that. From what I understand, some breeders do have a long waiting list. I know Butch Goodwin (Northern Flight) usually has a long waiting list, or at least he did a few years back when I talked to him. I don't know about others, but it seems like when I see a litter that is from quality lines the pups usually go pretty quickly.


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

verg said:


> speaking of springers Stonebroke. The show line and field line *almost *don't even look like the same breed. Usually there is a small difference in show/field lines in all breeds but man..those loooong ears on a show springer. I bet they could almost be registered as seperate breeds?? Are they the same size? Pictures of field springers look larger and more muscular.
> 
> My family had two irish setters when I was a kid. Man they were pretty! they looked like show dogs but could hunt. That was long ago-there seems to be big distinctions between the show and field lines now.


Verg,
You're right.....Springers from 100% field lines have become so different from Springers from Show lines that they really should be registered as separate breeds in my opinion. 
Springers from field lines are smaller than those from show lines. Generally speaking, a field bred Springer will weigh 35 to 45 pounds. You'll find some a few pounds lighter and some a few pounds heavier, but the majority will usually be in the 35 to 45 pound range. Most have a much shorter, flatter coat than Springers from Show lines and most have much more white than those from show lines. I've seen some Springers from show lines that weigh in excess of 70 pounds. Most have a very profuse coat and they usually have the liver or black "blanket" that covers the back and sides. Springers from show lines are a heavier built dog...bigger boned, longer muzzles, etc. 
There is little comparison in the field ability between the two lines.......there will be those people who argue that there are dogs from Show lines that excel in the field and I'm sure there are, but there hasn't been a dual champion in the breed since 1938. My guess from the field trials I've been to is that a Springer from Show lines would stand no chance of becoming a field champion.....probably would stand very little chance of even placing. A Springer from Show lines may or may not have the instincts to hunt and retrieve... It would be a hit or miss proposition. I've been breeding Springers from Field Lines for about 20 years now and have never had a pup that showed no interest in hunting or retrieving. Not one. They are absolutely obsessed with anything that flys.
People have crossed the field and show lines with varying degrees of success. Glen Martyn, a breeder who used to be in Missoula, MT, (Firewind Kennels) bred Show/Field crosses for many, many years in an attempt to get a dual champion. He never did, but he did get some very nice hunting dogs. Very nice. They were nice looking dogs....a little larger than the typical field bred Springer, but not slow and clunky like a lot of the dogs from show lines are. The ones I saw were very athletic....very agile.


----------



## kgpcr (Sep 2, 2006)

gonedoggin said:


> The correct answer is: Lab. Black or dark yellow.
> 
> There's no reason to get a Chessie unless you hunt geese in big, icy water.
> 
> ...


Now why would you say that there is no reason for a Chocolate lab?? i have one and she is a great dog.


----------

