# What exactly is a field bred GR?



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Field bred is generally Goldens that are bred for hunting and/or field trial competition. They ususally are smaller, lighter build and their coat may not be as full as the show Goldens, and often are the darker colors, gold or red, though not always. 

A Golden is a Golden and should always meet the breed standard though.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I consider a field bred Golden one who has one or both parents titled in a field endeavor, or "starred"-and I include the higher levels of hunt test in my definition of field bred. 

A lot of people use it to describe a physical type-usually lanky, darker in color, narrower head, less full coat, etc.-but that is not really correct, as there are many very sturdy field dogs with very nice heads, etc.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Tahnee GR said:


> I consider a field bred Golden one who has one or both parents titled in a field endeavor, or "starred"-and I include the higher levels of hunt test in my definition of field bred.
> 
> A lot of people use it to describe a physical type-usually lanky, darker in color, narrower head, less full coat, etc.-but that is not really correct, as there are many very sturdy field dogs with very nice heads, etc.


Hey now! I think that my Danny has a very nice head, and it's narrow. 

I think field lines tend to have a less full coat, a little longer tail and legs and narrower heads. That doesn't mean that they are actually field goldens, just field line.

A conformation golden isn't necessarily good for the ring even with a "nice" head. But they are, in a general description, more solid, fluffier coat and square headed.

Of course, this is all my opinion from what I have observed....


----------



## Bossoli (May 5, 2008)

Uh oh! this is a sensitive subject for some people. As some responses have already stated, a stereotypical field line Golden tends to be of lighter build, darker color and rounder, narrower heads. They also tend to have higher energy levels. As the name suggests, they're bred primarily for hunting, rather than being shown in the conformation ring. 

Alternatively, conformation lines are bulkier, have fuller coats and are lighter in color (generally). Some people think they're slightly less active than field line dogs. The emphasis is sometimes placed more on conformation than working ability.

Of course a dog can come from both conformation and field lines. It's just that some people prefer one type over the other.

No offense intended to anyone in this reply. My dogs are from what would be referred to as field lines but I love all Goldens!


----------



## AlanK (Jun 28, 2008)

An Outstanding Field Golden below








Actually its just Tuff Dog "out standing" in the field.
He thinks that's his bloodline though

Sorry I am obviously of no help to ya


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

AlanK said:


> An Outstanding Field Golden below
> View attachment 64099
> 
> 
> ...


LOL. You are too funny!

By the way, I really wasn't offended by Tahnee's response. I have a dog who originally came from a shelter who was 5 months old and in congestive heart failure. I think he is as gorgeous as can be even with his narrow head. But I don't fool myself into thinking he is a well bred dog.

Danny, he's on the left.


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

I tend to think of the darker (red), smaller goldens when it comes to field lines. We met a beautiful field bred golden at a Dock Dogs event this summer and I was amazed by how much smaller she was than Tucker and the other Goldens that were there. She was quite a bit shorter and had a much shorter and wavier red coat. She was a great dock diver!


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

MorningGlory said:


> I was reading a thread that has me wondering the difference btwn a field bred GR and a GR?
> 
> TIA!


There is more difference on the inside than there is on the outside.

Many people are used to seeing the "Conformation Bred" dog. Conformation Bred dogs are bred because of accomplishments demonstrated in the Conformation Ring. A "Field Bred" dog is just that, bred because of abilities and accomplishments demonstrated in the field. The dogs have somewhat different appearances but the pedigree is where you will see the most obvious differences.


Here are some sample field bred dogs common to many of todays' field bred pedigrees


http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n251/topbrassjm/rugbynew.jpg Rugby

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n251/topbrassjm/beaugeste-1.jpg Beau

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/pinerungold/Kiowa2withpheasant.jpg Kiowa II


