# Why so many oversized goldens?



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

irresponsible breeding practices.


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

missmarstar said:


> irresponsible breeding practices.


I'd have to agree. My first boy, I got through a friend. He topped out at 103 lbs and 26" at the shoulder. He was a great dog, but did have health problems, though he lived to be 12 1/2. Ike is much smaller and is to breed standard. I did my research before I purchased him.


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

My Buck was 90 pounds and tall. Hunter, at full adult weight stqyed between 77 and 79 pounds--abnd looked lean. he was also tall and long with a large block head--and so beautiful in my eyes. KayCee does well at 65-67 pounds. She is a lot shorter--both ways--than hunter was.


----------



## micheller (Feb 8, 2008)

They definitely have joint problems when they're so big! My GSD is only 8 years young and and weighs in around 80lbs and has horrible joint problems....even her poor feet! They say that our new golden puppy is on the "petite side" because she'll only reach about 60lbs....that's fine with me!!!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Some people simply think "bigger is better". Their mantra being "I just breed for pets so no standard matters". I am opposed to breeding dogs with disqualifying faults, and over-sized is one of them.


----------



## Carraig (Jan 4, 2008)

Funny how trends change and they can be regional too. When I began looking for my breeding female in 1993, I found the females in this area very small. I also found that breeders were using a limited number of males/lines which likely contributed to that. I went outside the area and eventually waited for a girl from a breeder who was then located in Quebec. She knew that I wanted a decent sized girl, and that is just what Chessie turned out to be. I didn't get her till 1995.

My male was bred locally and he was a big dog himself, which is why I didn't want to be breeding him to one of these girls that almost failed the standard for height. Scooter was 1/2 inch under the height limit, and carried 75 lb at his peak, sometimes into the 80s when he was laying around. Their puppies were all large, solidly built but within standards for size.


----------



## Charlie06 (Feb 10, 2007)

Charlie is 18 months and barely weighs 60 lbs.


----------



## Gwen (Aug 9, 2007)

I was just reviewing GR breed standards through the Golden Retriever Club of Canada and here are the CKC standards on GR size

*Size*: Males 23-24 inches (58-61 cm) in height at the withers, females 21.5-22.5 inches (55-57 cm). Length from breastbone to buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio 12:11. Weight for dogs, 65-75 lb. (29-43 kg); bitches 60-70 lb. (27-32 kg).
ale 50 

I do agree that there seems to be a lot of "discretion" in this area especially at the conformation show level. I recently attended a show in Ontario & a few of the GRs winning were oversized. One of the dogs weighed in at 92 lbs (the handler advised this) - I call that oversize - and another was definitely more than 24 inches. These dogs were WINNING! I think we either need to get back to the breed standards or change them. In all honestly, I don't think they need to be changed based on the original purpose of a GR - to be a hunting dog. A very large dog wouldn't make it in the hunting world.

Oliver weighs in at 76 lbs & Nygel 73 lbs.


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Also, purchasing the runt doesn't mean you will be getting a smaller adult. My Sam was the runt and became one of the largest adults from his litter. Ike was the largest male in his litter, but is not the largest today.


----------



## jcasks (Oct 14, 2007)

Tucker is 11 months and just at 80 lbs, I guess I never thought anything wrong about that. His mother was always between 70-75 lbs and his father was always between 80-85 lbs so I am assuming Tucker is right at his final weight. I love my big boy!


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Now that Brady is grown, I thought Brady was on the petite side. I had him weighed two weeks ago, and he was 64 lbs which is just about right for 15 months. 

I have tried to measure his height and it is right in the ball park of being standard (can't keep him still long enough to accurately measure).

My brother in law's golden is 18 months and over 90 lbs! - That is why I thought Brady was petite.

Personally, Brady is the smallest dog I have had since I was a child, and I think his size is so perfect for being the lap dog he is....


----------



## HovawartMom (Aug 10, 2006)

In most breed,they usually allow an inch taller if propally proportionate!.
My golden girl is pretty normal compared to the standard!.She is 23in for 63pds but most people think she is small cos she is not heavy looking!.Too much weight on a dog will bring on bone problems and usually stop a dog from doing the job,he was bred for!.
A 70 pd golden will be more agile than a 90 pd dog and will usually have more stamina!.


----------



## TiffanyK (Mar 3, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Some people simply think "bigger is better". Their mantra being "I just breed for pets so no standard matters". I am opposed to breeding dogs with disqualifying faults, and over-sized is one of them.


I hope I'm forgiven for my "thinking" over time. I've learned so much in the last couple weeks alone, particularly with breed standards - and I am looking forward to learning so much more (I've got a lot to learn yet). My golden girls were within standard on height weight - but several people commented to me that they thought they were younger, not full grown based on size - based on their "friends" GR or "so-in-so's" GR who was *double* their size in height and weight. I went to the USVI a few years ago - went into a local shop there and this humongous dog came barrelling in, he was a local. I actually asked them what kind of dog it was, thinking there was some GR in him, but a mix, just because he was so big... he was full blood GR - this guy was probably 110 and I would say 26"+ in height (I don't want to exaggerate, I "remember" his back was as tall as my upper theigh, but that CAN'T be right at 30"). My jaw dropped! I also thought he was gorgeous and wanted one just like him (size, temperment - he was gorgeous, IMO)

Now, I've been looking at breed standards. When I read that a GR can be DQ'd for being 1" or more taller than standard I realized there is something wrong with this picture. I guess that shows that when one isn't educated on breed standard or the importance of the standard for so many reasons they can fall into thinking "cool" (if that makes sense).

I've loved GRs for so long and wish I'd gotten a lot more educated sooner. I love my babies!!!!! Exactly as they are, but have a whole new appreciation for "breed standard" too. I believe my Dax is going to be on the very large size - I still can't say that I regret that I chose him because he's big and his daddy was very big. I am dissapointed that I am getting more educated AFTER choosing my 2nd GR. While I do still think that those big boys are awesome, I am now concerned that my 10 week old Dax might suffer joint problems because of his size. If he is taller than 24" will that exclude him from being shown in any category? I am so blind on showing, am not saying that I want to get Dax into showing, but I am interested and slowly "learning".

anyway...I hope I've shed some insight on possible "why". I hope that as yall get to know me you will forgive the mistakes I've made in thinking and in contributing to what I now agree is "bad breeding". The reason I included this quote in this post is that  I recall a comment from a BYB I met along the way that was .. well.. almost word for word "I just breed for pets so no standard matters" 

Tiffany
*almost ashamed to hit submit reply.....


