# whiskers??? keep or remove?



## golden_eclipse

I keep grooming to a minimum, to keep a soft friendly expression, I also want to keep my dogs' work ability in the field, aka keeping them primarily a hunting dog. So I think keeping the whiskers would be a no-brainier, but I was shocked that so many Goldens in the ring have them removed. Why on earth would you remove them? what is the benefit in the ring to have them removed?


----------



## Jo Ellen

Not a showdog person, can't speak for that practice except I think it's stupid. Dogs have whiskers, they have a purpose, even in the field ... to remove them is more human vanity and greed than anything to do with the beauty or showability of a dog.

My 2 cents :curtain:


----------



## Megora

Probably the same reason why we shave off the whiskers of show horses. 

When those horses are turned out in the field, those whiskers by their eyes (above and below their eyes) and around their nose and chin protect them. 

But we shave them off to give a horse cleaner lines when they are in the ring. 

^ I shave my horse's whiskers because I like the clean cut look. Have never clipped my golden's whiskers off though.


----------



## CarolinaCasey

I think it is because the whiskers distract from a nice face. People leave them on in the puppy classes if they want, but they really should come off after that. My boy's whiskers are off and he has no trouble in the field training.


----------



## Pointgold

It looks better. Whiskers on lend a "snipey" look.
I've never had a dog without whiskers have any problems in the field. (Alice earned her JH and was 1994 APC Derby Dog of the Year without.)


----------



## aerolor

Peronally I think removing the whiskers makes the dog look hard faced and if it is not necessary for the well-being of the dog then why do it? You cannot cover up any fault in a dog's muzzle by removing its whiskers and would a judge penalise a dog for not removing its whiskers ?


----------



## goldensrbest

Never knew, people remove them.


----------



## AmbikaGR

On some dogs the whiskers can be VERY distracting and take away from an otherwise beautiful head. When I showed Keeper I left them on as them were minimal and very inconspicuous. Her daughter Lucy on the other hand had WILD whiskers, looked like a rat, so the few times I showed her i removed them. And as a side note they do grow back. Have not had cause to remove them from any other of my girls.


----------



## Megora

What does snipey mean? 

I always thought that the whisker trimming is optional. And from what I remember of the grooming session with my Danny's breeder is you can do it or not, but if the whiskers are curly, thick, weird lengths, broken, or too noticable in general, then they prefer to remove them rather than let a perfectly groomed golden look scruffy around the face. 

And otherwise outside of conformation you would trim the eyebrow whiskers if they are curling too close to the eyes.

Is that the reasoning?

-> My Jacks has adorable whiskers. I wouldn't get rid of them ever. When he was a puppy they were so thick and curly. I loved to kiss him right there. I still kiss him there even if they aren't as noticable. :


----------



## Jo Ellen

How do you remove whiskers? I take it we're not just talking about cutting them down, but actually plucking them out?

Ouch?


----------



## Sally's Mom

You cut the whiskers. And here in the Northeast if you show in conformation EVERYBODY cuts the whiskers. I wouldn't jump off a bridge if EVERYBODY else was, but I do cut whiskers.


----------



## goldensrbest

So, they grow back ?


----------



## KaMu

I cut the whiskers above Roxys eyes because on the one side she has a whisker that curls down towards her eye. Id trim them all if they didn't grow back so quick!


----------



## OliverGR

I have always understood the whiskers are quite sensitive hairs and let the animal know what is near their mouth. Keep them.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Jo Ellen said:


> How do you remove whiskers? I take it we're not just talking about cutting them down, but actually plucking them out?
> 
> Ouch?



No plucking. Some folks use a horse shaver.


----------



## AmbikaGR

goldensrbest said:


> So, they grow back ?



Yep! And doggie stubble can be as bad as a man's! :bowl:


----------



## K9-Design

Jo Ellen said:


> Not a showdog person, can't speak for that practice except I think it's stupid. Dogs have whiskers, they have a purpose, even in the field ... to remove them is more human vanity and greed than anything to do with the beauty or showability of a dog.
> 
> My 2 cents :curtain:


Goodness. How on earth are trimming a dog's whiskers a sign of *vanity* and *greed*???????
Anymore than giving them a bath and running a comb through them.
It's a dog *SHOW* after all. Now I've heard it all.


----------



## K9-Design

No you don't pluck them out, you just trim them with scissors. They grow back FAST.
I take them off any dog I am showing seriously. Just a show here and there I might not bother unless the dog has walrus whiskers. You trim them because it makes their face look cleaner. IT'S A DOG SHOW, REMEMBER ----> THE POINT IS TO LOOK GOOD.


----------



## Sally's Mom

And breeds like poodles and cockers routinely get their faces clean shaven so what's the diff? I always shaved my horses' whiskers and they could find their food bowls just fine.


----------



## Sally's Mom

And technically, the standard says with or without whiskers... it also says minimal grooming, ha! I have seen people who are excellent at grooming literally sculpt a golden for the show ring....


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> Goodness. How on earth are trimming a dog's whiskers a sign of *vanity* and *greed*???????
> Anymore than giving them a bath and running a comb through them.
> It's a dog *SHOW* after all. Now I've heard it all.


Yeah, I wish I had a nickel for every whisker I've ever cut off. (THAT's greedy. :lol


----------



## LibertyME

Was going to say that Sally'sMom! 
I grew up with poodles...their faces were trimmed clean all the time! 
Never had a problem retrieving and certainly could find their food and play with the cats as well as any Golden Ive ever had!


----------



## LibertyME

I have no problem leaving them on if they are not a visual distraction...but if your show dog has lovely head and a couple of curly whiskers or a black one...they stick out like a sore thumb. I want a Judge to think to themselves...what a lovely head and pleasing expression....not what a couple of cute curly whiskers! <grin>


----------



## whiskey creek goldens

Sally's Mom said:


> And technically, the standard says with or without whiskers... it also says minimal grooming, ha! I have seen people who are excellent at grooming literally sculpt a golden for the show ring....


I have seen sculpted Goldens. I think it takes away from there natural beauty!! Just my opinion. 



Jo Ellen said:


> How do you remove whiskers? I take it we're not just talking about cutting them down, but actually plucking them out?
> 
> Ouch?


You can cut them with your scissors, but I found the most handy took. Its called a "whisker waker" It is much like a men's razor (non electric) with no handle. It has a guard so you can not cut to close or accidentally cut the dogs. They are great and fast.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Not a lot of room here for a difference of opinion. That'll teach me to enter a discussion of show dogs :


----------



## KaMu

OOps! I didn't realize it was the show dog section :doh:


----------



## Jo Ellen

I can understand why whiskers might be trimmed, if they are interfering in a dog's comfort somehow, or present a physical risk such as irritating the eye. But if our dog's whiskers have no functional purpose or benefit, why does a dog automatically blink when you touch them?

That tells me that whiskers, at the very least, protect the eyes.


----------



## Jo Ellen

KaMu said:


> OOps! I didn't realize it was the show dog section :doh:


Neither did I LOL... my apologies!


----------



## Kmullen

And also how is shaving 
Whiskers any different than a man shaving his face!! Everything has a purpose! Men do it to look better just as in the dog show world.


----------



## Jo Ellen

kfayard said:


> And also how is shaving
> Whiskers any different than a man shaving his face!! Everything has a purpose! Men do it to look better just as in the dog show world.


I guess that depends on whether or not you believe dog's whiskers have a beneficial purpose. Human beings stand upright. Dogs are on all 4's, closer to the ground and all that lives there.


----------



## Sally's Mom

It's really not about a difference of opinion... bottom line, if you show in conformation, the whiskers go. Period.


----------



## Sally's Mom

And if you stress about golden whiskers, what about the breeds who routinely remove them?


----------



## Megora

Sally's Mom said:


> And if you stress about golden whiskers, what about the breeds who routinely remove them?


But other breeds I can understand... 

Here's a pic of Danny (he wasn't that light, just washed out by the flash). He had whiskers as you can see, but was more clean shaven then my Jacks is, so I can at least see where having less whiskers around those lips may be better for showing.










And here's my Jacks with his adorable kissable whiskers...










And Arth with his fox whiskers... I have no idea if collies have the whiskers trimmed, but if they do, I can definitely see why. You can't see from this shot, but he has long, thick, black whiskers. 










^ I'm not arguing about the whiskers being trimmed. It's not my choice for my dogs, but I can see why it's done for showing.


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> And if you stress about golden whiskers, what about the breeds who routinely remove them?


I don't get the "stressing" about them. People see photos of dogs with no whiskers and oooh and ahhh over them, or, as spectators at shows see the dogs without them and constantly comment on beautiful they are. It seems that it's more about the concept of it than the reality. 


Personally, I much prefer a clean face - it accentuates a soft expression and that lovely, broad muzzle. On the other hand, it's a PITA to remove them. (Watch using "whisker whackers" or shavers, as if you remove any hair other than the whiskers, it may grow in lighter and look to be prematurely gray...) If a change were made in the standard to prohibit their removal, these blind old eyes would do a little happy dance. : But, until that ever happens I will continue to remove them.


----------



## K9-Design

Pointgold said:


> Personally, I much prefer a clean face - it accentuates a soft expression and that lovely, broad muzzle. On the other hand, it's a PITA to remove them. (Watch using "whisker whackers" or shavers, as if you remove any hair other than the whiskers, it may grow in lighter and look to be prematurely gray...) If a change were made in the standard to prohibit their removal, these blind old eyes would do a little happy dance. : But, until that ever happens I will continue to remove them.


I once was a little too ambitious with a new whisker whacker and did a little too much right under the dog's nose. He looked like he had a Hitler mustache. 
People who argue to change the standard to disallow whisker trimming need to get a life. Like that is going to do anything to change breeding practices for the ring. Of all the things done to show goldens in the name of winning, that's the least of our problems.


----------



## jackie_hubert

I say keep the whiskers. They're cute.


----------



## Judi

kdowningxc said:


> I keep grooming to a minimum, to keep a soft friendly expression, I also want to keep my dogs' work ability in the field, aka keeping them primarily a hunting dog. So I think keeping the whiskers would be a no-brainier, but I was shocked that so many Goldens in the ring have them removed. Why on earth would you remove them? what is the benefit in the ring to have them removed?


I have never heard of this before.


----------



## jweisman54

I say keep the whiskers too.....show or no show! It makes a golden a golden! jmo


----------



## Judi

Sally's Mom said:


> It's really not about a difference of opinion... bottom line, if you show in conformation, the whiskers go. Period.


Why? Who came up with that rule?
Some Goldens are shaven too. I have never done that either.


----------



## Radarsdad

> Goodness. How on earth are trimming a dog's whiskers a sign of vanity and greed???????
> Anymore than giving them a bath and running a comb through them.
> It's a dog SHOW after all. Now I've heard it all.