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I consider my dog Finn to be a field bred dog because his parents and grandparents devote their retrieving lives to working in the field, attaining titles like Master Hunter, Senior Hunter and WCX. However, he in not a field bred dog to the Nth degree because his pedigree does not contain FC or AFC or FDHF. My dog Tango does have 50 percent of a field bred pedigree with FC, and ** but also 50 percent of a show background with CH and BOS, and BISS. Because of that combo, I think of her as a "dual bred" golden. My dog Tally I think of as a show bred golden because both of his parents are American Champions and his grandparents are SDHF, but they do not have even one performance/field title in about 4 generations! He has a great work ethic but is not a high caliber athlete. Secondary to all this are the way the dogs look in relationship to the stereotypes. They happen to relate to the generalities. Tally has lots of bone, a flowing blonde coat, and a big blocky head; Finn has a red wash and wear coat that isnt show ring quality, great angulation in the rear end, and is a crackerjack athlete. Finn is 4 lbs heavier than Tally though.


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

Easy difference - Fieldies are the Athletes - Conformation are the couch potatoes! :


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

A field "type" could be any lighter built, red colored Golden. That to me would just mean the dog LOOKS that type.

A true field dog, I agree, has field lines behind him, titled parents or grandparents, and is of those bloodlines.


----------



## MorningGlory (Aug 11, 2009)

So if you "raise" them to suceed in the agility, field competitions, etc you are "creating" a field GR. They are proving themselves in other words? 

Either way, they are all lovely and ideal in our eyes.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

MorningGlory said:


> So if you "raise" them to suceed in the agility, field competitions, etc you are "creating" a field GR. They are proving themselves in other words?
> 
> Either way, they are all lovely and ideal in our eyes.


Not exactly. 

Training can enhance some abilities but the raw materials have to be there to begin with. If you have a dog that can't mark or lacks sufficient desire for field work, you're not going to have a superior worker no matter how much training you put into the dog. 

The raw materials have to be there to achieve a pleasing result.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

A lot of the stereotypes about what makes a "field" Golden or a "conformation" Golden don't pan out with individual dogs (just like all stereotypes).

A dog is field bred when the breeder is aiming for success in field competitions over multiple generations. A dog is conformation bred when the breeder is aiming for success in the conformation ring over multiple generations. Both groups make a mistake when they forget the other. A dog who can win in the ring but can't retrieve worth a **** isn't much of a Golden _Retriever_. A dog who can compete with Chessies and Labs at the national level but is ten pounds under standard, narrow, and lacks proper head shape isn't really a credit to the breed either.

The dogs I admire are excellent examples of the standard and have substantial working ability. I love to see some of both in a pedigree. A dog who can win a Ch and compete seriously in the field (or obedience or agility) is a Golden that tugs at my heart.


----------



## Rise2Shine (Jun 20, 2009)

CH?
What does this mean. 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Rise2Shine said:


> CH?
> What does this mean.
> Thanks in advance.


Sorry, it's a title dogs get in conformation competition.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

MorningGlory said:


> I was reading a thread that has me wondering the difference btwn a field bred GR and a GR?
> 
> TIA!


 
Well as you can see by now there is no single way to answer your question. The problem being that those that have replied do not know in what context you ask your seemingly simple question. A "field bred" golden is many different things to many different people. 
A dog from a pedigree of primarily highly accomplished "field" ancestors could be a considered a field bred golden.
A dog from a pedigree of good hunting lines could be considered a field bred golden.
However there are those that use the term "field golden" to describe a dog that is undersized, "red", finer boned, shorter coat. They are using the term to describe a dog of no particualar pedigree background, but just by physical traits. Really has nothing to do with any "field" traits. 
So there you have another view.


----------



## uplanddoglover (Sep 19, 2012)

*just wondering about your black labrador?*



fostermom said:


> Hey now! I think that my Danny has a very nice head, and it's narrow.
> 
> I think field lines tend to have a less full coat, a little longer tail and legs and narrower heads. That doesn't mean that they are actually field goldens, just field line.
> 
> ...


hello, Just wondered if your black lab was a mixed breed or not? It looks exactly like the old original landrace breed that originated out of Newfoundland and Labrador. The markings of white in the chest,feet and muzzle are exact!! They say that the St johns waterdog is the ancestor to the modern labrador and most other retriever dogs of today. The last dogs known had gone extinct in the 1970s and 80s. Im trying to prove that the breed still lives on, we had one as kids growing up in northeastern ontario during the 70s and 80s. If you are interested in the litterature on the St Johns Waterdog, look it up in wikipedia. There is a whole write up with old photos from the late 1800s and to the 1970's. You dog looks soo much like one that its scary. let me know what you think and get back to me. They say that some litters out of purbred labrador stock, pups will get white markings in these areas. Just curious if your dog was a mix and of what? thankyou Colin


