Labs And Litigation: It's A Battle Over Inches

Is America's top dog in chaos or is the controversy surrounding it much ado about nothing?

The versatile Labrador retriever, a consummate field trialer for some and showman for others, has become the centerpiece of political tug-of-war between the Labrador Retriever Club, Inc., and an unknown number (some estimate hundreds) of breeders nationwide.

The clash pairs off field-trial devotees, who favor taller more athletic Labs, against some in the conformation-obedience camp, which breed for stocky, shorter-legged animals.

For five decades, the height range of the breed has been the same, a two-inch spread which has allowed for judging flexibility for male show dogs measuring under 22 1/2 inches and females shorter than 21 1/2 inches with a half-inch leeway.

No more, says the 700-member LRCA through the revised standard which became effective March 31, after being OKed earlier this year by 70 percent of the club members and then the American Kennel Club, the nation's largest dog registry. Basically, it adds a proviso that departure of greater than one-half inch above or below the standard height range would result in disqualification.

Even champions who don't measure up are out. Like major-league professional sports and hemlines at international fashion shows, this, too, is a business of inches.

Six longtime breeders whose bench quality or championship stock Labs don't satisfy the height range, have become parties in a

class-action suit against both the 63-year-old LRC and the AKC, which is essentially the rubber stamp for breed standards adopted by parent clubs.

The plaintiffs contend the new height proviso has made their dogs unmarketable and not show worthy, and are seeking a temporary injunction against the AKC from enforcing the standard until a suit can be heard.

On July 7, a Virginia federal judge declined to throw out the lawsuit and ordered that it be shifted to federal court in New York City, where the AKC is based. He also gave the two clubs 10 days to respond to the breeders' charges of antitrust violations.

At stake is millions of dollars in puppy sales and stud fees, i.e. the livelihood of many breeders nationwide.

"This can cost some longtime breeders thousands of dollars annually," says Sally Bell, of Westerville, Ohio, a 28-year breeder and newly appointed member of the LRC's 11-member board of directors.

Some of these animals are valued between $10,000 and $20,000 and command stud fees of $500 and more. Their puppies sell for $500 and up. Should they no longer fit the standard and find themselves disqualified three times, they're relegated from champs to chumps overnight.

According to a wire-service report, the club replied that an injunction "is an unwarranted intrusion into the internal governance and rules . . . of two private not-for-profit sporting organizations . . . and an inappropriate waste of judicial resources." It adds, ". . . while the plaintiffs may suffer short-term harm, there clearly is no harm to the market . . . The only difference is that different dogs win dog shows. This is not an antitrust violation."

Bell, who owns 20 dogs, adds, "I have to look at every dog now before I show it. If there's the slightest chance it might be disqualified, I won't risk it."

Dr. Bernard Ziessow, of Franklin, Mich., a 40-year breeder of 65 champion Labs, an AKC judge and chairman of the LRC's standard revision committee, paints a different picture.

The Labrador Retriever Club, he says, has been misrepresented as only a group of field-trialers. He estimates one-third of the membership is field oriented, one-third show and the other third pet and hunting. The standard committee included seven who are into both conformation/obedience and field, six who are primarily show people and two who are chiefly field oriented. Three of the 15, he says, dissented on the change.

"Twenty-five breeds," says Ziessow, 79, have height disqualifications. "This revision was done at the behest of the AKC to establish a uniform format of all breed standards.

"Our committee would not have gone for the height disqualification if members had viewed it as a minor infraction. It became so flagrant some felt a minority was rubbing our noses in the standard."

When a similar change was proposed several years ago, an opposition letter writing campaign was launched and the matter was put on hold by the AKC.

"I believe what we've done is right," says Ziessow. "Conformation means conforming to something. But in this context it is also means being built or having the size and structure that would permit an animal to engage in its intended purpose.

"The Labrador retriever was bred to be a retrieving gun dog. If you want something to sleep on your bed there are other breeds that don't take as much room."

Nelson Sills, of Houston, Del., LRC president and a member of the AKC board of directors, adds, "Some would make you believe 43 percent of the Lab breeders are opposed to the revision. That's ridiculous, it's a vocal minority. In 200 shows nationwide since March 31, Lab entries and registration are up.

"If we hadn't drawn the line, eventually we'd have miniature Labs."

Georgia Gooch of Kennewick, who has been breeding Labs for 30 years, is concerned how the issue has polarized the Lab community and how a club without open membership can control the standard. "Why should we have a standard that doesn't resemble any other in the world? It's full of negatives, but this height thing just reeks of politics."

If the matter cannot be resolved in court or amicably between breeders and the national club, some suggest it may force the establishment of two breeds of Lab - the English (shorter, stocker version favored by those involved in conformation and show events) and American (the taller, lankier type advocated by field trialers).

The mere thought of it makes Gooch shutter. "It would split the breed's gene pool dramatically. Both have plenty to offer. The athleticism of field trialers and the calmer, laid-back temperament of many conformation dogs are both giant plusses."

The Labrador is America's No. 1 dog for a reason, says Gooch. It's an excellent family pet, a sound field worker and a superb service animal in such arenas as guide, therapy and rescue.

Gooch isn't opposed to the new regulation, only the ramrod fashion it was implemented. "I think people could live with it if they'd been given a voice and a five-year moratorium. It would have provided breeders enough time to establish a gene pool oriented toward making the minimum height."

Many regional clubs nationwide, like the 100-member Puget Sound Labrador Retriever Association, are not affiliated with the parent organization, primarily because they are more conformation and obedience oriented.

Barbara Ironside of Bothell, a member of both, says the undersize problem affects female dogs primarily.

"Some judges seem to be taking it to heart while others are letting it go to see what happens," she says. Which means, owners and handlers of Labs on the edge will be picking their spots carefully, depending upon the judging lineup.

According to Bill Holbrook of Sequim, AKC area field supervisor, there have been few disqualifications in Northwest events since the change.

Rules stipulate that a fellow exhibitor in the ring or a judge may call for a measurement on a dog older than 1 year.

Most judges who have disqualified Labs since the rule change are opposed to the standard change and simply trying to make a statement, says Holbrook.

-- Mail information regarding dog and cat events to Classified Division, attn. Dog and/or Cat Events, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111. All releases must be in writing. Information must be received by Monday prior to Sunday publication. Be sure to include a public phone-contact number.