Council for Purebred Labrador Retrievers

The so-called ‘Council for Purebred Labrador Retrievers’ is misleading the public, because they advocate and promote the breeding of dilutes, carrying the dd-gene, which is alien to purebred Labradors. Since dogs carrying the dd-gene can’t be purebred Labradors, this is a contradiction in terms. Read my Analysis of the ‘silver’ Labrador population for the details.

Who are they?

Like their breed, the board of the Council for Purebred Labrador Retrievers (CPLR) is a mixed company, consisting of humans and dogs. Chairman is Carleton Pope of Starstruck Labradors; Vice Chairman is George W Thesing IV of Silver Hillside Labradors; Secretary is Cheryl Flynn of Silver Rain Labradors; Treasurer is  Sarah Buckler of Buckler Valley Labradors; Parliamentarian is Steven Millen of Millen Labradors; Director of Membership is Valina Pope of Starstruck Labradors; Membership Committee is Pidge Daniel of Sterling Creek Labs; Director of Member Communications is Penny Gray of Silver Cave; Director of Public Communications are Double Banded Labradors; Director of Fundraising are  Silver Bear Labs; Fundrasing Committee are Gina Wages of Wages Labs & Rebecca Medeiros of R&R Labradors;Director of Genetics & Research are Phantom Labradors; Directors at Large are Horizon Labradors and Victory Lap Labs.

This is truly amazing. Never before were dogs elected in the boards of clubs. I suspect that there are people hiding behind these dogs, not willing to reveal their identities, but I could be wrong, of course.

CPLR objectives

In spite of the fact that it’s very unlikely that this will ever happen, the main objective of  the Council for Purebred Labrador Retrievers is to “Advocate for American Kennel Club (AKC) and parent club recognition of Labrador Retrievers that possess the MLPH gene (aka “dilution”)”. Yet another contradiction in terms: Labrador Retrievers don’t possess the MLPH gene, and if they do, they’re called mutts. The CPLR wants the AKC to add “Silver” “Charcoal” and “Champagne” as accepted coat colour registration options for Labrador Retrievers without limitations (e.g., registration number modifications or breeding restrictions).

And yet another contradiction in terms: “The Council does not condone breeding with the “primary” intention to produce any one particular Labrador Retriever color, commonly called color breeding.”

However, in their newsletter “d” Labrador News, issue 4, November/December 2009, you can find the following statement in the article Bottlenecks and Founder Effects:

(…) As you see, there are reasons to have concern for the future of the Silver Labrador. The saving grace, however, is that none of this needs to happen.
To perpetuate the Silver gene “d,” we do not need to inbreed our dogs. Sure, inbreeding is the easiest way to produce more Silvers, but breeding out to other non-silver Lab lines can be an invaluable tool for you to use to produce better Silvers and ensuring that the Silver Lab is indeed every bit a Labrador as any other Labrador, not a new breed. By using genetic understanding of the recessive nature of the dilution gene, and DNA tests for the dilution gene if needed, breeding to non-silver lines poses no risk of losing the dilution gene. Yet, the benefit for not only your own breeding program, but the population of Silvers as a whole is immense. It behooves us all to consider the non-silver lines more heavily in our individual breeding objectives this coming year!

This is exactly what worries serious and responsible Labrador breeders, or should worry them. Knowing that they’re not accepted within the Labrador world as a whole, these people will try to deceive respectable Labrador breeders, by being secretive about their individual breeding objectives and identities, as some of their board members, and taking advantage of the good name of these respectable Labrador breeders.

Conclusion: the Council for Purebred Labrador Retrievers don’t do what they say they do, are not who they say they are, and constitute a hazard to the general Labrador population, which is – and should remain – free from the dd-gene.

Source:, the official website of the CPLR, as it was published on the internet on September 9, 2012.

Jack Vanderwyk

Within 2 hours after publication this article could be found in Google’s Top 10.



About Jack Vanderwyk

Hey! What am I like! :-)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s