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Don't be. I was in your shoes with my first golden. He was a huge adult just like you describe. He did develop joint pain in his last years. Also seizures. I did my homework with my next golden.


----------



## HovawartMom (Aug 10, 2006)

I would be more worried about weight than height!.If a tall dog is kept thin or normal wieght,he will usually be fine!.The sad thing,is that I have seen more fat goldens than tall ones.Most people go by weight when they talk about their dog being big,not by height!.A dog should be proportionate!.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Tiffany, to answer your question the best I can: If Dax is more than 25" (more than an inch above the standard) he would not be able to be shown for Conformation (think doggie beauty contest, like the Westminster show). He would still be able to enter obedience, agility, and field training provided you have an AKC registration number for him... but honestly, if he is that large you really need to consider the risks of repetitive jumping on his joints. I don't think anybody will hold your choices against you. It's nice to see that you are constantly trying to learn more about this beautiful breed... and look at it this way, you're in a better position to make a more informed choice next time. In the meantime, love those boys... no matter what size they are!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## gold'nchocolate (May 31, 2005)

Right now I have 3 goldens--2 males and 1 female. Jack is big but the vet said that he liked his weight "for him" which was 72 lbs. His head is huge...I call him 'Bear Head'...it seems as if my hand just about can cover the top of his head. Biscuit's check-up is in a couple of weeks so I don't know his weight right now but he's a little smaller than Jack but his head is not so huge. They both have sort of long legs. Sasha is smaller than any golden I have ever seen (I need to measure her height). She looks exactly like an adult golden (at almost 10 mo) but looks like she was put in a shrinking machine. She's not thin and lanky, she's sort of full bodied and stout, without being fat, and she's much shorter than my boyz. I'm still amazed whenever I look at her. I actually love her size since I'm running out of room with all of these big dogs...LOL.


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

Yup...many have said it. Bad breeders and bad choices. My friends dog which is a Golden weighs way over 100 punds..the vet says he's a big boned dog...which I don't think that is causing him to be overweight.


----------



## Bogart'sMom (Sep 16, 2005)

My first Golden Retriever Dani she was a tall female was at her highest weight about 75 Lbs. I think she was as tall as Bogart is now. I thought Dani was big when when I saw Bogart's Mom I though oh my she is as tall as my Cattle dog LOL which is med size 49 lbs. No but Bogart is about 24" and about 73 Lbs. He looks good not to thin and not fat at all. But when we walk on our off leash doggy trail people always say Oh "she" is so cute is she still a puppy? Because most male goldens are alot taller then him and he is some what petit looking (when you don't look down and see his hugh paws that look like snow shoes). I know now that my first girlie, Dani (from a BYB) was oversized and Bogart is where he is suposed to be so it really doesn't bother me at all. I do think that people think bigger is better. Bogart's best Girlfriend is a black Lab that is probalby 25 or 26" tall and she is around a 100 Lbs she is BIG but also the friendliest dog ever. Sometimes I think should I tell her person that Dakota is too big for a labi I'm sure they have realized that by now. They are such nice people as is their dog and I hate to hurt their feelings. As she is very much loved as all of our dogs are.
All the best,


----------



## TiffanyK (Mar 3, 2008)

golden&hovawart said:


> I would be more worried about weight than height!.If a tall dog is kept thin or normal wieght,he will usually be fine!.The sad thing,is that I have seen more fat goldens than tall ones.Most people go by weight when they talk about their dog being big,not by height!.A dog should be proportionate!.


I agree. This is something I've been questioning myself since I believe I have seen a few GRs whose weight and height seem proportionate, but are still bigger than "breed standard"

I askd my DH, who is much better at weight height, distance "estimates" than I am if he thought Dax's daddy was "fat". DH is the first to say that is an overweight animal - he thought Dax's daddy was very proportionate. His head wasn't oversize, but seemed as big as my 6 year old daughter. He was in great health, very sweet with my kids (both parents were) I think that counts, BUT I have learned that it doesn't mean that Dax will not have health issues. We will see 

Tiffany


----------



## goldieluvr (Jul 16, 2007)

"irresponsible breeding practices."

I don't know that I agree with this. When I was growing up we had a purebred golden- Rusty (1969-1983). He came from a wonderful breeder here in Central NY. He was big boned, weighed about 90 lbs. as an adult. He was extremely healthy, no hip problems, eye problems, or heart problems, etc. and died at nearly 15 years old of old age.
Holly- mine and dh's first golden was the pick of the litter. We bought her in November 1994. She also had no health problems, and weighed a consistent 60 lbs. through out her adult life. 
Bonnie- our 8 month old, will weigh about 60-65 pounds when full grown. 
Bear- 6 months will be big, but is extremely healthy. As of now, he is extremely healthy, he does come from a good line.
Milly- my brother's purebred golden, is 6 years old, she weighs about 62 pounds. He also had another, Jake who just recently went to the Bridge, who was also a big boned male, but no health problems whatsoever.
I really think that a lot of the bigger overweight goldens has to do with sedentary lifestyles. Bear does tend to be a more laid back, lazy dog. He loves to go on our long walks every day, but when we miss a day or two or three, it's fine with him, he'll just take xtra naps, whereas Bonnie will let us know, that she is missing her(and ours!) exercise session!
I've seen all kinds of goldens, big and small. Weight(fat) issues are one thing, but I don't really believe that bigger goldens are bred more from by breeders. I look at the poor pups in the pet shops, they don't have enormous paws, as a matter of fact, I would think that poor breeding habits would lead to smaller pups and grown dogs, just like humans who abuse their bodies tend to have premature and low birth weight babies.


----------



## TiffanyK (Mar 3, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Tiffany, to answer your question the best I can: If Dax is more than 25" (more than an inch above the standard) he would not be able to be shown for Conformation (think doggie beauty contest, like the Westminster show). He would still be able to enter obedience, agility, and field training provided you have an AKC registration number for him... but honestly, if he is that large you really need to consider the risks of repetitive jumping on his joints. I don't think anybody will hold your choices against you. It's nice to see that you are constantly trying to learn more about this beautiful breed... and look at it this way, you're in a better position to make a more informed choice next time. In the meantime, love those boys... no matter what size they are!
> 
> Julie and Jersey


Thanks so much! Here is where I am at - I know that I probably just plain have too much to learn to get Dax into shows of any kind. He also doesn't really have "the" pedigree. I'm excited to learn about pedigree's and standards - it's like the light bulb just turned on. I can look at Maggie and Dax and see "yes" that's great and "hmmmm, ok, that's the difference". I hope that I will be able to take a step into training with Dax that I wasn't able to do with Maggie since she was injured so badly. I don't actually think Dax will be a show dog, but I am thrilled with him and this is venturing into a whole different thread and discussion I look forward to having :doh:

I am SOOOO looking forward to tomorrow - Dax has a 10:30 am appt with our vet. I am anxious to find out his weight, what the vet has to say about him and am hopeful the vet will have some referrels for puppy -K in our area and we'll just go from there.