----------



## uplanddoglover (Sep 19, 2012)

fostermom said:


> Hey now! I think that my Danny has a very nice head, and it's narrow.
> 
> I think field lines tend to have a less full coat, a little longer tail and legs and narrower heads. That doesn't mean that they are actually field goldens, just field line.
> 
> ...


 This a photo of the old St Johns waterdog , your dog is the exact same in looks.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

A field dog is what the goldens were actually bred to be. They were bred to be gundogs who retrieve shot birds either in water or field. Later on they were bred for shows for their looks and obedience. There are not many true field bred GRs out there. 
It is a touchy subject. We all love our GRs no matter how they were bred. They are, simply put, lovable, intelligent and easy to train for conformation. 
I will love my puppy no matter what. I am training her to be a hunting, field working dog. If she doesn't succeed I will love her just as much.


----------



## uplanddoglover (Sep 19, 2012)

fostermom said:


> Hey now! I think that my Danny has a very nice head, and it's narrow.
> 
> I think field lines tend to have a less full coat, a little longer tail and legs and narrower heads. That doesn't mean that they are actually field goldens, just field line.
> 
> ...



























































These are some mor examples of the St Johns Waterdogs


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

My field breed golden, is small, skinney legs,small narrow feet, red in color, and much more active.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

"field bred" both parents Master Hunters
4 MH legs
????
not fitting stereotype!!!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

You can really start to see a third line of goldens in recent decades, the agility/obedience lines. People are purposefully breeding smaller, quicker, finer boned goldens than what you find in conformation and most field goldens.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

then there's the fourth line of goldens that *a few* of us so heavily promote....the all around dog.....


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

I love my boys..they both have more working lines in them. They would never pan out in the confirmation rings but sure are a blast to work! There are some special few who breed for the all around dog and are pretty successful but it takes alot of work.
I love the dogs but I tend to love red boys!


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Titan1 said:


> I love my boys..they both have more working lines in them. They would never pan out in the confirmation rings but sure are a blast to work!


 
Oh I don't know about that. By his photos Titan is a VERY handsome boy.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I remember when I was looking for a puppy, there were two things I knew for certain: I did not want an all conformation pedigree, and I did not want an all field pedigree.


----------



## Angelina (Aug 11, 2011)

My girls are both private rescues but I do know Angelina was from a breeder and cost the breeder a ton of money. My little red one is consider a 'field' retriever and I didn't even know what that meant when I rescued her. They both have differences in coat, athleticism, ear infections or lack of but one thing they have in common is that golden personality. They are both attached to my hip every waking moment I am with them, lovers, teasers, leaners and very sensitive. I love having one of each!


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

AmbikaGR said:


> Oh I don't know about that. By his photos Titan is a VERY handsome boy.


Ah shucks Hank.. Thank you very much.
I think so too.... He is 48 lbs soaking wet and 20 5/8 inches at the shoulders... just great for what I want and is holding up great at 8!
Mighty is already 46 lbs and 21 at the shoulders at 7+ months..hopefully he is pretty much done.
Michelle


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> then there's the fourth line of goldens that *a few* of us so heavily promote....the all around dog.....


And I'd go so far as to say then that there's a fifth line-the backyard/random bred golden. I suspect *most* of the dogs that people call field goldens based solely on the way they look are this fifth type. My girls are both field bred (MH sires and dams) and both have their CCAs. They'd never do anything in the conformation ring, but I'm proud to say they fit the definition of what a golden is supposed to look like (and have the desire to do what a golden is supposed to do!).