God put em there for a reason. Why are you taking them off? For looks right? Or rather for the looks *you* want?

I would say that's rather VAIN and GREEDY because you want to win by altering what he was born with.

I fail to see the reason for it other than the owner wanting them off for personal reasons and me thinks it's kind of petty.


----------



## Judi

I fail to see the reason for it too.


----------



## nixietink

Who cares either way? It's personal preference...as long as the dog isn't being harmed and there isn't an obvious difference in how it is sensing its surroundings.

I think it is pretty to judgmental to assume someone is vain because they trimmed a dog's whiskers.


----------



## Judi

Who is being judgemental?


----------



## Kmullen

Judi said:


> Who is being judgemental?


People that are saying it is VAIN and GREEDY!!! That is pretty judgemental, if you ask me!


----------



## Kmullen

nixietink said:


> Who cares either way? It's personal preference...as long as the dog isn't being harmed and there isn't an obvious difference in how it is sensing its surroundings.
> 
> I think it is pretty to judgmental to assume someone is vain because they trimmed a dog's whiskers.


I completely agree here. The OP was asking what the point was and when someone replied why it is done to some dogs (especially show dogs). They answered the OP's question. It did not call for people being called greedy or vain because they trim up the whiskers!!!


----------



## Jo Ellen

Opinions are often judgmental, it's okay. I'm not going to stop anyone from removing whiskers from their dogs, I'm not out picketing the practice of showing animals ... I just have an opinion about it.


----------



## Pointgold

kfayard said:


> I completely agree here. The OP was asking what the point was and when someone replied why it is done to some dogs (especially show dogs). They answered the OP's question. It did not call for people being called greedy or vain because they trim up the whiskers!!!


"Greedy" and "vain" was pretty funny to me, actually. I don't see it, but oh well! As for judgemental, it's also funny that it's okay for some opinions to be judgemental, but apparently not others!


----------



## Radarsdad

If it fits the definition? It is what it is.
It's their pup, doesn't matter to me if they cut them or not but some of the same ones trimming whiskers the dog was born with, and was designed as original equipment. Will chastise anyone who gives their Golden a puppy cut so they can be more comfortable dealing with high temps.
A little hypocritical don't you think?


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> If it fits the definition? It is what it is.
> It's their pup, doesn't matter to me if they cut them or not but some of the same ones trimming whiskers the dog was born with, and was designed as original equipment. Will chastise anyone who gives their Golden a puppy cut so they can be more comfortable dealing with high temps.
> A little hypocritical don't you think?


Nope. I don't think so at all. Greedy? Yeah, we make millions off our show dogs. Vane/vain? Because there is a preference for how something looks? That would seem to be a stretch. Do you comb your hair? Trim your nails? OMG - you're so vain! (Hardly...) I'm aware that you think shaving a Golden down is fine. That's cutting off the coat that dog was born with. Yet, you say that trimming whiskers is removing "original equipment." One could ask "A little hypocritical don't you think?"


----------



## tippykayak

In my extremely limited experience, what the standard says about grooming and the reality of shows are startlingly far apart. The standard says "Feet may be trimmed and stray hairs neatened, but the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping." But if you go to a show, that's not at all what you'll see. Many dogs' coats have been substantially clipped and altered. As far as whiskers, the standard says, "Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred," but as Sally's Mom pointed out, it's so preferred that it's practically standard to remove them, at least in the northeast.

Why do judges reward things that aren't consistent with the standard? Ya got me! 

I personally prefer the more natural looking Goldens, but I also understand that they're not what's shown and that it would be impractical to put a dog in the ring without all that trimming.

I certainly don't think it's cruel to remove a dog's whiskers, but they're obviously part of the way that he senses his environment, so I wouldn't do it in the absence of an important reason. If the legacy of the GR is as a hunting dog, leaving the whiskers on makes more sense in my mind. These discrepancies between the standard and working history of the GR and the reality of the show ring are a significant reason that conformation does not appeal to me.

So I do fall in the "leave 'em on" camp, though I think "vain" and "greedy" do not describe the majority of conformation enthusiasts I've met. Sally's Mom, for example, is a lovely individual, despite the fact that her dogs' whiskers were trimmed. Conformation is a neat sport full of nice people (not everybody obviously, but a majority seem to be pretty great), even if it's not my bag.


----------



## Kmullen

When my girl is in the show ring, the whiskers are cut off. After show ring, they grow back out. She actually earned her JH without the whiskers. 

I do not know who started the trend of removing the whiskers or even how long people have been doing it! Or how long it will last!

The only parts that are cut on my girl for the ring...is her feet are trimmed, her tail trimmed and her ears are shaped up (or in the area of her ears). But, I have seen some that are shaped a little too much for my taste!


----------



## K9-Design

Radarsdad said:


> God put em there for a reason. Why are you taking them off? For looks right? Or rather for the looks *you* want?
> 
> I would say that's rather VAIN and GREEDY because you want to win by altering what he was born with.
> 
> I fail to see the reason for it other than the owner wanting them off for personal reasons and me thinks it's kind of petty.



Your dogs have their dewclaws removed?
We're talking WHISKERS here folks.


----------



## Pointgold

I don't trim the whiskers (or, "amputate the vibrissae", as some are wont to describe the practice...) unless the dog is going to be in the ring, or if we were to be doing a "formal" photo, simply because it's a PITA. Probably like a lot of men who don't shave daily. And frankly, I have seen absolutely NO difference in their capacity to manuever their environment with or without them. 
As I said, our Alice (Pointer) was being shown in the breed ring on the weekends that she wasn't running NAVHDA trials, Derby stakes or entered in hunt tests. Her whiskers were off and she had no problems whatsoever. It's purely a matter of preference to me, and evidently, a lot of breed ring judges would appear to prefer the clean look, as well.

I just don't see any of it as a big deal, really, but I sure don't think it warrants deeming those who choose to as "vain", "greedy", "hypocritical", or even "cruel". I'd rather see the ire directed towards other issues of far more importance such as clearances, or, those parts of the standard that are absolute, such as size.


----------



## Pointgold

kfayard said:


> When my girl is in the show ring, the whiskers are cut off. After show ring, they grow back out. She actually earned her JH without the whiskers.
> 
> I do not know who started the trend of removing the whiskers or even how long people have been doing it! Or how long it will last!
> 
> The only parts that are cut on my girl for the ring...is her feet are trimmed, her tail trimmed and her ears are shaped up (or in the area of her ears). But, I have seen some that are shaped a little too much for my taste!


 
I don't see too much "overgrooming' or "sculpting" anymore, although there are still some who do. I will say that to those who do not groom their dogs for show (or at all), no matter the breed, the dogs at shows probably look freakish to them. Especially if they are totally used to untrimmed, unblown dogs. A lot of can be done with a Golden with even relatively minimal trimming if someone is good with a blow dryer.


----------



## Megora

> I'd rather see the ire directed towards other issues of far more importance such as clearances, or, those parts of the standard that are absolute, such as size.


Or color...?

This is off topic, but one thing I sort of noticed at a trial was a golden who looked like a docktoller because of its small size, dark red color, and a bit of white in the mane. 

We looked the dog up in my catalog to doublecheck what it was, and yes... it was a golden. And it came from a big field and obedience type kennel.

While these dogs are dynamos in obedience... I would assume that deliberately producing dogs so far from the standard is worse than show breeders clipping whiskers off a dog?


----------



## Mirinde

I kind of boggled at this thread just because I've honestly really never noticed my dogs whiskers. Or the whiskers of any dog I know. I should definitely never show dogs, haha!


----------



## whiskey creek goldens

Pointgold said:


> I don't trim the whiskers (or, "amputate the vibrissae", as some are wont to describe the practice...) unless the dog is going to be in the ring, or if we were to be doing a "formal" photo, simply because it's a PITA. Probably like a lot of men who don't shave daily. And frankly, I have seen absolutely NO difference in their capacity to manuever their environment with or without them.
> As I said, our Alice (Pointer) was being shown in the breed ring on the weekends that she wasn't running NAVHDA trials, Derby stakes or entered in hunt tests. Her whiskers were off and she had no problems whatsoever. It's purely a matter of preference to me, and evidently, a lot of breed ring judges would appear to prefer the clean look, as well.
> 
> I just don't see any of it as a big deal, really, but I sure don't think it warrants deeming those who choose to as "vain", "greedy", "hypocritical", or even "cruel". I'd rather see the ire directed towards other issues of far more importance such as clearances, or, those parts of the standard that are absolute, such as size.



perfectly said Point Gold


----------



## CarolinaCasey

Radarsdad said:


> God put em there for a reason. Why are you taking them off? For looks right? Or rather for the looks *you* want?
> 
> I would say that's rather VAIN and GREEDY because you want to win by altering what he was born with.
> 
> I fail to see the reason for it other than the owner wanting them off for personal reasons and me thinks it's kind of petty.





nixietink said:


> Who cares either way? It's personal preference...as long as the dog isn't being harmed and there isn't an obvious difference in how it is sensing its surroundings.
> 
> I think it is pretty to judgmental to assume someone is vain because they trimmed a dog's whiskers.


I am dumbfounded that a thread about whiskers has become 6 pages and counting and people have become so incredibly vocal about their feelings toward the matter. Why not reserve the disgust and discord for the breeders that don't give a darn about the breed standard, creating a golden retriever in structure and instinct, or bettering the breed? Yep, shame on us conformation people. 

The whiskers grow back FAST. We had a show this weekend and I removed whiskers on Thursday, they're already a centimeter long and growing. Last time I checked, people didn't call me VAIN and GREEDY because I shaved my legs. I think God intended those hairs for a purpose too.... shame on me for altering what I was born with....:wavey:


----------



## K9-Design

CarolinaCasey said:


> I am dumbfounded that a thread about whiskers has become 6 pages and counting and people have become so incredibly vocal about their feelings toward the matter. Why not reserve the disgust and discord for the breeders that don't give a darn about the breed standard, creating a golden retriever in structure and instinct, or bettering the breed? Yep, shame on us conformation people.
> 
> The whiskers grow back FAST. We had a show this weekend and I removed whiskers on Thursday, they're already a centimeter long and growing. Last time I checked, people didn't call me VAIN and GREEDY because I shaved my legs. I think God intended those hairs for a purpose too.... shame on me for altering what I was born with....:wavey:


For realsies. 
I find it particularly humorous that those wagging the finger at us evil whisker trimmers are not well versed in showing goldens. If they knew all that went into preparing a dog for the ring, you'd see what a minor thing whisker trimming is. There's not more hubbub about it at shows because it's not a big deal.