Tiffany


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> I'm amazed at the size of so many of the goldens out there. My old girl was just over 60#, and I always thought she was undersized, based simply on the other goldens I saw/met. When I recently looked at the standard, I saw she was right where she should be.
> 
> I know a lot of dogs _look_ big due to their coat, but now that I'm looking for pups I've run into several breeders whose sire and dam are 80 to 90+ pounds. What's going on here?


There are those whose philosophy "bigger or more is better" rules the day.
It's unfortunate that Judges continue to award wins to such over sized dogs, but it still happens. 

In the U.S. the Breed Standard allows an inch of wiggle room above or below (proportionally penalized). So you can see a wide range in size from a 20 1/2" tall 45 pound bitch to a 25" tall 90 pound male. Either extreme is pushing the limits of fitness for purpose. Too small and the dog has a hard time picking up and holding a large game bird. Too large and the dog becomes incapable of working all day in the field and inappropriate in the duck blind. (Can you visualize trying to haul a wet 95 pound dog over the side of a small boat, without tipping the boat and it's contents into the water.)


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

Ahhhh it's just more to love.


----------



## TiffanyK (Mar 3, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Too large and the dog becomes incapable of working all day in the field and inappropriate in the duck blind. (Can you visualize trying to haul a wet 95 pound dog over the side of a small boat, without tipping the boat and it's contents into the water.)


And for those who sincerely care what the GRs are bred for, know the importance of these facts, yes? I am one who is learning the breed standard. I grew up with a GR mix that was so loved and so regarded for her "GR nature" in that she was a wonderful dog/breed to have with kids (suburbs where the hunting/retrieving aspect wasn't regarded necessarily). While the GRs are noted for their temperment and how gentle they are with kids, as a whole I would hate to think that their true breeding standard was lost.

Tiffany


----------



## TiffanyK (Mar 3, 2008)

vrocco1 said:


> Ahhhh it's just more to love.


I've been wanting to post this somewhere, sometime - I have the Delmarva website in my favorites - been eye-balling their gorgeous GRs for several years - not only did we live in the Delmarva area for a while, but their pups just seemed like "my ideal" . Jesse is - ahhhhh - breathtaking!

Tiffany


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I am always surprised when I hear that oversized dogs are winning in the ring. I just do not see it. 
At the 2007 GRCA National Specialty WD was wicketed in Best Of Breed, because a certain faction of exhibitors with a terrible case of PLS (poor loser syndrome) just KNEW he was out of the standard and "knew for a FACT that he'd been disqualified" before. The dog measured in with room to spare, and went on to be Best of Winners from the Bred By Exhibitor class. His sire was Best of Breed, and his sister is Ch Birnam Wood's Expedia.com - my Zoom. Jeeves has NEVER been DQ'd for being out of standard, and in fact had finished a Canadian championship handily shortly before the US National. 
In the areas that I show, it is a moderate dog that is winning. I rarely even see dogs that I would question as being oversized entered, let alone winning. But, I DO hear from spectators all the time that the show dogs are so SMALL. The oversized dogs are for the majority being bred by BYB's. The Goldens seen in pet stores are usually bred by millers and ARE generally smaller - their living conditions, nutrition, etc, are not conducive to big, healthy puppies. 

As for "bigger being better" - just not true. The standards written for purebred dogs take into consideration the jobs that they were bred to do, which is why there ARE size disqualifications in most breed standards because too big or too small dogs are not going to be able to perform those tasks efficiently.


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

TiffanyK said:


> I've been wanting to post this somewhere, sometime - I have the Delmarva website in my favorites - been eye-balling their gorgeous GRs for several years - not only did we live in the Delmarva area for a while, but their pups just seemed like "my ideal" . Jesse is - ahhhhh - breathtaking!
> 
> Tiffany


Jesse, a perfect example of more to love. There is plenty to go around with that big head of his.


----------



## jcasks (Oct 14, 2007)

So do most people agree if the dog is 80-85 lbs but you can still feel their ribs he isn't considered overweight?


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

Pointgold said:


> I am always surprised when I hear that oversized dogs are winning in the ring. I just do not see it.


There may be politics in the ring, but the judges are not stupid. Anybody can call for the wicket. That would make a judge look pretty stupid to give a blue ribbon to an oversized dog.


----------



## SolidGold (Dec 29, 2007)

Well I am one of those people that has a 'bigger' golden....but he is perfectly in proportion for his height and weight. His dad was big but in great health at the age of 10. I don't really agree that because a dog is 'bigger' it is going to develop all kinds of health problems. A dog can develop any of that no matter what their size. I think genetics is a big factor as well as regular excercise and a good diet!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

vrocco1 said:


> There may be politics in the ring, but the judges are not stupid. Anybody can call for the wicket. That would make a judge look pretty stupid to give a blue ribbon to an oversized dog.


Oh, it was a scandal, to be sure. How utterly insulting to the judge who had awarded the dog the most pretigious class win at a National Specialty - Winners Dog from the BRED BY EXHIBITOR class. And it was breeder/judges calling for the wicket. In essence, they were saying to that judge "You are incompetant and we know so much more than you."
PRICELESS when he in fact measured in easily, and the judge said to his handler "I had no doubts."


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Oh, it was a scandal, to be sure. How utterly insulting to the judge who had awarded the dog the most pretigious class win at a National Specialty - Winners Dog from the BRED BY EXHIBITOR class. And it was breeder/judges calling for the wicket. In essence, they were saying to that judge "You are incompetant and we know so much more than you."
> PRICELESS when he in fact measured in easily, and the judge said to his handler "I had no doubts."


Did you see the ad for that dog in the latest GR News (I think it was that magazine)... something about "reaching new heights".... very clever!! 

