To imply that a dog must NOT be hyper or a have a great demeanor, merely because it can be trained for obedience is a little confusing to me. Assuming that certain character traits that exist in many labs tracing their lines CLOSELY to a certain behavioral strain is merely an 'impression', is further confounding. I have one dog with no titles, that has more drive than I'll ever need, but that has been perfectly calm since 16weeks, and NEVER chewed up a thing and is the model of good behavior (whether under command or alone). I've had plenty of others, titled out the wazoo and trained out the wazoo that weren't worth the food I fed them when it came to being a
good dog. They might have been a retrieving machine, and obedient as could be.....but their nature was a live wire or waiting for any sort of release command to go wild. Each dog is a fit to the owner, the family, the hunting situations, etc. I have found that far more labs with British field ancestry are, well,
labs than
some American bred 'superlabs', that are no longer labs (to me), but merely swimming, retrieving coon dogs or something...not fit to leave around the house alone or to interact with the world outside of hunting in any respectable way, but that will garner all sorts of awards for running stright through broken glass for a mark, instead of having the sense to go around.. While you can say things such as 'you get out what you put in', etc. and be partly correct, you also get out what was
already put in, and you have to live with that, no matter what you can train the dog to do. My very best bird dogs and retrievers have always been the calmest, most sedate, and most people-oriented, and not the highly recommended balls-of-fire that get bragged on in magazines and videos. JMO, but I'm no field trialer or dog training 'pro', either.