----------



## Mssjnnfer

K9-Design said:


> For realsies.
> I find it particularly humorous that those wagging the finger at us evil whisker trimmers are not well versed in showing goldens. If they knew all that went into preparing a dog for the ring, you'd see what a minor thing whisker trimming is. There's not more hubbub about it at shows because it's not a big deal.


I don't have a preference either way on the whisker thing, but I just have to say you're not being the sweetest piece of pie either.


----------



## Radarsdad

Pointgold said:


> Nope. I don't think so at all. Greedy?* Yeah, we make millions off our show dogs. *Vane/vain? Because there is a preference for how something looks? That would seem to be a stretch. Do you comb your hair? Trim your nails? OMG - you're so vain! (Hardly...) I'm aware that you think shaving a Golden down is fine. That's cutting off the coat that dog was born with. Yet, you say that trimming whiskers is removing "original equipment." One could ask "A little hypocritical don't you think?"


Uhhh you do make money off of them right????
Cutting the coat is for the dogs benefit not for mine.
Removing dewclaws was started to keep from getting ripped out in the field.

I profit from neither of these and don't do it just for looks or make the judge happy.

I don't have any ire or anger about the whiskers. But the OP was sorta right about the reasons for them being removed. It's not for the dog's benefit but for the owner's. Which fits the definitions of the words the OP described.

Please continue to shave your legs. "Nothing beats a great pair of legs"


----------



## Sally's Mom

At 2:30 this AM when even I, in Maine, was too hot to sleep... I was thinking of the issue of show grooming in general. My mother's childhood best friend was a big show beagle breeder back in the 60's and 70's. We would make the annual pilgrimage from Philly to Illinois every summer to visit my grandparents. The bonus was that the beagle kennel was in the same town. I was in Heaven being amidst beagles of all ages for days at a time. Frequently, I was around when she was prepping dogs for shows. To get a dog ready, all whiskers were clipped, bellies were shaved, the tail was trimmed, nails(all) were clipped to the point of bleeding(still horrifies me to this day), the feathers on the front legs were trimmed, chalk was applied to the white areas, and occasionally, mascara was applied to the eyelids. Beagles with splayed paws were only shown outdoors. It was also a time of benched shows which added a fun dimension.

I go to shows with a friend with a Boston. She has to trim that white collar so the white doesn't bleed into the brindle. And hide the pink spots on his nose.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> Uhhh you do make money off of them right????
> Cutting the coat is for the dogs benefit not for mine.
> Removing dewclaws was started to keep from getting ripped out in the field.
> 
> I profit from neither of these and don't do it just for looks or make the judge happy.
> 
> I don't have any ire or anger about the whiskers. But the OP was sorta right about the reasons for them being removed. It's not for the dog's benefit but for the owner's. Which fits the definitions of the words the OP described.
> 
> Please continue to shave your legs. "Nothing beats a great pair of legs"


 

Uhhh, no, I don't make money off of them.
I absolutely do not believe that "cutting the coat" benefits the dog at all. To use your own logic, it's original equipment and meant to be there... people a whole lot more knowlegeable than me stand firm that it is in fact beneficial for the dog as insulation to protect against the elements, and cutting it is in fact detrimental.

We do things that are "traditional" for lack of a better word, in all venues of dog sport. You intimate that somehow doing something 'just for looks" or to "make a judge happy" is distasteful. We could probably get into a debate about force fetching, e-collars, breeding undersized Goldens for speed in the field and the like...  :wavey:








(I'll leave the shaving the legs comment alone and assume it was directed at someone else who may have mentioned it.)


----------



## Sally's Mom

And I don't remove dewclaws on my dogs and have never had a problem. When I do tails and dews on client's pets, I think removing the dews hurts more than removing tails. However, I realize it is personal preference whether or not to remove them.


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> And I don't remove dewclaws on my dogs and have never had a problem. When I do tails and dews on client's pets, I think removing the dews hurts more than removing tails. However, I realize it is personal preference whether or not to remove them.


I used to remove dewclaws on every litter. I no longer do, and have never had a problem, either. I do prefer they be removed on Pointers simply for appearance sake.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Sally's Mom said:


> To get a dog ready, all whiskers were clipped, bellies were shaved, the tail was trimmed, nails(all) were clipped to the point of bleeding(still horrifies me to this day), the feathers on the front legs were trimmed, chalk was applied to the white areas, and occasionally, mascara was applied to the eyelids.


Some of this is benign, truly, but some of it is very disturbing. This is what I mean when I use the words greed and vanity. And greed, by the way, doesn't have to equate to money. People can be greedy with wins, with recognition, with status.

I'm happy to hear that whiskers grow back and that show people aren't clipping them outside the ring. But still, it does bother me that we impose human definitions of beauty on dogs in the show ring. We do that for us, not for the dogs. I think about removing whiskers in much the same way as clipping ears and docking tails because I do believe that whiskers, like other natural dog appendages, have a functional purpose for them.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I cut them off. They look better without them, and like PG I have never had a dog have a problem without them, including coursing and racing sighthounds and day to day pets.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> I do prefer they be removed on Pointers simply for appearance sake.


Removing or altering by surgery anything simply for appearance fits my personal definition of human vanity.


----------



## Jo Ellen

I was thinking about shaving legs  I think in Europe that's not a traditional practice, am I correct? I've heard this, but I've never been there, so I can't be certain. 

So in European show dog circles, are whiskers shaved or clipped? Just wondering how cultural influence might play into this practice.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I don't think they did cut whiskers in the UK. I remember feeling I over dressed (they don't dress as nicely to show either, except maybe at Crufts) and over groomed my dogs. They don't handle as precisely or have professionals so much like we do either. I am at best a mediocre handler and I out handled just about everyone I saw in the UK except some big name breeders. Americans put the SHOW in dog show for sure.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

They do over groom Goldens in that they cut the neck ruff off, much like a setter would have done, which completely throws off the balance of the dog and takes away a basic feature of the breed, IMO. They also show on a really loose lead and don't tend to bait or move the dogs out as much. I couldn't ever get past that and in the fun shows I showed my Golden in, I puffed out her neck fur and handled her with the collar under the throat baited with ears up, American style... why not, it was just for fun!


----------



## Sally's Mom

At the risk of sounding like a jerk to the OP, you choose to show your dog, right? No one is making you do it. So you can either stick by your guns and see what happens or play the game that most every one else plays... The bottom line is that almost everyone showing in AKC conformation shows trims whiskers, trims feet, neatens up ears, often uses bodifier or something like it and blows the dog out, trims the tail, often trims around the tail, removes excess coat from the neck area, etc. If I felt as strongly about whiskers like I do dewclaw removal in goldens, I wouldn't cut the whiskers.


----------



## Pointgold

Jo Ellen said:


> Removing or altering by surgery anything simply for appearance fits my personal definition of human vanity.


I really don't care either way. I prefer the way they look without. I'm not doing it, so it doesn't matter. And I'm not going to not buy a Pointer with them left on if the dog is otherwise great.

Surgically altering a dog so as not to be able to reproduce, for example, is far more invasive and potentially detrimental than removal of dewclaws, or whiskers, or even tails/ears.

It's "human vanity" to trim tails and feet and ears. It's "human vanity" to have designed Golden Retrievers. It's "human vanity" to take hundreds of photos of our doggies and post them all over the internet. 
I'm_ so_ vain, and so greedy because I DO like my dogs to look as good as possible and I DO like for them to be judged as worthy of winning. 
And I'm sure there are plenty of people (AR activists and other "PC" folks) who think that I am just a horrific human being for saying so. 
Personally, I think that there are a lot worse things they could be addressing.

Discussing this stuff is always entertaining.


----------



## Radarsdad

Pointgold said:


> Uhhh, no, I don't make money off of them.
> *I absolutely do not believe that "cutting the coat" benefits the dog at all. To use your own logic,* it's original equipment and meant to be there... people a whole lot more knowlegeable than me stand firm that it is in fact beneficial for the dog as insulation to protect against the elements, and cutting it is in fact detrimental.
> 
> We do things that are "traditional" for lack of a better word, in all venues of dog sport. You intimate that somehow doing something 'just for looks" or to "make a judge happy" is distasteful. We could probably get into a debate about force fetching, e-collars, breeding undersized Goldens for speed in the field and the like...  :wavey:


Not logic, experience,stand firm all you want, ignorance is bliss. There are no facts to support your assumption that cutting is detrimental only opinions. Just because you "think" or "believe" something doesn't make true. 
I am not going to let my dog suffer or be uncomfortable on someone's misguided beliefs or opininons.
Insulation works both ways it keeps heat out but it also keeps it, in retarding cooling, dissipation of body heat.
No we don't want to get into a debate. I have had to put two Goldens down because of show breeding practices. That debate and the way field is being bred out of Goldens *will* get my ire going.


----------



## jweisman54

Do I like the whiskers that my golden was born with....yes. Will I remove them.....no! 

That being said, do I shave my legs yes....will I continue to do so......yes. Why, because *I *have a choice whether or not to do so. My dog does not have free will to do such things. We as humans have free will and act upon it for ourselves and for our non-humans since they cannot. 

I think enough has been said about whiskers being removed or not being removed. Everyone has an opinion....nothing else is going to change. I think the OP's question has been answered and we must move on to other more pressing things going on in our lives....


----------



## Jo Ellen

Radarsdad said:


> I have had to put two Goldens down because of show breeding practices. That debate and the way field is being bred out of Goldens *will* get my ire going.


Oh  I want to ask how that happened. It's a shame.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> Not logic, experience,stand firm all you want, ignorance is bliss. There are no facts to support your assumption that cutting is detrimental only opinions. Just because you "think" or "believe" something doesn't make true.
> I am not going to let my dog suffer or be uncomfortable on someone's misguided beliefs or opininons.
> Insulation works both ways it keeps heat out but it also keeps it, in retarding cooling, dissipation of body heat.
> No we don't want to get into a debate. I have had to put two Goldens down because of show breeding practices. That debate and the way field is being bred out of Goldens *will* get my ire going.


 

Dogs don't sweat or release heat through their skin. Just sayin... :wavey:
My experience, thank you very much, is also what I am basing my bliss upon. I think that veterinary dermatologists would have the facts and don't just "assume", "think" or "believe". And I wonder why they don't shave down Afghan Hounds in the desert, or, camels... :scratchch

In my ignorance I have had extraordinarily healthy dogs. And OMG! They hunt. :wavey:


----------



## Radarsdad

jweisman54 said:


> Do I like the whiskers that my golden was born with....yes. Will I remove them.....no!
> 
> That being said, do I shave my legs yes....will I continue to do so......yes. Why, because *I *have a choice whether or not to do so. My dog does not have free will to do such things. We as humans have free will and act upon it for ourselves and for our non-humans since they cannot.
> 
> I think enough has been said about whiskers being removed or not being removed. Everyone has an opinion....nothing else is going to change. I think the OP's question has been answered and we must move on to other more pressing things going on in our lives....