Julie and Jersey


----------



## moose (Dec 7, 2007)

In my opinion and observation dogs can be like people, some are the rigth size and some are big. People seem to want to breed the big ones. I will be honest, I want a broad shouldered thick golden. I think the goldens that are on the dog shows are a bit too small for my taste. Also I think people tend to over feed there goldens.


----------



## Dinsdale (Feb 26, 2008)

I acknowledge that a lot of it comes down to personal taste, and at least some breeders breeding what at least some (many?) buyers want. Maybe they could start a new category for large goldens, along the lines of the multiple beagle or poodle classes. A lot of the huge goldens I have seen do not appear significantly overweight. Instead, I look at them - generally with their huge broad heads, and wonder if some newfie or St. Brenard got bred in there. 

It is amazing how much difference there is within this one breed - from oversized giants, to small trial/field bitches. Really makes being a prospective buyer more difficult. And what I perceive as a current trend towards massiveness makes it even more difficult for someone who wants one within the standard - not because I want to show it, but simply because I think 75# is plenty big for a dog. 

I guess I was expressing a little frustration as someone who thinks a 65-75# dog is big enough - in terms of handling him/her, feeding, medications, possible health, etc. I'm a good sized guy, but my wife is more limited in her ability to lift a larger dog. 

Heck, I had a Brittany once - thought it was pretty much an optimal sized dog. Not a little yapping dustmop, but small enough to bathe in the slop sink. But I had to return to the golden for the personality.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

It's no secret that I am a stickler for standards, and am very much against changing them to accomodate fads/trends/or to justify sloppy breeding.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> It's no secret that I am a stickler for standards, and am very much against changing them to accomodate fads/trends/or to justify sloppy breeding.


I agree. Changing breed standards to accomodate fads and trends seems a bit ridiculous to me. Why have a breed standard at all if we're going to do that? 

That said, my Cooper was a very big boy. He topped out at 110 pounds and he wasn't "overweight." He was just _big_. And it looks like Riley will end up being larger than the standard, as well. He's 72 pounds now, at 7 months, and is already 26" at the shoulder.

I don't know if this could apply to Goldens as well, but I was talking with my vet when I first took my last Shepherd, Alomar, to him. Alomar was very big for a Shepherd (weighing in at 125 pounds of solid muscle and, if I remember correctly, about 29" at the shoulder.) Anyway, my vet said that it seems, to him, that the more "Americanized" the breeding lines become, the larger they get. He said that the true, European lines seem to stay much closer to breed standards and that Americans are all Texans at heart - "the bigger, the better."


----------



## TheGoldenDream (Feb 25, 2008)

Ally is a very tall and lean golden. She weighs about 75 lbs. and is like 24 inches at the shoulder blade....we were going to try showing her but she was too tall!  I thought that was funny.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Our Golden Club did a demo at an large public event six years ago. We brought goldens to demonstrate the wide allowable range in size and color for the breed in the U.S. From a small dark colored 45 pound coyote faced bitch that was using all of the wiggle room on the small end of the spectrum, to a large massive blonde 105 pound male who was using all of the wiggle room on the other end of the spectrum. 

There is a tremendous amount of latitude allowed without disqualification. It is even more amazing when you line them all up side by side. Light and dark, flat coats, wavy coats, short coats, long coats with flowing furnishings, and everything in between. All are Golden Retrievers.


----------



## Dinsdale (Feb 26, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> It's no secret that I am a stickler for standards, and am very much against changing them to accomodate fads/trends/or to justify sloppy breeding.


I know pups are registered at birth, but would it be possible/desireable to have some way of rescinding registration if a dog significantly exceeds the standard. Maybe puppy registration might be temporary, requiring verification that the standard is met at 18-24 months. Or perhaps when a breeder wishes to get certification for their pups, should they be required to show that the sire and dam meet the standard.

Because otherwise, "registration" as a "purebred golden" seems somewhat meaningless. I swear, it really seems odd saying the slender little red 50# field dog and the massive, blocky 100# bruiser are the same breed. Heck, there might even be a possibility for 3 distinctions. Undersized field goldens, standard goldens, and oversized goldens.


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

I am enjoying the discussion going on. It's very informative, especially hearing the experts take it!


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Dinsdale said:


> I know pups are registered at birth, but would it be possible/desireable to have some way of rescinding registration if a dog significantly exceeds the standard. Maybe puppy registration might be temporary, requiring verification that the standard is met at 18-24 months. Or perhaps when a breeder wishes to get certification for their pups, should they be required to show that the sire and dam meet the standard.
> 
> Because otherwise, "registration" as a "purebred golden" seems somewhat meaningless. I swear, it really seems odd saying the slender little red 50# field dog and the massive, blocky 100# bruiser are the same breed. Heck, there might even be a possibility for 3 distinctions. Undersized field goldens, standard goldens, and oversized goldens.


Isn't there also the distinction between the English Golden's and US Golden's? I know there has been animosity in the Lab community over that issue. The appearance of the animals, I mean.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

paula bedard said:


> Isn't there also the distinction between the English Golden's and US Golden's? I know there has been animosity in the Lab community over that issue. The appearance of the animals, I mean.


There is no distinction for English or British goldens. They're all Goldens. 

There is a difference in Goldens in the U.S. and Canada that tends to divide upon purpose.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> I know pups are registered at birth, but would it be possible/desireable to have some way of rescinding registration if a dog significantly exceeds the standard. Maybe puppy registration might be temporary, requiring verification that the standard is met at 18-24 months. Or perhaps when a breeder wishes to get certification for their pups, should they be required to show that the sire and dam meet the standard.
> 
> Because otherwise, "registration" as a "purebred golden" seems somewhat meaningless. I swear, it really seems odd saying the slender little red 50# field dog and the massive, blocky 100# bruiser are the same breed. Heck, there might even be a possibility for 3 distinctions. Undersized field goldens, standard goldens, and oversized goldens.


 
Highly doubtful, in that the AKC is a registering body and does not "police" quality. That would make a huge dent in their bottom line. And given that they have recently been working on _increasing _registration dollars, I don't see them buying into the concept in this lifetime  
Frustrating and hypocritical in that they will register pretty much anything, but will disqualify from the show ring the very dogs that they accepted money to register as purebred__________ (insert breed).


----------



## Gwen (Aug 9, 2007)

CreekviewGoldens said:


> Yup...many have said it. Bad breeders and bad choices. My friends dog which is a Golden weighs way over 100 punds..the vet says he's a big boned dog...which I don't think that is causing him to be overweight.


Can I use the excuse that I'm "big bones". Yeah.........