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Field bred golden Finn on the far left has parents with MH titles who hunted regularly as well as ran hunt tests; Show bred goldens Tally and Copley have AM CH parents. Finn's athleticism even as an old man is noteworthy. He has a wonderful memory, and the inner motivation to think through problems. He has much less bone and coat than the other two, but he still has nice overall balance, pretty pigment, a good stop to his head etc. He is 64lbs. Tally and Copley are 77 lbs, and carry beautiful coats with glorious, flowing furnishings. They have substantial bone, gorgeous side gaits, and gait/trot nearly everywhere they move free- like across a field or beach, whereas Finn will gallop. Tally has far less prey drive and bird drive thn the other too, but he is highly biddable with a great work ethic. The dogs are more similar than different with all the typical golden habits and passions. They look more different than they act.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

yep, totally agree. I board goldens from pet stores, BYBs, etc. that "look" like the field bred goldens and people tell me they are field goldens. Um, no.



IowaGold said:


> And I'd go so far as to say then that there's a fifth line-the backyard/random bred golden. I suspect *most* of the dogs that people call field goldens based solely on the way they look are this fifth type. My girls are both field bred (MH sires and dams) and both have their CCAs. They'd never do anything in the conformation ring, but I'm proud to say they fit the definition of what a golden is supposed to look like (and have the desire to do what a golden is supposed to do!).


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> yep, totally agree. I board goldens from pet stores, BYBs, etc. that "look" like the field bred goldens and people tell me they are field goldens. Um, no.


Pet store/BYB Goldens are often leggy and medium or dark gold. Many people think that means "field." Perhaps that's because the stereotypical "show" Golden is light and has good bone and better proportioned legs, so the contrast gets made. Just like many people seem to think stocky and light means "English." 

The true field competition Goldens I know look more like show Goldens than like BYB Goldens (and sometimes are quite successful in conformation!). They don't tend to be leggy at all (regardless of neutering age), and they tend to have good coat. Even the Sunfire dogs who are super fieldy tend to have nice head pieces and good bone and coat. They _don't_ typically have the legginess, improper coats, and particularly the lack of stop you see in so many BYB and pet store Goldens. There are a couple of field and hunt breeders who truly have small, very red dogs who are totally out of conformation, but even those dogs aren't anything like most of the BYB/mill Goldens whom people call "field type."

I say this as somebody with only a rudimentary knowledge of conformation, but even I can see the clear physical differences between a dog bred for field competition and a dog a few generations into a mill or BYB operation where they're just breeding intact dogs willy nilly.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

I always had the understanding that field bred were bred with a denser coat because of the brush and water they endure during hunting and field work. Which makes absolutely sense to me. My Cody was bred for show and his coat was real heavy and I had a hard time with his coat just swimming in the river and pool. Wyatt on the other hand has the denser coat which is a breeze to take care of. He drys in a heartbeat and never gets the musty smell like Cody did. Infact he never even stinks. And for what it's worth Wyatt's dad was field bred by a rep and he is clone to his dad. Which also negates the theory that if you neuter early that their bone structure will be different. For us anyways.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Tayla is my "field bred" golden. Here she is at 9 months. She has a wonderful wash and dry coat and lovely waves.










Actually, she is the product of what I suspect is a BY breeder in TN. We adopted her at 4 months and can find no information on the breeder other than the paperwork we received at her adoption. CKC (Continential Kennel Club). While she is facinated with birds and is over the top energetic I have no plans to do any field work with her. She is going to be my Nose Work and some day tracking girl. She has a great nose on her. She also unfortunately has bad hips.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

We're having a discussion on my Dane board that led into hunting lines vs. show lines, (there are several people on the board that hunt with their Danes), and Goldens got brought up.

My question that I'm going to ask here is...since some field lines look different than show lines but all lines should be bred to standard, how does that work? If all are bred to standard, then why wouldn't field lines do well in the ring?

I hope I'm making myself clear, but someone brought this up on the other board and I didn't know how to answer it because I know there aren't two standards. Do strict field line breeders breed to the standard or do they breed solely for performance ability?