Agreed,

But I REFUSEto shave my legs!!!!!:--big_grin:


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I don't mind the debate. It's fun. I'll continue to groom my dogs because I like the way it looks. I OWN the kinds of dogs I own because I like the way they look. I wouldn't own a breed I think is ugly (and there's quite a few). I wouldn't own a Golden with furry toes and an untrimmed tail. I just plain don't like the way it looks.


----------



## jweisman54

Radarsdad said:


> Agreed,
> 
> But I REFUSEto shave my legs!!!!!:--big_grin:



Ok, agreed, you don't have to shave your legs.


----------



## Megora

AquaClaraCanines said:


> They do over groom Goldens in that they cut the neck ruff off, much like a setter would have done, which completely throws off the balance of the dog and takes away a basic feature of the breed, IMO. They also show on a really loose lead and don't tend to bait or move the dogs out as much. I couldn't ever get past that and in the fun shows I showed my Golden in, I puffed out her neck fur and handled her with the collar under the throat baited with ears up, American style... why not, it was just for fun!


I was watching a video where somebody was showing how to trim a golden over there. The person was armed with a stripping knife, straight scissors, and thinning sheers and she did certainly use them all over the the dog. 

That's why I stopped commenting on how much goldens are trimmed up for conformation in the AKC. 

The trimming in the AKC at least makes more sense as far as cleaning up lines - at least if you compare to the trimming that is done with a show horse (we shave pulls down to the skin, shave all the whiskers off, shave the faces especially around the markings, remove hair from the ears, shave the neck lines and chest area, thin the manes, clip the legs) in addition to all of the makeup (we paint the hooves black and most horses need a little touch up around their eyes and noses) who is not even being judged on his appearance.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I wish I didn't have to shave my legs. I hate doing it, and I have to do it every single day because it's hot here and I have dark hair.


----------



## Radarsdad

Gunner is in no danger of having his whiskers shaved. Shaving mine is big enough pain. Tried growing a beard once. Started turning red,had to shave around it anyway, so off it went.


----------



## annef

No, we not trim whiskers over here but we do tidy the necks and shoulders They should not be trimmed like a setter, that is totally wrong and does spoil the balance of the dog but we do trim the ruffs to give a more balanced out line, so not so front heavy. We certainly show our dogs on loose leads and I ask people to move on loose leads as well so I can see the natural movement of the dogs . Stringing them up affects their front movement and no, we tend not to dress up to show! Showing in muddy fields tend to ensure that the attire is practical and quite casual. Crufts is a little different as at least we are inside there but when I won Best of breed with a dog there I was lent a jacket to wear in the big ring. When I got home all my husband said was you bought a new skirt and T shirt but you didn't tell me you had also bought a new jacket!! Annef


----------



## Jo Ellen

annef said:


> No, we not trim whiskers over here


Very interesting. Why not?


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

Yup, it was much more casual- and that I liked, considering I hate dressing up. I don't even dress up much anymore to show here. I just hate it and don't think one should be judged on whether she wears a fancy suit or not to show the dog.


----------



## Radarsdad

> Ok, agreed, you don't have to shave your legs.


Whewww, Thanks, razors are expensive enough for my face. Start raking them over my leg hairs could get expensive.


----------



## Pointgold

AquaClaraCanines said:


> Yup, it was much more casual- and that I liked, considering I hate dressing up. I don't even dress up much anymore to show here. I just hate it and don't think one should be judged on whether she wears a fancy suit or not to show the dog.


It's about pride, and respect for the judges and the traditions of the sport. No one is judging the outfit but if you are presenting a beautiful, well groomed, well conditioned dog to a judge, why would you not want to look your very best, as well? The whole picture _is _important. You might be surprised to read what the most highly respected judges think about the appearance of the handler, and what they think "ladies and gentlemen" should wear in the rings.


A GREAT read, for anyone interested in showing dogs, is Anne Rogers Clark's book "Annie on...Dogs!"


----------



## annef

We don't trim whiskers because it is not considered the done thing to do in our breed The dog is presented naturally with some trimming to the neck and shoulders (to show off the length of neck), feet, tail, rear pasterns and excess hair taken off the ears. The dogs are usually bathed the day before the show and brushed and combed before going in the ring. We do not have facilities to bath at the show and if they get muddy you have to get them clean as best you can. Most handlers would wear casual trousers and a jacket and some may wear a trouser suit depending on the weather. Annef


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I am just not the suit type at all. It completely goes against my style and personality. I have no clue how to even apply make up, and I own none. I don't do my hair, and I'm allergic to hair spray and so forth. I'm just not cut out to dress up, period. It's the part about dog shows that I hate the most, and probably the main reason I don't enjoy showing my own dogs. Of course, it's not just dog shows I don't like dressing up for. I avoid any fancy gathering!


----------



## annef

The coats are presently as naturally as possible so bathing is done the day before the show. Many of the show dogs have quite wavy coats and they can be a nightmare to keep flat especially if it is damp. Blasters are used but the idea is to keep the coat flat and close to the body so that the shape can be seen. This all sounds very different to the presentation in the US rings and I would love to attend a show one day see the presentation of the dogs in the US Annef


----------



## Jo Ellen

annef said:


> We don't trim whiskers because it is not considered the done thing to do in our breed The dog is presented naturally with some trimming to the neck and shoulders (to show off the length of neck), feet, tail, rear pasterns and excess hair taken off the ears. The dogs are usually bathed the day before the show and brushed and combed before going in the ring. We do not have facilities to bath at the show and if they get muddy you have to get them clean as best you can. Most handlers would wear casual trousers and a jacket and some may wear a trouser suit depending on the weather. Annef


Sounds like a more dog-friendly environment to me, less emphasis on pomp and more focus on the dog


----------



## Pointgold

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I am just not the suit type at all. It completely goes against my style and personality. I have no clue how to even apply make up, and I own none. I don't do my hair, and I'm allergic to hair spray and so forth. I'm just not cut out to dress up, period. It's the part about dog shows that I hate the most, and probably the main reason I don't enjoy showing my own dogs. Of course, it's not just dog shows I don't like dressing up for. I avoid any fancy gathering!


 

I heard a judge once say "The dog is the picture, and you are the frame." If I have a beautiful picture I sure don't want to put it in an unflattering frame.
There are plenty of clothing style options that are comfortable and professional looking. It's not about "fancy", unless we are talking about the Garden, a Top 20 type event, or a National Specialty.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I definitely need fashion help. But I am so uncomfortable in that type of clothing, I'd so much rather have someone else show the dog. I love watching my dogs, too.


----------



## DNL2448

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I am just not the suit type at all. It completely goes against my style and personality. I have no clue how to even apply make up, and I own none. I don't do my hair, and I'm allergic to hair spray and so forth. I'm just not cut out to dress up, period. It's the part about dog shows that I hate the most, and probably the main reason I don't enjoy showing my own dogs. Of course, it's not just dog shows I don't like dressing up for. I avoid any fancy gathering!


Ditto! I can't remember the last time I wore a dress :yuck:.


----------



## Ljilly28

Pointgold said:


> And frankly, I have seen absolutely NO difference in their capacity to manuever their environment with or without them.


That's the thing. I have outdoorbound adventure dogs, and I see zero difference when whiskers are trimmed for the show ring the weekend before than when they have full faces of long whiskers. At no time are they distressed. It bothers them more having their nails trimmed. I'd rather not trim whiskers, but the reality is, like times when men need coat and tie, that it is a proper way to present a golden to the judge. I wish judges didnt care, but they like a nice clean muzzle. They grow back really fast.


----------



## Ljilly28

Radarsdad said:


> Uhhh you do make money off of them right????


I am being so serious when I say that I don't understand this. Showing is scary expensive. Money runs out in a one way stream unless you win a little sweepstakes class which might pay for breakfast but not dinner or dog food. Unless you are a pro handler, how do you make money from a dog show???? I wish I could.


----------



## Megora

Ljilly28 said:


> I am being so serious when I say that I don't understand this. Showing is scary expensive. Money runs out in a one way stream unless you win a little sweepstakes class which might pay for breakfast but not dinner or dog food. Unless you are a pro handler, how do you make money from a dog show???? I wish I could.


^ When I paid $80 for three obedience (show) classes, knowing I will be spending that much every month until December if things go well. I was just thinking -

1. Provided we've trained and prepared enough, I have full control over how successful the boy and I are when we go into the ring. You have a qualifying or even winning score when you enter the ring. 

2. I do not have to pay grooming or handling fees. 

3. I don't have to worry dressing up (I wore capri shorts, a polo, and sandals to the last trial) + pay $$ for a nice enough outfit. :

4. I forgot this one, but I don't have to fuss about which trials to enter to gain points other than making sure that I'm not showing under the same judge three times or showing under my instructor.

^^^ I know people who seem to be entered in trials every weekend in both obedience and conformation. And I'm scared to think about how much they are spending. And it makes me feel better about my $80 a month budget.


----------



## Pointgold

Ljilly28 said:


> I am being so serious when I say that I don't understand this. Showing is scary expensive. Money runs out in a one way stream unless you win a little sweepstakes class which might pay for breakfast but not dinner or dog food. Unless you are a pro handler, how do you make money from a dog show???? I wish I could.


Must be that "ignorance is bliss" thing. People who evidently do not like "show people" blissfully contend that we are somehow making boatloads of dough "off of" our ridiculous and incorrect dogs. They look only at the price that we sell a puppy for. Never mind the rest of the accounting. The dog food, the vet bills, the clearances, the cost of showing, the stud fees, etc etc etc. . Nah. That's invisibile to them. And thankfully to the Dogfather.... And we don't build that into the price of our puppies (like some of the "breeders" we've seen come here try to justify) because it is OUR thing. We do it because we love to.
When a person who shows, and breeds (doing it "right") says they are "lucky to break even", it's no joke.


----------



## K9-Design

Pointgold said:


> Must be that "ignorance is bliss" thing. People who evidently do not like "show people" blissfully contend that we are somehow making boatloads of dough "off of" our ridiculous and incorrect dogs. They look only at the price that we sell a puppy for. Never mind the rest of the accounting. The dog food, the vet bills, the clearances, the cost of showing, the stud fees, etc etc etc. . Nah. That's invisibile to them. And thankfully to the Dogfather.... And we don't build that into the price of our puppies (like some of the "breeders" we've seen come here try to justify) because it is OUR thing. We do it because we love to.
> When a person who shows, and breeds (doing it "right") says they are "lucky to break even", it's no joke.