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

LifeOfRiley said:


> I agree. Changing breed standards to accomodate fads and trends seems a bit ridiculous to me. Why have a breed standard at all if we're going to do that?
> 
> That said, my Cooper was a very big boy. He topped out at 110 pounds and he wasn't "overweight." He was just _big_. And it looks like Riley will end up being larger than the standard, as well. He's 72 pounds now, at 7 months, and is already 26" at the shoulder.
> 
> I don't know if this could apply to Goldens as well, but I was talking with my vet when I first took my last Shepherd, Alomar, to him. Alomar was very big for a Shepherd (weighing in at 125 pounds of solid muscle and, if I remember correctly, about 29" at the shoulder.) Anyway, my vet said that it seems, to him, that the more "Americanized" the breeding lines become, the larger they get. He said that the true, European lines seem to stay much closer to breed standards and that Americans are all Texans at heart - "the bigger, the better."


I disagree with your vet. It really has nothing to do with American or European lines. The oversized Goldens are mainly the product of BYB's and pet breeders who aren't, for the most part, even AWARE that there is a standard, and who have hiked Daisy down the road to mate with Duke because they are both Goldens, without regard to what will ultimately be produced just so long as there's puppies.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Highly doubtful, in that the AKC is a registering body and does not "police" quality. That would make a huge dent in their bottom line. And given that they have recently been working on _increasing _registration dollars, I don't see them buying into the concept in this lifetime
> Frustrating and hypocritical in that they will register pretty much anything, but will disqualify from the show ring the very dogs that they accepted money to register as purebred__________ (insert breed).


I see where you're coming from on this, but I tend to disagree that the AKC should only register dogs that are within the standard. Let me explain: even if you breed 2 dogs within the standard, there is the chance that not all pups will meet it. Now, if you have an excellent breeding program over many generations, chances are your stock is pretty consistent... but there's always some outliers. These dogs should obviously not be able to be shown in conformation, and by extension they should not be considered for breeding stock, but that makes them no less a golden retriever than a show dog. Having that registration allows one to compete in other fields for enjoyment... I don't think that should be taken away. 

Now, whether the AKC _should_ (not that they will) only register litters where the parents fall within the standard, in order to encourage responsible breeding practices, is another matter... and this may have been more the point you were making. It's a question I really can't answer, but it's definately an interesting thought. By that measure though, should they also only register litters where all the required clearances are performed on the parents? Maybe. It would definately change the game... but as you said, I don't see it ever happening. 

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> I disagree with your vet. It really has nothing to do with American or European lines. The oversized Goldens are mainly the product of BYB's and pet breeders who aren't, for the most part, even AWARE that there is a standard, and who have hiked Daisy down the road to mate with Duke because they are both Goldens, without regard to what will ultimately be produced just so long as there's puppies.


I have to agree with that.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> I disagree with your vet. It really has nothing to do with American or European lines. The oversized Goldens are mainly the product of BYB's and pet breeders who aren't, for the most part, even AWARE that there is a standard, and who have hiked Daisy down the road to mate with Duke because they are both Goldens, without regard to what will ultimately be produced just so long as there's puppies.


I don't want to get too far off-topic, but do you guys think this is true primarily for Goldens, or do you believe it applies to all breeds?
He was speaking in terms of the Shepherd, where there does _seem_ to be more of a distinction between the true German lines and "Americanized" lines.
Is it just that there isn't that much of a distinction, or difference, with the Golden? Or do you guys disagree with the distinction, across the board, with all breeds?


----------



## Dinsdale (Feb 26, 2008)

Thanks for all the info. As nothing more than a pet owner, I am quite ignorant of all of the ins and outs of registration and the various organizations. Tho my last girl could be registered, we never did. Same way we have no intention of registering this one. Just observing that as a consumer, it makes things confusing.

Does anyone know why other breeds - such as the beagle and poodle, differentiate based on size?

This may be out-of-line, but when you see "outliers" at the extreme large or small ranges, do you ever suspect that perhaps some disreputable breeder (BY or otherwise) snuck some other breed in there so as to nudge their dogs in a certain direction? One example - I'm not a fan of labs, but with many of the big goldens, I swear they have heads indistinguishable from yellow labs. Heck, they probably don't need to go to such lengths. They can probably achieve such results simply from selective breeding. But sometimes I really wonder...


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> Thanks for all the info. As nothing more than a pet owner, I am quite ignorant of all of the ins and outs of registration and the various organizations. Tho my last girl could be registered, we never did. Same way we have no intention of registering this one. Just observing that as a consumer, it makes things confusing.
> 
> Does anyone know why other breeds - such as the beagle and poodle, differentiate based on size?
> 
> This may be out-of-line, but when you see "outliers" at the extreme large or small ranges, do you ever suspect that perhaps some disreputable breeder (BY or otherwise) snuck some other breed in there so as to nudge their dogs in a certain direction? One example - I'm not a fan of labs, but with many of the big goldens, I swear they have heads indistinguishable from yellow labs. Heck, they probably don't need to go to such lengths. They can probably achieve such results simply from selective breeding. But sometimes I really wonder...


I believe that in the case of Poodles for example, the various size categories are considered different breeds. You could not breed a minature poodle to a standard poodle and register the offspring. 

Labs like Goldens and other breeds in the sporting group see a wide latitude in design.


----------



## TheGoldenDream (Feb 25, 2008)

Just out of curiosity....What bothers you about large Goldens? My opinion is that they all are different just like people. I'm not saying that large Goldens with health problems are okay to breed because it just hurts the standard, but I'm saying if you have hips, elbows, eyes, and all of that checked and everything is sound why aren't they "normal"


----------



## HovawartMom (Aug 10, 2006)

jcasks said:


> So do most people agree if the dog is 80-85 lbs but you can still feel their ribs he isn't considered overweight?


Yes but it's also the general look!!.I've seen,a couple of dogs that carried well that weight but their height and bone structure,was proper to their weight!.
I like big dogs but I do like to follow the standard!.


----------



## Ash (Sep 11, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Some people simply think "bigger is better". Their mantra being "I just breed for pets so no standard matters".