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

kwhit said:


> We're having a discussion on my Dane board that led into hunting lines vs. show lines, (there are several people on the board that hunt with their Danes), and Goldens got brought up.
> 
> My question that I'm going to ask here is...since some field lines look different than show lines but all lines should be bred to standard, how does that work? If all are bred to standard, then why wouldn't field lines do well in the ring?
> 
> I hope I'm making myself clear, but someone brought this up on the other board and I didn't know how to answer it because I know there aren't two standards. Do strict field line breeders breed to the standard or do they breed solely for performance ability?


Because there are lots of individual styles of goldens (see I'm learning, I didn't say TYPES!). While all these styles can fit the standard, although maybe not perfectly, there is a distinct style of golden that is competitive in the show ring.

These aren't exactly show poses, but here are two field bred bitches (MH X MH parents). They both have their CCAs but would NEVER be competitive in the breed ring.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

I will try to answer this in a way that does not offend anyone here as it is not my intention to do so.
Goldens were not bred to be "field" dogs in the way "field" dogs compete today. For a retriever of any breed to be competitive in today's "field" trials it takes a very different kind of dog than what Lord Tweedmouth had in mind. That said a Golden can make an EXCELLENT hunting companion to any hunter. Kind of like if you want to win the Indy 500 you would not show up driving a Volkswagon. A fine and capable car but not for that situation.
Hope that makes some sense.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

I shoulld also add that while it may noot be "common" it is far from extraordinary to see a finished breed champion (CH) also complete it's Master Hunter (MH) title. Anney's (K9Design) Fisher is one right here on this forum.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

kwhit said:


> My question that I'm going to ask here is...since some field lines look different than show lines but all lines should be bred to standard, how does that work? If all are bred to standard, then why wouldn't field lines do well in the ring?


The standard as written is pretty loose.

You'll often hear the more serious conformation people refer to the "blue book", which delves into deeper discussions of the conformation of the breed. Keep in mind however that the blue book and the breed standard are two different things. They ARE NOT one and the same. 

If you want to be competitive in the conformation ring you had better be very familiar with the blue book. It is kind of the bible in describing the style of dog that will be able to compete in the ring. That being said, the blue book is still the authors "interpretation" of the breed standard, it is however not the breed standard which is far more generalized in scope.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

What is the formal title of the "blue book" and where would you get a copy of it? Also wondering why there don't seem to be dogs like Tigathoes Funky Farquar Pedigree: Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS DDHF FDHF around anymore. Has field competition changed significantly in the last 20 yrs?


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

TheZ's said:


> What is the formal title of the "blue book" and where would you get a copy of it?


I think this is it, but I'm not 100% sure:

A Study of the Golden Retriever


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

AmbikaGR said:


> I shoulld also add that while it may noot be "common" it is far from extraordinary to see a finished breed champion (CH) also complete it's Master Hunter (MH) title. Anney's (K9Design) Fisher is one right here on this forum.


I believe there are 29 CH/MHs in breed history.
I KNOW there are 14 CH/UD/MHs


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

TheZ's said:


> What is the formal title of the "blue book" and where would you get a copy of it? Also wondering why there don't seem to be dogs like Tigathoes Funky Farquar Pedigree: Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS DDHF FDHF around anymore. Has field competition changed significantly in the last 20 yrs?


In the last 40 years, quite a bit. In the last 20 years, not so much. The design of field tests from 40 years ago are very similar to those seen in today's AKC Master Hunting Tests. (keep in mind it was still dog against dog.)

What style of dog is competetive in the conformation ring has gone through major changes in the last 40 years.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

IowaGold said:


> And I'd go so far as to say then that there's a fifth line-the backyard/random bred golden. I suspect *most* of the dogs that people call field goldens based solely on the way they look are this fifth type.


 
Or they are this and that even if bred by legit breeders. 


Our first golden was a byb and going back his parents, grandparents were also byb dogs. And going back to the 60's you find some field champions. Technically, I think it's correct referring to him as field type, because he truly had that specific look. If anything, I know his instincts were all intact and that was how we got him to come out of his shell when we brought him home. Somebody threw a toy and 12 week old Charmy immediately went running to retrieve and brought back to hand. This despite him being shy and fearful of us before that toy was thrown. And that dog was a serious worker when it came to retrieving and hunting. 