For one weekend of a breed show you will easily spend $300-$500 in expenses, between gas, hotel, food, entry fees, clothes. 
When I was showing Fisher for his title I entered an average of two weekends a month for eighteen months straight. Someone once said figure $1000 per point for a golden....that's pretty accurate. 
When he was finished I downloaded his event history from the AKC website. There were shows on there where he had won third or fourth place in open that I honestly did not remember even being at the show. Those were the shows we WON something at, much less the ones we didn't win squat! 
Showing is very expensive. You have to have a big reputation of winning and/or handling to make money at breeding or stud fees. I can probably count ten people in goldens who would qualify for this, and I'm meaning the Tonya Strubles and Connie Millers of the world, who have been extraordinarily successful for a long time. They might be making money from their show dogs but sure as anything, the rest of us (the 99% of us) are not!!!


----------



## AmbikaGR

Radarsdad said:


> No we don't want to get into a debate. I have had to put two Goldens down because of show breeding practices. That debate and the way field is being bred out of Goldens *will* get my ire going.



What were the "show breeding practices" that caused two dogs to be put down? I can think of no "show breeding practice" that would cause a dog to be put down. I can see an irresponsible breeder having a practice that might lead to this but unfortunately those irresponsible breeders exit in all venues whether it be show, field, obedience, agility or the proverbial "just" pets.


----------



## Radarsdad

Ljilly28 said:


> I am being so serious when I say that I don't understand this. Showing is scary expensive. Money runs out in a one way stream unless you win a little sweepstakes class which might pay for breakfast but not dinner or dog food. Unless you are a pro handler, how do you make money from a dog show???? I wish I could.


Whether it be money from breedings,litters, giving lessons etc. You do expect some gain either in titles,ribbons, or monetary. I am guilty of the same in field competition. The dog doesn't care. He would be happy just to go train everyday as long as he's getting birds or bumpers and a swim he's a happy puppy.
So why do we invest so much time and money into these venues and for who's benefit?
All I am saying certain things we do are for our vanity,status,personal accomplishment, or enjoyment and in some cases greed. 
Personally I do it because I love to send him off and watching him fly off through a field or go flying into water loving what he is doing. Also prefer my dogs company hunting. They never complain, and they will give you everything they've got and then some.


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> For one weekend of a breed show you will easily spend $300-$500 in expenses, between gas, hotel, food, entry fees, clothes.
> When I was showing Fisher for his title I entered an average of two weekends a month for eighteen months straight. Someone once said figure $1000 per point for a golden....that's pretty accurate.
> When he was finished I downloaded his event history from the AKC website. There were shows on there where he had won third or fourth place in open that I honestly did not remember even being at the show. Those were the shows we WON something at, much less the ones we didn't win squat!
> Showing is very expensive. You have to have a big reputation of winning and/or handling to make money at breeding or stud fees. I can probably count ten people in goldens who would qualify for this, and I'm meaning the Tonya Strubles and Connie Millers of the world, who have been extraordinarily successful for a long time. They might be making money from their show dogs but sure as anything, the rest of us (the 99% of us) are not!!!


I think that they are more likely breaking even, frankly, or, if they are making a profit it is "pin money" and not their sole source of income.


----------



## K9-Design

Pointgold said:


> I think that they are more likely breaking even, frankly, or, if they are making a profit it is "pin money" and not their sole source of income.


True, a lot of folks like this operate a boarding kennel or similar service that dovetails with their dog activities nicely but is the true source of income.


----------



## Radarsdad

AmbikaGR said:


> What were the "show breeding practices" that caused two dogs to be put down? I can think of no "show breeding practice" that would cause a dog to be put down. I can see an irresponsible breeder having a practice that might lead to this but unfortunately those irresponsible breeders exit in all venues whether it be show, field, obedience, agility or the proverbial "just" pets.


Better check your breeding histories it's there and not a secret. I am not going to debate it because it angers me to no end when I think about those dogs and what they went through. Because of irresponsible breeders after titles.

I can assure I am much more careful about where I get my pups.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Radarsdad said:


> Better check your breeding histories it's there and not a secret. I am not going to debate it because it angers me to no end when I think about those dogs and what they went through. Because of irresponsible breeders after titles.
> 
> I can assure I am much more careful about where I get my pups.


 I think you missed this part of his post: irresponsible breeders exist in all venues whether it be show, field, obedience, agility or the proverbial "just" pets.

And just as a general matter, it's not really fair to paint all conformation people with one brush, don't you think? Sure there are "bad apples" but those people exist everywhere, and are certainly not just limited to dogs.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> Better check your breeding histories it's there and not a secret. I am not going to debate it because it angers me to no end when I think about those dogs and what they went through. Because of irresponsible breeders after titles.
> 
> I can assure I am much more careful about where I get my pups.


 
A "show breeding practice" that "caused dogs to be put down" would suggest that it is something done regularly, considered to be accepted, and with knowledge that it is potentially harmful. Honestly, your cryptic answer doesn't lend credibility to this statement, and is grossly unfair to those who breed dogs and show them who ABSOLUTELY do NOT utilize any such "breeding practice".


----------



## CarolinaCasey

Ljilly28 said:


> I am being so serious when I say that I don't understand this. Showing is scary expensive. Money runs out in a one way stream unless you win a little sweepstakes class which might pay for breakfast but not dinner or dog food. Unless you are a pro handler, how do you make money from a dog show???? I wish I could.


So... I have a little notebook where I've been keeping a running tab of show expenses. I am wishing that I hadn't just gone and added everything up. :curtain:

I don't have a professional handler, I do it myself because I think it's fun and it is a hobby. This saves me a lot of money now that I look at what I've spent! I don't breed and have no intentions to do so. 

For FIVE weekends of showing, 12 shows total including a sweeps, I have spent $820. This only includes entry fees, parking fees, hotel (only 1 night), and estimating gasoline costs. I am fearful of what I have spent total to have all of the supplies that I need to get him ready for a show. Perhaps I better not think about it! 

I think a lot more goes out the door than comes in. Especially for people like us that aren't breeders (um, I don't have any puppies to sell so there is no argument for greed!) but are out enjoying our dogs and like-minded people.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Mary Wild comes to mind. Have to be very careful who you lend your dog out to for show handling. Mary was quite well reputed before that unfortunate nightmare, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

CarolinaCasey said:


> So... I have a little notebook where I've been keeping a running tab of show expenses.


I have intentionally not done this...LOL But since I was curious I just added it up and we're averaging about $600/point right now.... with no majors. :doh:


----------



## CarolinaCasey

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I have intentionally not done this...LOL But since I was curious I added it up and we're averaging about $600/point right now.... with no majors. :doh:


Well, we have no points-- so it looks like you're doing better than we are! Though we do have some nice ribbons. LOL.:bowl:

I think that there is a lot more going on here than "whiskers." I think several undertones about what people really think about conformation, breeders, and breed-enthusiasts are coming to light. Before I really got started researching and finding a breeder, I had a different point of view. I thought that breeders were in it for money-why else would they have puppies and sell them for a lot of money? I didn't realize how hard _the good ones_ work to do things the right way-right by the dog, the breed, and the people. If someone reading this feels that way, take the time to meet an honest, reputable breeder. Educating myself and meeting the good people in the breed has given me such a different outlook. I couldn't agree more that you can't paint us all with the same, broad brush.


----------



## K9-Design

Jo Ellen said:


> Mary Wild comes to mind. Have to be very careful who you lend your dog out to for show handling. Mary was quite well reputed before that unfortunate nightmare, if I'm not mistaken.



?????? What has this got to do with whiskers. Mary was a handler and not a breeder, anyhow.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Wow... I've been busy at work all day(that's a good thing) so haven't kept up, but this subject has diverged... However, while we are on the topic of dog showing, I keep on reminding myself how rich I have gotten sending my 3 girls out with a handler in the US and Canada... And how wealthy I have gotten breeding less than one litter a year while selling my pups for far less than anyone else in the area sells theirs for. Yeah, I am just rolling in the dough... from dog breeding and showing, etc. The only other money sink I can compare it to is the horse I owned for 26 years. Good thing I have a day job that pays the bills.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Radarsdad said:


> Better check your breeding histories it's there and not a secret. I am not going to debate it because it angers me to no end when I think about those dogs and what they went through. Because of irresponsible breeders after titles.



I am callous for first not expressing my sympathies on the loss of these two dogs please forgive me that.
But I am sorry I will not accept that "show breeding practices" are at fault. I can think of no "show breeding practice" that would lead to this. Not sure what "breeding histories" I need to check. It angers me when knowledgeable people insist on talking in absolute generalities.


----------



## GoldenSail

Interesting thread....

I do not like removing whiskers, but I understand why it is done and have done it, and will do it if needed. Really, no harm to the dog at all. Just like trimming stray hairs.


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> ?????? What has this got to do with whiskers. Mary was a handler and not a breeder, anyhow.


 
Not to mention we are not "lending" dogs out for handling, we are PAYING for it!


----------



## Jo Ellen

K9-Design said:


> ?????? What has this got to do with whiskers. Mary was a handler and not a breeder, anyhow.


I know what Mary was. Breeding, showing, show handling, professional handling ... it's all intertwined. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to connect breeding practices with professional show handlers.


----------



## Sally's Mom

The previous post makes no sense to me...


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Jo Ellen said:


> I know what Mary was. Breeding, showing, show handling, professional handling ... it's all intertwined. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to connect breeding practices with professional show handlers.


I don't really feel like makes much sense to use Mary Wild as an example for anything other than a person who made a series of really bad decisions which cost dogs their lives. And perhaps as a caution as to why you need to know someone before trusting them with your dog's well being. That extends far past conformation showing into any and all circumstances where you are entrusting someone with the care of your dog. I'm just not understanding the connection to breeding practices...

I'm also not really sure why the subject of whisker removal turned into an attack on conformation breeders/exhibitors.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I shudder to think what I've spent going to the amateur (FUN, no gambling, just fun and friends and points and titles) racing with my sighthounds. I purely do it because a) I love it and b) the dogs love it and c) it's outstanding exercise for the dogs. We've had lunatics pull into the field where the practice track we use is and accuse us all of animal abuse and greed. Psychos! We all drive for hours, some of us for days, pay for motels, or camp outside in the cold, pay entries, pay for muzzles and racing blankets, and carefully condition and train our dogs, just so they can have some fun. Some people are just clueless.


----------



## Jo Ellen

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't really feel like makes much sense to use Mary Wild as an example for anything other than a person who made a series of really bad decisions which cost dogs their lives. And perhaps as a caution as to why you need to know someone before trusting them with your dog's well being. That extends far past conformation showing into any and all circumstances where you are entrusting someone with the care of your dog. I'm just not understanding the connection to breeding practices...