Heard a lot of that excuse lately but I agree. Just boils down to Breeders that are not reputable.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

TheGoldenDream said:


> Just out of curiosity....What bothers you about large Goldens? My opinion is that they all are different just like people. I'm not saying that large Goldens with health problems are okay to breed because it just hurts the standard, but I'm saying if you have hips, elbows, eyes, and all of that checked and everything is sound why aren't they "normal"


The breed was created to be a hunting dog. It's intended size is a reflection of that purpose. Hunting dogs typically would be expected to sit with the hunter in a small boat or blind for waterfowl, or be pounding through brush, corn rows or thickets for upland birds or rabbits. A dog that is too large is cumbersome in the boat/blind and won't stand up to the pounding in the field, a dog that is too small can't take on, subdue and retrieve the larger game birds. Dogs that are too large or too small are inappropriate for purpose.


----------



## GoldenGratitude (Jan 25, 2007)

I don't think that just because a dog is larger than the standard it means it's going to have more health problems. There is a difference between a dog being a large dog and being an overweight dog. Overweight dogs are most likely to be the ones with health problems and that is not the breeder's fault but it is the owner's fault. I see so many overweight goldens & labs. Proper food and feeding amounts and exercise not only keep weight off a dog but keep them healthy also - just like it does people. I am not saying that breed standard is not important -I'm just saying that size alone does not make an unhealthy dog. Also health clearances are so important and I would guess that there are alot more breeders breeding without clearances, than there are breeders that breed for large size. IMHO health clearances are what should be mandatory.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

GoldenGratitude said:


> I don't think that just because a dog is larger than the standard it means it's going to have more health problems. There is a difference between a dog being a large dog and being an overweight dog. Overweight dogs are most likely to be the ones with health problems and that is not the breeder's fault but it is the owner's fault. I see so many overweight goldens & labs. Proper food and feeding amounts and exercise not only keep weight off a dog but keep them healthy also - just like it does people. I am not saying that breed standard is not important -I'm just saying that size alone does not make an unhealthy dog. Also health clearances are so important and I would guess that there are alot more breeders breeding without clearances, than there are breeders that breed for large size. IMHO health clearances are what should be mandatory.


You are correct - size alone does not mean that they will unhealthy, but generally speaking, those who breed dogs without regard to the standard are also much more likely to do the breedings with benefit of health clearances, so yes - those dogs _are_ going to see an increased number of health issues - and issues not simply related to size. 

The standard is in place for a reason. If someone doesn't like that a Golden is not big enough for their tastes, or small enough for their lifestyle, or has more hair than they really wanted, then they really should consider another breed. And this lament is heard throughout the purebred dog community, not just in Goldens.


----------



## SolidGold (Dec 29, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> Thanks for all the info. As nothing more than a pet owner, I am quite ignorant of all of the ins and outs of registration and the various organizations. Tho my last girl could be registered, we never did. Same way we have no intention of registering this one. Just observing that as a consumer, it makes things confusing.
> 
> Does anyone know why other breeds - such as the beagle and poodle, differentiate based on size?
> 
> This may be out-of-line, but when you see "outliers" at the extreme large or small ranges, do you ever suspect that perhaps some disreputable breeder (BY or otherwise) snuck some other breed in there so as to nudge their dogs in a certain direction? One example - I'm not a fan of labs, but with many of the big goldens, I swear they have heads indistinguishable from yellow labs. Heck, they probably don't need to go to such lengths. They can probably achieve such results simply from selective breeding. But sometimes I really wonder...


Labs on the whole are smaller than most goldens I have seen! I don't think you can 'sneak' another breed without that dog becoming more of a mix. Yellow labs have absolutely no feathering and are short haired. Also when you register a dog with the AKC you have a paper trail of the bloodline. I think if you are worried about the size of your dog maybe you should go with a smaller breed? or maybe look into rescuing a pup. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

SolidGold said:


> Labs on the whole are smaller than most goldens I have seen! I don't think you can 'sneak' another breed without that dog becoming more of a mix. Yellow labs have absolutely no feathering and are short haired. Also when you register a dog with the AKC you have a paper trail of the bloodline. I think if you are worried about the size of your dog maybe you should go with a smaller breed? or maybe look into rescuing a pup. Just a suggestion.


Boy doen't that illustrate the point. The Labrador Retriever is supposed to be larger than a Golden Retriever by design. (Compare the Breed Standard for both the Lab and the Golden.)


----------



## SolidGold (Dec 29, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> Boy doen't that illustrate the point. The Labrador Retriever is supposed to be larger than a Golden Retriever by design. (Compare the Breed Standard for both the Lab and the Golden.)


Well that may be the truth of how things have changed then. But by looking at some of the 'show dogs' on this forum they look larger or at least the same size of labs I have seen!


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> Thanks for all the info. As nothing more than a pet owner, I am quite ignorant of all of the ins and outs of registration and the various organizations. Tho my last girl could be registered, we never did. Same way we have no intention of registering this one. Just observing that as a consumer, it makes things confusing.
> 
> Does anyone know why other breeds - such as the beagle and poodle, differentiate based on size?
> 
> This may be out-of-line, but when you see "outliers" at the extreme large or small ranges, do you ever suspect that perhaps some disreputable breeder (BY or otherwise) snuck some other breed in there so as to nudge their dogs in a certain direction? One example - I'm not a fan of labs, but with many of the big goldens, I swear they have heads indistinguishable from yellow labs. Heck, they probably don't need to go to such lengths. They can probably achieve such results simply from selective breeding. But sometimes I really wonder...


Sneeking another breed in does happen. If you were to go onto the English Mastiff boards, there is a lot of discussion about this one breeder who snuck in Great Danes into the lines years ago. Now most lines in the US have some of this line in it. They are constantly fighting about who has the "pure" lines. 

Then again, in the 1950's, the Shih Tzu was being inbred too much, the Pekingese had to be reintroduced into the lines to save the breed. But then again, this breed I don't think was recognized by the AKC until the early 70's.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> Thanks for all the info. As nothing more than a pet owner, I am quite ignorant of all of the ins and outs of registration and the various organizations. Tho my last girl could be registered, we never did. Same way we have no intention of registering this one. Just observing that as a consumer, it makes things confusing.
> 
> Does anyone know why other breeds - such as the beagle and poodle, differentiate based on size?
> 
> This may be out-of-line, but when you see "outliers" at the extreme large or small ranges, do you ever suspect that perhaps some disreputable breeder (BY or otherwise) snuck some other breed in there so as to nudge their dogs in a certain direction? One example - I'm not a fan of labs, but with many of the big goldens, I swear they have heads indistinguishable from yellow labs. Heck, they probably don't need to go to such lengths. They can probably achieve such results simply from selective breeding. But sometimes I really wonder...


