Home Forums Birds & Dogs Hunting Dogs Silver Labrador

There's a kennel near where I live that breeds silver labradors. All the pups that come out are either chocolate or a deep silver color. They're really good looking dogs. Is there anything you should worry about because silver isn't much of a "natural" labrador color? I would get a chocolate one, but just checking...

Pretty good read here

http://www.silverlabs.com/controversy.htm

I didn't take the time to read Seminole's link, and probably should have..but in any given breed, historically, when they are bred for color or confirmation, performance falls off...genetic issues increase...

Cool. Thanks! That's what I was looking for!

That's kind of what I was worried about. I remember reading how some dogs, such as the Irish Setter, were bread almost worthless for a while because of breeding certain qualities for show...

I wouldn't take a pup for hunting from a color, show, or pet breeder if they paid ME to take it. The chances of getting a pup that will be good in the field are REALLY low, the chances of getting a pup with genetic defects, REALLY high. My rule of thumb is if a breeder makes mention of the fact that his dogs are great family animals and pets, then he probably isn't terribly serious about breeding hunting dogs. I want to see a repeat breeding with successful pups (titled) from earlier litters and both parents being titled (not just junior hunters either) with the vast majority of the previous generations having titles as well . I really don't see why anyone would pay $1000/pup or more for a dog that has as its only valuable characterisic the color that it was born with - if you're going to pay extra for a hunting breed why not pay extra for genetic potential in the field. If all you want is a pet that will follow you around when you go hunting, then it really doesn't matter what you get - although I wouldn't pay over $1000 for a color bred pup just so I could look at it (and pay for the potential hip, elbow, eye problems when they inevitably occur). If you absolutely must have a unique color be sure that the parents have at a minimum been tested for hips, eyes, elbows, and EIC - there are a couple of other tests that are also not a bad idea.

What he said X2.
You would better served to look at the breeding not color. If do you do your homework you will find a great many more good breeding of BLACK dogs followed by yellow, follow by chocolate. Go to any retriever field trial in the country and you will see 90%+ black dogs running.

Thank you for the feedback. That's pretty much what I was thinking... They seemed to have good breeding and they stressed their dogs are hunted. I don't really care about what color they are. This litter has silver and chocolate. I would get a chocolate. I was mostly just wondering out loud as I was looking for a puppy. My black labrador is getting up there in years and I'm starting to look now. There are so many other options out there, I don't think I would risk it. I got lucky with the dog I have now. He didn't come from hunting parents and he turned out fantastic... This time I want to make sure ahead of time. It wasn't a priority when I got him.

That's a prety one sided view from someone trying to sell silver labs.

I would stay away from any variations in color. You don't know where those color genes are from. They may look attractive, but once you get one, you are basically saddled with it. Stay with a Black or yellow from a Reputable breeder. Be prepared to spend close to or more that $1,000. That may sound like a lot, but it costs the average dog owner $16,400 to raise a dog until the age of 11. To spend a lot of money on a well-bred Lab is a very good investment. I have two daughter's that are dog trainers, (not breeders) and I field trialed hunting dogs for twenty- some years. As far as Chocolate's go, we have had good ones and not-so good ones. A Chocolate would be my third choice.

This was pulled from another forum.

The real answer is don't go there. People worry about the effects of long term breeding of chocolates to chocolates or yellows to yellows because both colors are recessive traits and breeding strictly on color lines reduces the available gene pool. That's a limited consideration by comparison since both color gene pools are large. However, in breeding "silvers" you are not only breeding a recessive trait but a rare recessive trait. That means the available gene pool is microscopic and the risk of unfortunate genetic surprises sky rockets. Of course, I'm assuming that the genes involved are actually Labs. Many suspect that there is more than a little Weimaraner in the silver Lab gene pool.

I agree that link on "Silvers" should be viewed with great scepticism. Even the photo of that "silver lab" the dog had grey/blue eyes. Ask yourself what breed of dog normally has blue/grey eyes? Labradors normally have BROWN eyes.

I would argue that you all should not quantify that all Silver Labs are by necessity inbred and have bad hips... Silver, Charcoal and Fox Red are all derivations of known Lab colors and are approved by the AKC... not that, that says much.

the argument that the gene pool for silver labs is microscopic is stupid... I bet there are more silver lab breeders in the US then there are DDs or any number of other hunting dogs like Griffs.

The argument about these dogs is as old as they are but it most revolves around the purity of their blood (some say they breed in weims a long time ago to get the color) but who cares... a good and reputable breeder could certainly have silver labs with good hunting stock.

I would also take the opposition point to the endless argument that I see here about not caring what a dog looks like as long as it hunts... that might be true for some ppl but its not for me... its certainly not high on my priority list but it does matter to me... I will never own a Griff b/c I think they are ugly... there are enough hunting dogs out there that I don't need to live 15 years with something that I think is ugly...

OK, heres the scoop on the color on a lab, make of it what you will.
The color( any color) is caused by a gene that is responsible for the placement of pigment in the hair per se.
Fine and good you think, if thats all there is to it..
The trouble is a thing called pleiotropy- wherein one gene is responsible for many traits/characteristics ( as most genes are...)For instance, the gene that is responsible in some breeds for pigment in the inner ear is also responsible for hearing per se- why many white dogs are deaf.
The canine genome has been pretty well mapped, but the individual genes havent neccesarily been broken down to see what all each one is responsible for.
Then theres the other traits that come with prospective parents that may be carrying the recessive gene you are trying to breed to the fore..
With very little imagination, you can see it is a quagmire, and not one to be entered into by the ill-informed.


This is why many serious dog handlers/owners looking for performance dogs, be they gun dogs or K9 or whatever, completely shelve the "looks" department in favor of known, titled performance in the lineage...

An old saying goes:

"Theres nothing like good blood in horses, dogs and men......."

Amen, my friend! DD Testing Program

That is interesting.
Could you direct us to a breeder with proven field lines of silver Labs? Such as NFC/NAFC/FC/AFC/QAA/MH and the like. Pups from parents with field titles and so forth. I can't seem to find any. Thanks in advance. Some would say a reputable breeder of silver Labs is an oxymoron. Not me, I got an open mind.

I never once said that I know of a breeder or that a breeder exists... I said that a good breder COULD... its simply a genetic trait...

You know what was not common in labs about when silver started to become a color they were breed in... using them as upland bird dogs...

Getting back to the OPs questions...

unless INGWE knows of some pleiotropy gene with silver, charcoal, or red labs, there is nothing intrinsic to these lab colors that you need to watch out for... there is just a bunch of ppl here making generalizations. Many are likely based in truth but I would not discount every silver lab I seen as hunting lame b/c of its coat color.

I find this an intresting thread. I don't know anything about the color in question. What I do know is that to get the best chance of a pup turning into a stud of a hunter you need to look at the family tree. Not only of that breeding but of the breedings of the members that have been breed in other breedings and what they have produced.

However I will say that from my observations the dog owner 80% of the time is the limiting factor of the dogs abilities. I know a fella that bought a dog not only out of the best stock avalible but trained and championed by some of the best. Only to let the dog go idle and become the boss. I know more then a few fella's that have done their homework to buy a puppy that had the best possable chance for succuss only to not put in the time and effort in training. I also know a fella that bought a pup from a very reputable breeder put the time in training it only to realize he didn't know as much as he thought he did. After a few seasons of less then desirable hunting with the dog he decided to send it to a trainer and to also learn from the trainer. The dog is a very functional hunter now. Be honest with yourself on what you can do, both in training and time. Also remember the training never stops if you want to have a true full potiental gun dog.