It was more in response to Radarsdad's post about something that happened to his dogs. I have no idea what that was, I was just thinking about what kind of breeding practices could be harmful to dogs to an extreme ... and then I posted "Mary Wild comes to mind." Those dogs lost their lives due to someone's gross negligence (primarily), but it's also true they lost their lives in pursuit of soneone's quest for titles. 

Nothing directly related to whiskers  but as CarolinaCasey pointed out, this discussion is evolving into something much more than just whiskers.


----------



## Pointgold

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't really feel like makes much sense to use Mary Wild as an example for anything other than a person who made a series of really bad decisions which cost dogs their lives. And perhaps as a caution as to why you need to know someone before trusting them with your dog's well being. That extends far past conformation showing into any and all circumstances where you are entrusting someone with the care of your dog. I'm just not understanding the connection to breeding practices...
> 
> I'm also not really sure why the subject of whisker removal turned into an attack on conformation breeders/exhibitors.


 
It is a BIG stretch to connect breeding practices with "professional show handlers", and it's also completely ignoring the fact that there are "bad" people in EVERY profession, but it doesn't mean that the entire profession is bad. That is just ridiculous.


----------



## Judi

kfayard said:


> People that are saying it is VAIN and GREEDY!!! That is pretty judgemental, if you ask me!


I didn't say that.


----------



## K9-Design

Judi said:


> I didn't say that.


No it was JoEllen who said it:

"Not a showdog person, can't speak for that practice except I think it's stupid. Dogs have whiskers, they have a purpose, even in the field ... to remove them is more human vanity and greed than anything to do with the beauty or showability of a dog."


----------



## golden_eclipse

well, this thread got huge, I haven't had the opportunity to read all of the thread, but "making the face look cleaner" is more of an answer I was looking for. The reason I asked because I was turned off of the idea: by the standard from the AKC which specifically denounces the practice (at least how I read it) "Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred" I took this as, if you remove them there better be a darn good reason, because its not preferred. And I thought my boy looked wonderful with his whiskers so I kept them. How do others interpret this part of the standard. I saw some wrote that it is optional, but that is only how it is written in the CKC standard not the AKC standard....slight difference I know , but it seemed important to me for some reason.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> It is a BIG stretch to connect breeding practices with "professional show handlers", and it's also completely ignoring the fact that there are "bad" people in EVERY profession, but it doesn't mean that the entire profession is bad. That is just ridiculous.


Wait a miniute, seriously. Did I say, anywhere in any fashion, that all professional dog handling is bad? NO. I didn't. I just said that sometimes things can go very wrong. And sometimes thery do. 

But I'm sincerely interested in why it would be a BIG stretch to connect breeding practices with professional show handlers. I've always read here on this forum that reputable breeders will be involved in showing, that lineage should have titles, that this helps to ensure the integrity of the breed. So breeding and showing are definitely connected. How is it that bringing professional show handlers into the mix becomes such a big stretch? It's all part of the champion genre. 

And yes, K-9 Design, I did use those words. That's my opinion about the practice of removing whiskers to win in the show circuit. I don't think I'm too far out there, didn't I read here that the GRCA doesn't prefer it? Why is that? The GRCA doesn't prefer it but people do? What's that about?

I do prefer the UK approach to showing. That's my perogative. And no, I don't shave my legs either so I'm not that much of a hypocrite. I would fit in very well in the UK 

Honestly, there's nothing wrong about a pet person having an opinion about the show dog circuit. I'm not into showing and I really do question many of the practices that go into it. SO WHAT. That's just me, I'm not going to stop any of you from doing what you do and it's not that big of a deal. Mary Wild is a big deal, clipping whiskers is not -- but really I think both are unfortunate, though certainly not on the same level.

I feel a bit of bullying going on here. Not by all, but certainly by some. It completely reinforces my distrust of the show dog circuit, just doesn't feel like a very friendly place to me.


----------



## Pointgold

kdowningxc said:


> well, this thread got huge, I haven't had the opportunity to read all of the thread, but "making the face look cleaner" is more of an answer I was looking for. The reason I asked because I was turned off of the idea: by the standard from the AKC which specifically denounces the practice (at least how I read it) "Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred" I took this as, if you remove them there better be a darn good reason, because its not preferred. And I thought my boy looked wonderful with his whiskers so I kept them. How do others interpret this part of the standard. I saw some wrote that it is optional, but that is only how it is written in the CKC standard not the AKC standard....slight difference I know , but it seemed important to me for some reason.


I completely understand your question, based on a literal interpretation of the standard. Truth is, though, that it IS "preferred". There are those who would like to see removal prohibited, but I don't see that ever happening. I think if any change were made it should be that "Removal of whiskersis permitted and is strictly a matter of preference."


----------



## lgnutah

Mirinde said:


> I kind of boggled at this thread just because I've honestly really never noticed my dogs whiskers. Or the whiskers of any dog I know. I should definitely never show dogs, haha!


This really made me laugh because I had the same thought (I need to go look at Brooks and see what his whiskers look like!)


----------



## fostermom

I don't agree with shaving the whiskers on a dog any more than removing the dewclaws. I don't like altering the natural appearance of a dog just to win a show. That's just me, but I just don't like it, personally. Of course, I don't show, so my opinion doesn't mean a whole lot, I know.


----------



## Pointgold

Jo Ellen said:


> Wait a miniute, seriously. Did I say, anywhere in any fashion, that all professional dog handling is bad? NO. I didn't. I just said that sometimes things can go very wrong. And sometimes thery do.
> 
> But I'm sincerely interested in why it would be a BIG stretch to connect breeding practices with professional show handlers. I've always read here on this forum that reputable breeders will be involved in showing, that lineage should have titles, that this helps to ensure the integrity of the breed. So breeding and showing are definitely connected. How is it that bringing professional show handlers into the mix becomes such a big stretch? It's all part of the champion genre.
> 
> And yes, K-9 Design, I did use those words. That's my opinion about the practice of removing whiskers to win in the show circuit. I don't think I'm too far out there, didn't I read here that the GRCA doesn't prefer it? Why is that? The GRCA doesn't prefer it but people do? What's that about?
> 
> I do prefer the UK approach to showing. That's my perogative. And no, I don't shave my legs either so I'm not that much of a hypocrite. I would fit in very well in the UK
> 
> Honestly, there's nothing wrong about a pet person having an opinion about the show dog circuit. I'm not into showing and I really do question many of the practices that go into it. SO WHAT. That's just me, I'm not going to stop any of you from doing what you do and it's not that big of a deal. Mary Wild is a big deal, clipping whiskers is not -- but really I think both are unfortunate, though certainly not on the same level.
> 
> I feel a bit of bullying going on here. Not by all, but certainly by some. It completely reinforces my distrust of the show dog circuit, just doesn't feel like a very friendly place to me.


 
Bullying. Really. I'd say that calling people "vain" and "greedy" is bullying. 
Trying to clarify what we do, and having to defend it (it's a sport) is bizarre when there are so many misperceptions made by people "not into showing". I know people who would think that your allowing your dog to catch and eat fish is awful. (Seriously. There is a group of AR whackjobs up here called For Animals who dressed up in fish costumes and carried signs "Fish Have Feelings, too!" and "Fish Feel Pain!")
As for breeding practices connecting to professional handlers, there is none. Professional handlers will take on a client's dog and know absolutely NOTHING about the breeding practices that produced it. In fact, many of their clients didn't even breed the dog, but purchased it. They don't care. They are paid to care for and present the dog in the ring to the very best of their ability. Period. If they are handling a dog that is also being used at stud while in their care, that is something worked out between the handler and the owners. And they are paid to handle the matings. They don't have a say in which bitches he breeds, or health clearances, or anything else. They simply assure that the mating occurs. It's business to them. 

Having an opinion is one thing, but making assumptions and judgements without facts or knowledge (and when provided information deem it "stupid") to back them up is quite another.


----------



## Jo Ellen

I stand by my opinion, it is what it is, just my opinion. We all have them. And I'm well aware that fish have feelings


----------



## AmbikaGR

Jo Ellen said:


> Wait a miniute, seriously. Did I say, anywhere in any fashion, that all professional dog handling is bad? NO. I didn't. I just said that sometimes things can go very wrong. And sometimes thery do.
> 
> But I'm sincerely interested in why it would be a BIG stretch to connect breeding practices with professional show handlers. I've always read here on this forum that reputable breeders will be involved in showing, that lineage should have titles, that this helps to ensure the integrity of the breed. So breeding and showing are definitely connected. How is it that bringing professional show handlers into the mix becomes such a big stretch? It's all part of the champion genre.
> 
> And yes, K-9 Design, I did use those words. That's my opinion about the practice of removing whiskers to win in the show circuit. I don't think I'm too far out there, didn't I read here that the GRCA doesn't prefer it? Why is that? The GRCA doesn't prefer it but people do? What's that about?
> 
> I do prefer the UK approach to showing. That's my perogative. And no, I don't shave my legs either so I'm not that much of a hypocrite. I would fit in very well in the UK
> 
> Honestly, there's nothing wrong about a pet person having an opinion about the show dog circuit. I'm not into showing and I really do question many of the practices that go into it. SO WHAT. That's just me, I'm not going to stop any of you from doing what you do and it's not that big of a deal. Mary Wild is a big deal, clipping whiskers is not -- but really I think both are unfortunate, though certainly not on the same level.
> 
> I feel a bit of bullying going on here. Not by all, but certainly by some. It completely reinforces my distrust of the show dog circuit, just doesn't feel like a very friendly place to me.




It is a stretch in my opinion because your relating this to a post by a poster who stated two of her dogs died because of "show breeding practices" not because of irresponsible breeding practices. And just so you are these are equally sad and disturbing stories out there of professional dog trainers and dogs losing their lives do the trainers negligence. 
As has been pointed put their are bad people in ALL walks of life and not just the dog world.

You are entitled to your opinion as a person. But if you make a statement of it here and folks who are much more experienced and versed in the intricacies of what you state don't be shocked or feel bullied because they explain and analyze them. 
I have not seen it stated here so far and if it has I apologize for repeating it. But trimming a dog's nails is MUCH more discomforting for a dog than having the whiskers cut.


----------



## Kmullen

Judi said:


> I didn't say that.


 
Seriously?? Every post, I have seen from you is like 4 words recently. I was not even talking about you! You asked about who was being judgemental...I stated (in general) people that have said show people are "vain" and "greedy". Your posts (plural) just make no sense.


----------



## K9-Design

Jo Ellen said:


> And yes, K-9 Design, I did use those words. That's my opinion about the practice of removing whiskers to win in the show circuit. I don't think I'm too far out there, didn't I read here that the GRCA doesn't prefer it? Why is that? The GRCA doesn't prefer it but people do? What's that about?