Our second golden had all obedience and conformation on the one side and all field on the other side. His breeder was legit and definitely wasn't a byb... but he would definitely not have accomplished much in either field or conformation. His retrieve drive was nonexistant and he looked like an overgrown spaniel from his big round spaniel eyes to his long flowing silky coat.  Our instructor back then went nuts when she saw his pedigree, his dad (conformation dog) had a lot of OTCHs behind him. Unfortunately he was also one of those dogs who excelled in obedience when he felt like it. And he didn't often feel like it. He preferred to entertain himself by clowning around. All the more so when he knew he was in trouble. And he wasn't a water dog.  


Third golden came from a conformation breeder... and while he DOES have Topbrass (conformation champs and obedience dogs) 5 generations behind him, you have to go back to the 50-60's to find any field champions. Even if his elbows were OK, he would never have made it as a conformation dog, fwiw, because he was 25" at the shoulder. His breeder at the time was breeding very light colored dogs and very heavy coated dogs. And while he didn't really have too much of a retrieve drive, he did want to please. So he retrieved reliably - even without using food as a reward or manhandling to force him - because he wanted to please. Oh, and he didn't like swimming that much. Or nothing beyond sleeping with his face in the water bowl.


And Jacks came from a big kennel that doesn't do anything :uhoh:, but unlike your bybs, they were selectively breeding dogs with loaded pedigrees. His pedigree is all obedience titled and conformation champion dogs until you get back into the 80's and then there are field champions. Sooner than that and you have plenty of dogs (Topbrass goldens included) with JH's and WC's and WCX's on both sides. And like Charmy, about the first thing he showed as a 7.5 week old puppy was that retrieve drive. But of course, he'd never be a field dog since he can't handle gunfire.


All that rambling aside, my feeling is that your conformation bred goldens will have field champions behind them if you go far enough back. Or the lines will have plenty in common the further you go back. 


Field goldens right now... I think maybe my idea of that "description" has been changing since I've met people at the pretty active club here in Michigan. And their goldens are not always red or leggy. That said... your big field champion kennels and breeders... they often DO have those leggy red goldens. And I assume they breed these dogs because they are going with what they know works and stay away from those show lines rather than produce dogs like our Sammy who have nothing much to offer in either category. At least I assume?


----------



## SeaMonster (Jul 4, 2011)

Field monkey


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> In the last 40 years, quite a bit. In the last 20 years, not so much. The design of field tests from 40 years ago are very similar to those seen in today's AKC Master Hunting Tests. (keep in mind it was still dog against dog.)
> 
> If you look back at the old field pedigrees you see a number of FC/AFC dogs but I don't see them on current Goldens. Have these titles been replaced by MH or do the Goldens no longer compete in these events?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

^ I've wondered the same thing.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

TheZ's said:


> If you look back at the old field pedigrees you see a number of FC/AFC dogs but I don't see them on current Goldens. Have these titles been replaced by MH or do the Goldens no longer compete in these events?


It extremely tough to earn an FC or AFC these days and a very expensive proposition. The Hunt Test titles are not necessarilly inexpensive, but they are still within the means of most people.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

.... more expensive than $70/test?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> .... more expensive than $70/test?


A Junior level hunt test entry is $65. Senior and Master run about $70 and $80. 

A Field Trial is much more due to the Professional training and handling fees.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> A Junior level hunt test entry is $65. Senior and Master run about $70 and $80.
> 
> A Field Trial is much more due to the Professional training and handling fees.


 
Do people always use professional trainers for field trials? Even when they themselves have gotten MH's on their dogs? 

I know my one instructor (flat coats) and several people lab and golden people I've gone to class with have gone after the MH title. And they always quibble about the cost and avoid entering dogs unless they are sure of passing.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

99.9999999% of the work necessary for a successful test or trial is not done at a test or trial. It's training. Very difficult for an amateur to have the means of training a dog to be competitive in Open or Am stakes field trials. Master is attainable but not without a LOT of dedication. The entry fees are NOTHING, zip zero zilch in the scheme of things.
At any given time there are only about a half-dozen FC or AFC goldens alive.
It is hard to appreciate the level of difficulty of an Open or Amateur stake without seeing them in the flesh. 
I think we will see CH*** goldens going forward. That's a starting point. We have to breed great dogs and help them see their potential, owners have to be motivated. I think there are just very few people out there who genuinely want to see it happen, enough to TRY it, to give it an honest shot. JMO


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks to Swampcollie and K-9-Design for the comments above. Very helpful in trying to understand field competition.