 
In Beagles, the 13" and under dogs are considered to be faster than the 13" to 15" inch variety, although both can occur in the same litter.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> Boy doen't that illustrate the point. The Labrador Retriever is supposed to be larger than a Golden Retriever by design. (Compare the Breed Standard for both the Lab and the Golden.)


Actually if you take the allowed deviation into account the standard for males is the same in both breeds and in females there is only 1/2 inch difference (23 1/2 vs. 24) at the upper end again taking the allowable deviation of both breeds into effect.


----------



## SolidGold (Dec 29, 2007)

Well ok then what do you all think about the breeding of 'smaller' than standard goldens to be service dogs?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

SolidGold said:


> Well that may be the truth of how things have changed then. But by looking at some of the 'show dogs' on this forum they look larger or at least the same size of labs I have seen!


The issue with Labradors has come about with their revision of the standard which resulted in big round bodies on very short, stumpy legs. If the legs were actually proportianate to the body size, they would indeed be larger than Goldens.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

SolidGold said:


> Well ok then what do you all think about the breeding of 'smaller' than standard goldens to be service dogs?


I am opposed to the purposeful breeding of any dogs with disqualifying faults. Golden Retrievers do make excellent service dogs, but so do many other breeds that are smaller if the need for a smaller dog in a given situation exists.


----------



## SolidGold (Dec 29, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> The issue with Labradors has come about with their revision of the standard with resulted in big round bodies on very short, stumpy legs. If the legs were actually proportianate to the body size, they would indeed be larger than Goldens.


Ok that explains to me why they look smaller.... Thank you


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Questions for the breeders.

Would you remove a dog, male or female, who produced in it's first litter a dog who was at one year of age outside the breed standard sizewise, either over or under? 
Would it matter "how much" out of thhe standard it was?
Would you try breeding to another "line" and see what you got? 
Would you take the whole dog, over/under sized, into account to base your decision?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> Questions for the breeders.
> 
> Would you remove a dog, male or female, who produced in it's first litter a dog who was at one year of age outside the breed standard sizewise, either over or under?
> Would it matter "how much" out of thhe standard it was?
> ...


I wouldn't use 12 months of age as a guide as my line tends to mature slowly, not reaching full stature until after age two. 

First litter no, I wouldn't pull it from my breeding program although I wouldn't repeat that pairing. I would look for a different dog to help move things in the proper direction (larger or smaller). If with the second dog, I didn't get the desired outcome, the bitch would be gone from the breeding program.


----------



## heartofgold (Oct 27, 2007)

I called eight breeders in my area when I was looking for my pup. One of he first questions I asked was how big the parents were and if I could see them both. I was surprized at the reactions I got from about 1/2 of them. They were all happy to say that their males were 80 - 90 lbs with big blocky heads and the females were all larger too. I finally found a breeder who's dogs had both their hip, heart clearences AND were within the normal height and weight. 

Why is it that some breeders want to push "big and blocky" as a good thing when selling pups? They are not Saint Bernards!

This does worry me a bit because a friend of mine breeds Bernese Mountain dogs and the fact that this large breed dog over the past 20 years has been turned into a giant breed which has left the Bernese with major health issues. Now breeders are having to downsize with not much luck in changing the health issues. Their life span went from 12+ years to only 6-8 years very quickly because of them bulking up so fast. 

I had to tell a good friend of mine that he should not breed his male because he weights 90 lbs (not fat just a BIG boy). He is beautiful golden and I did consider for 1/2 a second breeding him with my female. I'm not breeding my female only because at any given time there are 6-8 litters in my area and she is going to be perfect in size. Wish I could.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> Questions for the breeders.
> 
> Would you remove a dog, male or female, who produced in it's first litter a dog who was at one year of age outside the breed standard sizewise, either over or under?
> Would it matter "how much" out of thhe standard it was?
> ...


Great question. 

There are many variables. First, I am assuming that both sire and dam are within standard. I wouldn't be making the decision when the puppy was only 12 months old, but rather 18 months. And especially not if there were only one offspring produced in the litter that was over/under by 18 months. I would not remove the sire or dam from my program just yet. I would look at what other relatives have produced on both sides. I would certainly try a breeding to another "line" and see what was produced. I always consider the "whole dog", but with under or over being a disqualifying fault, I would have to say that if I had a dog or bitch producing it no matter how he or she was bred, I'd eliminate that dog from my breeding program.

*I want to add that this is a concern for me currently because Zoom does have 2 brothers who are very nearly at the top of the standard and I have been very careful who I've bred her to to assure that she herself doesn't produce too large puppies, knowing that size is there... that said, for a while I was considering teaching her son Crew to stand on his tip-toes because I was worried that he was TOO small. He's not. He was 23 1/4" at last measurement.


----------



## Dinsdale (Feb 26, 2008)

I guess my complaint is not huge, more of a minor inconvenience. Personally, a 75 pound dog is plenty big for me, which is supposed to be the max for the breed. As someone in the market for a golden, it would be easier if I didn't have to waste my time speaking with and visiting people who had dogs substantially larger than I desire. Also, if everyone bred close to the standard, I'd simply have more options to choose from. Heck, even being generous, I've seen a whole lotta bitches that might just barely squeak under the max weight for a dog. I'd be interested in what a scale would read for some of the allegedly 75# dogs I've seen. 

There's nothing wrong with people liking bigger dogs than I do. But it kinda ticks me off when people's current preference makes it harder for me to find what I want.

I tend to agree with whoever said *"if you want a bigger dog, fine. Choose a different bigger breed."* Or cross your golden with something like a newf for a nice big loveable mutt.

As someone who is not involved in the dog community, it just seems a little silly for all of these dogs to be "registered" if they exceed the standard by 20% or more. 

Labs are another breed where people seem to feel bigger is better over the past couple of decades. But as I look at the standards for the breeds, lab dogs and bitches are allowed to be 1/2-1" taller and 5# heavier than their golden counterparts. If those standards aren't supposed to mean anything, then why have them at all? Or - are they more like the Pirate's Code - more like guidelines! 

Can someone explain to me why they prefer an 85# dog over a 75# one? I'm seriously curious. And I'd appreciate a tad more detail than "more of it to love."


----------



## heartofgold (Oct 27, 2007)

The fatter Americans get the bigger our dogs get? LOL! Seriously, I have no idea?


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Dinsdale said:


> If those standards aren't supposed to mean anything, then why have them at all? Or - are they more like the Pirate's Code - more like guidelines!