No dog has ever won or lost at a show based on whether or not it's whiskers were trimmed. It's part of a whole package of grooming, and dogs DO win or lose based on how well they are groomed. As I said before -- it is a dog SHOW, *the point is to look good*. A poorly groomed dog probably doesn't stand a good chance of winning. That's the game. 



> I do prefer the UK approach to showing. That's my perogative.


Yeah but how much do you really know about showing in the UK vs. US. You by your own admission are not a show person, so beyond a few posts on GRF, how do you know the difference? I don't know if I prefer the UK shows vs. the US shows because I've never shown in the UK.

I definitely appreciate AnneF's posts about showing in the UK, but find her description of the minimal grooming to "neaten up" the dog's neck to be rather misleading. If we here in the US trimmed that much off the neck and hock, we'd be laughed out of the ring. It is extreme. They probably think all the blow drying and hair straightening we do is extreme. But it's what we are used to so it's normal to us, and vice versa. I don't think either is better, and NEITHER are harmful to the dog (or greedy, or vain).



> Honestly, there's nothing wrong about a pet person having an opinion about the show dog circuit. * I'm not into showing and I really do question many of the practices that go into it. * SO WHAT. That's just me, I'm not going to stop any of you from doing what you do and it's not that big of a deal. Mary Wild is a big deal, clipping whiskers is not -- but really I think both are unfortunate, though certainly not on the same level.
> 
> I feel a bit of bullying going on here. Not by all, but certainly by some. * It completely reinforces my distrust of the show dog circuit, just doesn't feel like a very friendly place to me.*


You're forming your opinions based on what you've heard and read. That, in essence, is hearsay. If you had these opinions having actually been involved with the dog show scene I would put a lot more credence to it. It is frustrating to have to defend my actions against someone who has no first hand knowledge of the topic.


----------



## Kmullen

I think it is completely fine to have an opinion! If you are not into shaving whiskers that is fine! Just say you do not like it, do not come on here and say that show people are "vain" and "greedy" when you know nothing about the people that do. You make it sound like most of the conformation people, only do dog shows. When I know many members here do a number of thing (hunt, obedience, agility, tracking, and show). There is a difference between an opinion and RUDE! No one was bullying anyone, until name calling came into play. You do not have to voice your opinion for everything. If you do and you want to, be prepared for an opposite side. This is just ridiculous to me!


----------



## Sally's Mom

True, i started in obedience and with all the goldens I have owned I have gotten(myself) 14 obedience and rally titles... plus 5 CGC's. However, trying to do that multipurpose thing, I show some of my dogs in conformation. I also dabble in tracking and would love to do field work, but never got past my frozen duck in the freezer....


----------



## Sally's Mom

And if you look at photos of UK conformation dogs, they all are trimmed to the max OR they just can't grow coat(my opinion).


----------



## Jo Ellen

Not entirely following you, Hank, about the show breeding practices vs breeding practices. I can make the connection in my own mind ... breeders show, showers must have some connection to the breeder (I would hope!), it's all part of the circle. I'm not really clear on what Radarsdad was saying, so maybe that's why I'm not clear on what you're 
saying either? Anyway, it's a small point, not even related to whiskers 

But I do understand and agree with you about the nail clipping! My only issue with that is that nail clipping is for the health of the dog, I don't think whisker trimming has anything to do with health.

And to K-9, it is hearsay, yes, that whiskers are commonly trimmed. I've never stepped foot in a show ring, watched them on TV though, a bit. I've never been involved with dogs who have their ears cropped or those that have tails docked either -- but I have an opinion about that also. It is my opinion that when we change the natural state of something to suit our own purposes, that is vain and greedy. I don't support beauty pageants for children, for example. It's one of my world views that in some ways extends to the dog show circuit in some instances ... clipping whiskers. Sometimes the consequences are benign (whiskers pershaps), sometimes the consequences are more severe. I don't need to know all ther ins and outs of something to know whether or not I like it. It's okay you don't agree with that. I don't quite understand your need to continue to defend yourself to me, I'm no threat to you. I know there are a lot of people in this world like myself, a lot of people not like myself, a lot of poeple like yourself ... and the world goes round  If you're comfortable doing what you do, don't be so affected by the opinions of others.

To Kfayard - your post makes no sense to me  (the one where you asked Judi how old she is). THAT was rude.


----------



## Radarsdad

That statement right there shows how much you *don't* know!!
It also reflects the value of your opinion.
I traced the lineages back and found the breeding where the owner of a well known CH knowingly bred with full knowledge the offspring would get cancer and he wasn't the only one that knew about and continued to breed anyway knowing the pups would get cancer, but if it got CH's it continued.
I found a lot more skeletons in breeding practices the farther I dug into it.

I know why I had to have my dogs killed and I know where it came from!!

I invited you to research it. Evidently you might find some facts that get in the way of your opinion so you chose not to.

By the way, I'm a he last time I checked.




AmbikaGR said:


> It is a stretch in my opinion because your *relating this to a post by a poster who stated two of her dogs died because of "show breeding practices" not because of irresponsible breeding practices.* And just so you are these are equally sad and disturbing stories out there of professional dog trainers and dogs losing their lives do the trainers negligence.
> As has been pointed put their are bad people in ALL walks of life and not just the dog world.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion as a person. But if you make a statement of it here and folks who are much more experienced and versed in the intricacies of what you state don't be shocked or feel bullied because they explain and analyze them.
> I have not seen it stated here so far and if it has I apologize for repeating it. But trimming a dog's nails is MUCH more discomforting for a dog than having the whiskers cut.


----------



## Kmullen

Sally's Mom; I also dabble in tracking and would love to do field work said:


> Too funny :


----------



## DNL2448

Judi said:


> I didn't say that.


Nobody said you did.


----------



## Radarsdad

> Having an opinion is one thing, but making assumptions and judgements without facts or knowledge (and when provided information deem it "stupid") to back them up is quite another.


And some people need to follow their own advice.


----------



## tippykayak

I just read everything since my last post, and I did want to say that while I agree that dogs don't _suffer_ from the removal of their whiskers, they do use them when they have them, or evolution would not have kept them on dogs and other mammals. A dog with trimmed whiskers is hardly handicapped, but trimming the whiskers does remove a little piece of sensory data that the dog can use. From an evolutionary/survival perspective, that sensory data's probably most useful in the dark and in capturing small prey, hence the fact that a domestic dog isn't really handicapped by their removal. 

But, like I said earlier, a dog does use them, so I'd only remove them for a good reason. When my dog Gus went blind before he died, his whiskers were probably quite helpful in giving him some sensory data to get up stairs, eat, etc.

Here's a neat little article on how seals use their whiskers to sense prey.

If you're interested in more scientific info on whiskers, use the search term "vibrissae," which is the scientific name for 'em. It'll help you weed out the silly stuff.


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> And if you look at photos of UK conformation dogs, they all are trimmed to the max OR they just can't grow coat(my opinion).


I appreciate a well groomed UK Golden. Sure, it's done differently than we do it, but I think the differences are interesting. I actually like to see the neck. And trust me, having had an English import, growing coat is _not _a problem! I think it is what they do with their coats that is different. We bathe and condition more frequently, and blow them out, straighten them, etc.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> And some people need to follow their own advice.


You are very obviously directing this to me. Care to elaborate where I have posted anything in this thread without facts and knowlege?


----------



## tippykayak

Jo Ellen said:


> I don't support beauty pageants for children, for example.


I don't agree with everything you've said on the subject of whiskers, and I don't think a dog show is much like those crazy kid pageants, but it's a funny comparison, and I do agree that it's possible to have an informed opinion on something without having years of experience participating in it yourself.

I think those "toddlers in tiaras" shows would elicit strong, informed opinions from most of us, though none of us have set foot in the "ring."


----------



## Judi

DNL2448 said:


> Nobody said you did.


I am concerned about the well being of the dogs.
I know that if a cat loses his or her whiskers, it affects balance.
Is it the same for dogs?


----------



## Sally's Mom

I just don't get how anyone can say that they know of dogs who people bred knowing the offspring will get cancer(radarsdad). My dad is a world known cancer researcher. At 86 years of age, I don't think he can predict who will get or who has cancer. Were it that simple, perhaps my mom wouldn't have died of cancer last year? Seriously, you can predict cancer?? So put your energy where your mouth is and contact the Modiano or Breen labs who at the very least will appreciate your clairvoyance.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> That statement right there shows how much you *don't* know!!
> It also reflects the value of your opinion.
> I traced the lineages back and found the breeding where the owner of a well known CH knowingly bred with full knowledge the offspring would get cancer and he wasn't the only one that knew about and continued to breed anyway knowing the pups would get cancer, but if it got CH's it continued.
> I found a lot more skeletons in breeding practices the farther I dug into it.
> 
> I know why I had to have my dogs killed and I know where it came from!!
> 
> I invited you to research it. Evidently you might find some facts that get in the way of your opinion so you chose not to.
> 
> By the way, I'm a he last time I checked.


 
While I myself try to avoid lines that I _think _have higher incidences of cancer, there is NO WAY that ANYone knows that a dog will or will not get it.


----------



## Sally's Mom

My goldens can still find their food bowls sans whiskers. Isn't that what it is all about?


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> I don't agree with everything you've said on the subject of whiskers, and I don't think a dog show is much like those crazy kid pageants, but it's a funny comparison, and I do agree that it's possible to have an informed opinion on something without having years of experience participating in it yourself.
> 
> I think those "toddlers in tiaras" shows would elicit strong, informed opinions from most of us, though none of us have set foot in the "ring."


You know I did think about that show when reading this thread! 
Now let's face it the whole slant of the show is to make it ridiculous and irresistible to watch. And some parts of the whole thing are very silly (i.e. 5 year olds with fake eyelashes). But I'm not going to judge and cast my opinions on the parents, the children or the people in the pageant culture based on that show alone. And I don't need to be engulfed in the pageant scene to realize that despite all the silly stuff that I on the outside don't get at all, there are a lot of parents who really love their kids doing this, and the parents and children get to spend a lot of time together working on something as a team. And not every child and parent has that. So much like dog shows, you can try to find the bad in it, and form your opinions on what you don't like, or you can see the good in it, and appreciate it for what it is.


----------



## tippykayak

Sally's Mom said:


> My goldens can still find their food bowls sans whiskers. Isn't that what it is all about?


LOL, as long as you're not relying on your Goldens catching rats at night as a main source of sustenance, I think they'll be OK without 'em.