Megora asked:* Do people always use professional trainers for field trials?*
As I understand it, the difference between FC and AFC is the status of the handler, professional (FC) or amateur (AFC).


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

TheZ's said:


> Thanks to Swampcollie and K-9-Design for the comments above. Very helpful in trying to understand field competition.
> 
> Megora asked:* Do people always use professional trainers for field trials?*
> As I understand it, the difference between FC and AFC is the status of the handler, professional (FC) or amateur (AFC).


Yes, but even if an amateur is handling themselves, they could have sent the dog off for training with a pro (many amateurs still do this for at least part of a dog's training)

From what I understand, the amount of training required for a successful field trial dog is huge, and needs to be done almost daily. Most people who work full time jobs are not often able to go out daily to the land/water set ups that are needed.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

TheZ's said:


> What is the formal title of the "blue book" and where would you get a copy of it? Also wondering why there don't seem to be dogs like Tigathoes Funky Farquar Pedigree: Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS DDHF FDHF around anymore. Has field competition changed significantly in the last 20 yrs?


 Quar was the last Golden to be a Dual Champion (Conformation & Field). There have been a few over the last 10-15 years that have tried and there was great hope they would succeed but it was not to be. Two that come to mind are 
Sabre -Am. CH. Amigold On A Wing N A Prayer CD MH WCX VCX DDHF OS***

Push -
Can. Triple CH FTCH AFTCH OTCH Firemark's Push Comes to Shove Can. WCX Am.*** OS




TheZ's said:


> Swampcollie said:
> 
> 
> > In the last 40 years, quite a bit. In the last 20 years, not so much. The design of field tests from 40 years ago are very similar to those seen in today's AKC Master Hunting Tests. (keep in mind it was still dog against dog.)
> ...


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks AmbikaGR for that additional information. It does make me wonder what the future will hold for the breed. Our Zeke was from strong field lines and even though he was "the best dog ever", I really regret that he was never trained and given the chance to do the work he was bred for.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

TheZ's said:


> Thanks AmbikaGR for that additional information. It does make me wonder what the future will hold for the breed. Our Zeke was from strong field lines and even though he was "the best dog ever", I really regret that he was never trained and given the chance to do the work he was bred for.


I persnonally believe the future for the breed is a bright and excellent one. I believe their are more and more breeders and owners concerned with "breed purpose" today then say 10-15 years ago. And many with a strong grasp of what the "standard" is and melding the two together. And althoungh the Golden will likely never be the "go to" breed for field trials they will be fine, as long as there is the continued concern put into the "whole" Golden Retriever.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Totally agree, Hank.
Which is why every time I read the logo for this year's National specialty, it gave me (still does) the goosebumps:

In Our Past - Lies Our Future


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

After reading all these posts it's my understanding that if you have a golden and would like to try field or hunt there is no way for the average person of average means to do it. It's an elite sport for people who have time and money. Okay, I get that. Can't do polo either. But I'd like to do some of the basics with Tayla just so she can get a feel of what it's like to retrieve something other than balls. What would be my first steps, commands that I should teach her to eventually retrieve from water or brush and what equipment is good for retrieving. Right now I'm using orange bumpers.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

That's probably mostly true of field trials, but no so much for hunt tests or just general hunting. Teach what you and have fun


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Tayla's Mom said:


> After reading all these posts it's my understanding that if you have a golden and would like to try field or hunt there is no way for the average person of average means to do it. It's an elite sport for people who have time and money. Okay, I get that. Can't do polo either. But I'd like to do some of the basics with Tayla just so she can get a feel of what it's like to retrieve something other than balls. What would be my first steps, commands that I should teach her to eventually retrieve from water or brush and what equipment is good for retrieving. Right now I'm using orange bumpers.