Actually the "Standard" is a guidline except where non-compliance would be a disqualifying fault. Size, height not weight, is one of the two disqualifying faults - bad bite being the other - listed in the GRCA Breed Satndard. Everything else is actually left to the eyes of the beholder and their interpretation.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Swampcollie and Pointgold I find your responses interesting with regard to age annd size. And I use size to refer to height only not weight. My dogs have also been slow maturing however I have not seen any difference in height after 9 - 10 months of age and at 2 years of age. They still are "filling out" till 3 or 4 years of age in some cases, but never getting taller. I do not doubt or question your observations just making the point in my dogs, VERY limited, I have not seen what you have.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> Swampcollie and Pointgold I find your responses interesting with regard to age annd size. And I use size to refer to height only not weight. My dogs have also been slow maturing however I have not seen any difference in height after 9 - 10 months of age and at 2 years of age. They still are "filling out" till 3 or 4 years of age in some cases, but never getting taller. I do not doubt or question your observations just making the point in my dogs, VERY limited, I have not seen what you have.


It very much depends on the line. You are right in that _most_ dogs have reached their adult height by 12 months or so, but I have had several who I was surprised to see did not until nearly 2. So I would rather err on the side of caution than eliminate a dog too early...


----------



## TiffanyK (Mar 3, 2008)

Dinsdale said:


> Can someone explain to me why they prefer an 85# dog over a 75# one? I'm seriously curious. And I'd appreciate a tad more detail than "more of it to love."


I can't really explain to myself why I actually prefer the bigger dogs. I just do. My personal preference is the larger, blockier GRs. I"ve thought about why I prefer that look and can't explain it really. I've always loved GRs, but then when I saw the huge one in the USVI's I was in awe.... not just in GRs, but then I thought the next GR I got I was going to look specifically for the bigger blockier.

That said, I also believe that the breed standards are so important. I don't think that people realize that a GR that is WELL over the size standard that there are health consequences.

Tiffany


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> Swampcollie and Pointgold I find your responses interesting with regard to age annd size. And I use size to refer to height only not weight. My dogs have also been slow maturing however I have not seen any difference in height after 9 - 10 months of age and at 2 years of age. They still are "filling out" till 3 or 4 years of age in some cases, but never getting taller. I do not doubt or question your observations just making the point in my dogs, VERY limited, I have not seen what you have.


Different lines mature at different rates and food does make a difference as well. My now six year old Kate was still very much a puppy at twelve months, 20 3/4" tall, 47 pounds and hadn't gone through her first cycle yet. By 30 months she was 21 1/2" tall, 55 pounds and cycling like clockwork. Some of the increased height is due to filling out and muscling up, but not all of it. There was some additional growth as well.


----------



## Deano90 (Feb 5, 2021)

Gwen said:


> I was just reviewing GR breed standards through the Golden Retriever Club of Canada and here are the CKC standards on GR size
> 
> *Size*: Males 23-24 inches (58-61 cm) in height at the withers, females 21.5-22.5 inches (55-57 cm). Length from breastbone to buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio 12:11. Weight for dogs, 65-75 lb. (29-43 kg); bitches 60-70 lb. (27-32 kg).
> ale 50
> ...


I've had many goldens over the years, and I have always raised them with a full bowl of food! They have all kept themselves in good shape! Though "they" say a female should be around 65 pounds, it doesn't mean that they will have health problems if they weigh more than that. Each dog is unique, as a very prominent vet once told me, "he had seen many hip x-rays that are terrible, yet the dog is in no pain, and he had seen many x-rays that looked great, and the dog had trouble walking. I had a golden that showed very bad hips at 6 months, who they said would need surgery by the time she would be one years old. Yet it turned out, she ran and jumped better athe 6 years old than she did at two! Moral of the story, never give up hope!!!


----------



## gr56 (May 11, 2019)

I remember is the late 90s early 2000s people were irresponsible trying to breed large goldens? I don’t know why but I remember seeing goldens almost the size of St. Bernards .


----------



## Hildae (Aug 15, 2012)

I was just wondering about this today! All these people with 100 plus pound goldens! In public once a lady asked me "What is your dog mixed with? I can see she is "some" golden retriever." I said "she isn't mixed she is a purebred GR." This snot wrinkled her face up and said "Absolutely not, she is a mix. She's far too small to be a golden." (My GR is 60lbs and 23 inches tall so just a tiny bit taller than standard already) So I informed the lady of the breed standard (which she said I was wrong on) and that my girl meets it. She said I was wrong and huffed off. 

I don't understand all these massive dogs, they would fail completely at their intended "job" as a hunting dog isn't supposed to be huge and take up half the boat and be large and cumbersome. I understand most are just pets, but they should still meet the breed standard. 

So many new puppies being posted on the FB groups are huge too. People with 12 week olds are posting their pup is 25lbs already! I'm amazed at the sizes.


----------



## mrgoodbarker (Nov 16, 2020)

I have a 12 month old male. He is 23" tall and weighs 65 lbs. We get stopped all the time because people think he is so handsome. A friend asked a couple of weeks ago, "Is he going to stay this short? I love his size!" I had someone stop me today to ask if he was a miniature golden.


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

mrgoodbarker said:


> I have a 12 month old male. He is 23" tall and weighs 65 lbs. We get stopped all the time because people think he is so handsome. A friend asked a couple of weeks ago, "Is he going to stay this short?


The standard for male height is 23-24 inches high. So if you are measuring him correctly, he's not short at all.


----------



## JulesAK (Jun 6, 2010)

Yep, here's Maggie being carted around by my boys. They are both 6' 3". She is our "lap" dog 
Jules


----------



## diane0905 (Aug 20, 2010)

We used to have a house at Kiawah Island and I called it Golden Retriever Island because so many people owned Goldens. My Golden, Luke, was 24" tall and people asked me a lot why he was so short. Many were much taller than Luke, although I knew Luke was in the correct size range.


----------



## Howler (Feb 4, 2021)

Carraig said:


> I also found that breeders were using a limited number of males/lines which likely contributed to that.


On KC you can see lone sires with hundreds of pups. Should there be a limit to the number of pups in order to slow the rate of genetic uniformity?


----------



## mrgoodbarker (Nov 16, 2020)

Sweet Girl said:


> The standard for male height is 23-24 inches high. So if you are measuring him correctly, he's not short at all.


Yeah, I know. I meant there are so many giant golden retrievers out there, that people who are not knowledgable about the breed think my pup is small. He will probably end up between 23-24 inches and weigh around 70 pounds, which is right in the middle of the standard.


----------