Field work and hunting are for EVERYONE not he "elite". To send a dog off with a pro to train may be above many people's means but it not the only way to do it. 
I do not have a lot of money - on disablity for over 7 years. Wife lost her teaching job 3 years ago when the Catholic school she taught closed. Hard for a 63 year old to find a teaching job so she has not worked either. I train my own dogs for both field and obedience. It does take time and I found time once my children were older. I was working 60-70 hours weekly when I trained my Keeper in all her different venues. Just took some 
There is a wealth of info on the internet free of charge to help you train your dog. One of the best in my opinion is Pat Nolan's videoos on youtube.
Retriever Training - YouTube

Obedience (sit, stay, heel and COME) is key to a sound foundation in any venue but try to not intertwine the teaching of the obedience with the teaching of field skills. 
And dogs do not see orange very well, I would get some white, black and/or white & Black bumpers for training.
Have FUN, good luck and let us know how it goes. :wave:


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

field trials are for the elite....like the olympics are for the elite....but it doesn't keep me from swimming even though I'm not Mr. Phelps!
Same with hunt stuff and hunt tests, they aren't the olympics, but they're a lot of fun, and the "average person" like me can train and succeed at them!


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Then, hotel4dogs where does someone who wants to do if for fun and has no clue, start? Just some basics. 


Sent from my iPod touch using PG Free


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Tayla's Mom said:


> Then, hotel4dogs where does someone who wants to do if for fun and has no clue, start? Just some basics.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using PG Free


First, I would join a local Hunting Retriever Club! Great way to start. Contact them about upcoming meetings and usually they will have training days. I am sure someone closer to you can help. I am assuming clearwater is near Tampa?? Anney (K9 design) would know which hunting retriever clubs are near you.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

There is nothing near me. 90+ minutes away is the closest. I'm just looking for fun with my dog not to compete. Won't use a shock collar either. Just looking for a book or video on some basics. 


Sent from my iPod touch using PG Free


----------



## Maddie'sMom2011 (Apr 26, 2011)

Have you tried a Google search?


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

I think Lorie Jolly's book would be a good start
10 Minute Retriever
Jackie Merten's sound beginnings video

Florida Gulf Coast Golden Retriever Club (Tampa area) is having several field intro days in Pinellas Park coming up, check their website

Central FL HRC is closest training club

If you live in the city you must expect to travel to do field work.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

Thank you Anney. I appreciate your response. We are planning to join FGCGRC. They hadn't updated their calendar last time I looked. 


Sent from my iPod touch using PG Free


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> field trials are for the elite....like the olympics are for the elite....but it doesn't keep me from swimming even though I'm not Mr. Phelps!
> Same with hunt stuff and hunt tests, they aren't the olympics, but they're a lot of fun, and the "average person" like me can train and succeed at them!


Awesome post! For me, given that dead birds make me queasy and I hate field training( dogs love it) , JH will be a real sign of character, lol.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

Field goldens are cool.

Usually darker in color, and tend to have a more pointed, less blocky head, longer nose.

I love field goldens. Especially red heads  I generally find Field Dogs to be more friendly, cuddly and appreciative.

But...

Now, there 's no scientific evidence of this, but in my experience field goldens have the _potential _to be _slightly _more aggressive than show dogs. Like anything else it depends on the breeder and lines.

My guys breeder did field training, and one weekend when I went to her house she had a customers field golden in a wire crate in the back of her van. The ****** thing tried to attack me as soon as I came close, and it startled her so bad I had to catch her from falling backwards. It was a nasty, nasty creature and she said it's the last time she was taking it for training.

That was a very, very unusual case, and I can't help but think the owners are greatly responsible for it's actions. It was really quite a shock to see a Golden act like that.

I personally would have ZERO hesitancy in taking in a field dog.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I would think that dog was probably your run of the mill back yard bred golden retriever. 

I have friends who own field bred goldens (from legit breeders) and they don't have a mean bone in their bodies. 

And even if you have some who are growly - it isn't the same as outright aggression. Which should be rare or impossible to find in a golden retriever.


----------