----------



## K9-Design

Sally's Mom said:


> I just don't get how anyone can say that they know of dogs who people bred knowing the offspring will get cancer(radarsdad). My dad is a world known cancer researcher. At 86 years of age, I don't think he can predict who will get or who has cancer. Were it that simple, perhaps my mom wouldn't have died of cancer last year? Seriously, you can predict cancer?? So put your energy where your mouth is and contact the Modiano or Breen labs who at the very least will appreciate your clairvoyance.



Ugg, - thank you! Seriously


----------



## Judi

Sally's Mom said:


> I just don't get how anyone can say that they know of dogs who people bred knowing the offspring will get cancer(radarsdad). My dad is a world known cancer researcher. At 86 years of age, I don't think he can predict who will get or who has cancer. Were it that simple, perhaps my mom wouldn't have died of cancer last year? Seriously, you can predict cancer?? So put your energy where your mouth is and contact the Modiano or Breen labs who at the very least will appreciate your clairvoyance.


How did Cancer come up?


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> My goldens can still find their food bowls sans whiskers. Isn't that what it is all about?


My Drummer was totally blind for nearly a year before he died. He had all his whiskers. He bumped into doors and walls. His saving grace came from Michael and Lyric, who both became "seeing eye dogs" for him, one or the other, or both, would walk next to him, snugged right up against him, and helped to steer him away from things, or into doors, etc. His whiskers didn't help him a bit.


----------



## Kmullen

Judi said:


> How did Cancer come up?


Have you read this thread?? Have you read the past pages?


----------



## Judi

Sally's Mom said:


> My goldens can still find their food bowls sans whiskers. Isn't that what it is all about?


More complicated than that!


----------



## Pointgold

Judi said:


> How did Cancer come up?


Like Prego, it's in here...


----------



## Judi

kfayard said:


> Have you read this thread?? Have you read the past pages?


Not all of it. Lack of time.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Radarsdad brought up cancer...


----------



## Kmullen

Radarsdad said:


> That statement right there shows how much you *don't* know!!
> It also reflects the value of your opinion.
> I traced the lineages back and found the breeding where the owner of a well known CH knowingly bred with full knowledge the offspring would get cancer and he wasn't the only one that knew about and continued to breed anyway knowing the pups would get cancer, but if it got CH's it continued.
> I found a lot more skeletons in breeding practices the farther I dug into it.
> 
> I know why I had to have my dogs killed and I know where it came from!!
> 
> I invited you to research it. Evidently you might find some facts that get in the way of your opinion so you chose not to.
> 
> By the way, I'm a he last time I checked.


Am I the only one confused on what I am supposed to be researching?? There are a lot of well known CH bred dogs and goldens in general with cancer?? I would check it out, if I knew what I was looking for??


----------



## Judi

I didn't see that but I lost a Golden to Cancer 2 weeks before his 5th birthday.


----------



## Jo Ellen

That whiskers article made me wonder if Daisy uses her whiskers to catch fish. Some of her whiskers are in the water when she's fishing but I wonder if the whiskers that are out of the water are sensitive enough to also be useful.

Very interesting.


----------



## Sally's Mom

And more off topic... Toddlers and Tiaras fascinates me on many levels. Just ask my family... it disgusts them.


----------



## Judi

That's interesting.


----------



## Pointgold

kfayard said:


> Am I the only one confused on what I am supposed to be researching?? There are a lot of well known CH bred dogs and goldens with cancer?? I would check it out, if I knew what I am looking for here??


No. We are apparently just supposed to KNOW who he is referring to, or, are simply too stupid not to. 

I am calling Kreskin. He'll help me out.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Well.. currently my crystal ball isn't working...


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> Well.. currently my crystal ball isn't working...


 
Here. Use mine.


----------



## Judi

Did it ever?


----------



## Sally's Mom

Thanks, i'll pass that on to my clients!!!(specifially thanks PG).


----------



## Judi

Who are your clients?


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> Thanks, i'll pass that on to my clients!!!(specifially thanks PG).


You're welcome.


----------



## Kmullen

Judi said:


> Who are your clients?


Owners of dogs and cats...and whatever else she sees!! :


----------



## K9-Design

I feel like this thread has dissolved into some sort of cryptic language that I'm not privy to.


----------



## K9-Design

BTW Kelly your "thanks" in post # 169 I'm nominating for best thanks click evar! LOL


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> I feel like this thread has dissolved into some sort of cryptic language that I'm not privy to.


 
Here, Use my translator.


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> BTW Kelly your "thanks" in post # 169 I'm nominating for best thanks click evar! LOL


 
HAHAHA! Ditto that. It has my vote, too...


----------



## Jo Ellen

I feel like we're degrading one another now.


----------



## Kmullen

K9-Design said:


> BTW Kelly your "thanks" in post # 169 I'm nominating for best thanks click evar! LOL


haha!! I meant to thank PG...haha!! Too funny!


----------



## K9-Design

Pointgold said:


> Here, Use my translator.


Did you just call me a llama?


----------



## Loisiana

I'll admit it, I am very vain about my dogs. I dont show in conformation, and I dont remove whiskers because I never really notice them. But you know the hair that grows off the toes and if allowed to continue growing will curl up like little elf shoes? Yeah that has to go. My dogs are not allowed to go out in public in their slippers.


----------



## DNL2448

*Loisiana: My dogs are not allowed to go out in public in their slippers.*

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, the Queen of Funny has just written the best post of the night IMHO! Way to go Jodie!!!


----------



## Jo Ellen

I remove those too


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> Did you just call me a llama?


 
Geeze, I dunno - I don't read cryptic. Maybe... Sorry!


----------



## K9-Design

Trimming footie hairs. What has this world come to.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> I just read everything since my last post, and I did want to say that while I agree that dogs don't _suffer_ from the removal of their whiskers, they do use them when they have them, or evolution would not have kept them on dogs and other mammals.


Ok, not that I don't think dogs use their whiskers, but this reasoning is wrong. Do you know what a vestigial structure is? Why do whales have hip bones? Evolution is hardly perfect and you should not assume that just because something is there, it is meant to be, IMO.

I will have to do a search on the term though and see what I find!


----------



## sophiesadiehannah's mom

oh my goodness, is it the weather? whiskers 19 pages, going to be a record. i have my three girls, they are pets, they have their nails trimmed, feet trimmed and have their fur shaped twice a year or they get scruffy. i never really noticed whiskers, however they can grow some wicked eye whiskers and i trim them. if a show dog owner wants to remove whiskers for a cleaner, neater look, then why not? the dogs are in a beauty pagent so to say and need to look their best. why would anyone want to condemn them.they love their dogs just as much as pet owners do.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Reading up on vibrissae (thank you Tippy). Did you know that vibrissae are served by a nerve that is larger even than the optic, auditory and olfactory nerves? There is evidence that vibrissae are very sensitive to wind -- it would seem to me that this could be important for a dog doing scent work. There is actually much evidence out there that shows dogs do use their vibrissae in important ways and that they may be adversely effected when they are removed. 

I'm going to stay with my original opinion that dog 'whiskers" are important sensory organs and that removing them for showing is human vanity. And I have a feeling the GRCA agress with this, otherwise they would not state that while it is acceptable, it is *not preferred*.


----------



## annef

Thought I would put a couple of pictures of examples of UK dogs at shows. They do look different to the ones I see in pictures of show dogs in the US and to us that trimming is not extreme but I can see that it may appear that way if you are not used to seeing the dogs trimmed in front. Annef


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> Trimming footie hairs. What has this world come to.


 
HA! The mystery is finally solved! THAT'S who Carly Simon was singing about! Not Warren Beatty, but vain Golden Retriever exhibitors!!


----------



## Tanyac

annef said:


> Thought I would put a couple of pictures of examples of UK dogs at shows. They do look different to the ones I see in pictures of show dogs in the US and to us that trimming is not extreme but I can see that it may appear that way if you are not used to seeing the dogs trimmed in front. Annef


Thank you for your input into this thread Anne, as a beginner to showing, it's good to hear from a more experienced perspective!!

Re whisker trimming, Anne is correct in that we don't trim them here, and personally, I don't mind the whiskers being there. A beautiful head is still beautiful whether the whiskers are there or not...!

As for handling in the UK, I guess in some ways it would be easier to have professional handlers as it can be quite intimidating in a large show to be in the ring with so many well known and longstanding breeder/exhibitors. The judges generally know everyone too, so unless they are totally fair (perfect world obviously) then a good dog is judged on it's merit and not who is on the end of the lead. It must be incredibly difficult to be totally unbiased!! Even with a handler, a judge will still have a preference and will be able to recognise certain "lines" and characteristics.

My husband knows someone who will be judging another breed at Crufts next year and wouldn't you know it, he's been getting loads of top prizes lately. I am showing my dogs because I thoroughly enjoy it, and am learning a lot along the way.

We thin the hair out on the neck, but are not encouraged to have a "setter" appearance, I think on the Continent (Europe) this seems to be creeping in. The US show dogs have incredible manes, I've never seen a GR in the UK with hair of this length so am wondering if this could be selective breeding also (for coat length)? Or is there something you can do to make the coat grow longer??

Can I ask also, why the hair is long on the hock? We trim the hock here in the UK. 

One thing I am wondering is, when the trimmed whiskers grow back, are they more coarse? Just thinking about shaving legs etc, stubble is always tougher. I can hardly tell my dogs' whiskers are there (obviously they are, but they don't feel coarse to touch). I would imagine if I cut them off and let them re-grow they would feel coarser.

Sorry if my post seems a bit rambling, but after sitting and reading the whole lot, there are quite a few different areas to address :uhoh:.

PS: Is that you in the picture Anne?? :


----------



## Pointgold

Me beng a fairly regular mutilator of my dogs, amputating vibrissae, it doesn't bother them one bit when I do. They do not cry. They do not pull away. They don't even blink. (Trimming nails, as Hank said, illicits more response.) 
They don't bump into things. They find prey just fine (anyone who has watched Zoom nail field mice and shrews will agree). They haven't injured their eyes in the field.

I've read ALL the arguments against amputating vibrissae. Not phased by them, because in 30 some years of showing dogs, I've never, ever seen doing so have ANY negative effect on them. I've never, ever seen doing so have any effect at all. I like the way it looks. As for the GRCA? Ask the board members who show their dogs without whiskers about permitted/preferred. The choice is overwhelmingly on the side of doing it. 

Now, piercing the ears of ears of infants. There's a cause for ya...


----------



## Megora

> Can I ask also, why the hair is long on the hock? We trim the hock here in the UK.


I always thought they trim hocks here as well? Or is it a closer cut? <- I think they (us groomers) thin the fur so it's a natural fluffy look vs longish dirt-gathering shag on the hock?


----------



## Pointgold

Megora said:


> I always thought they trim hocks here as well? Or is it a closer cut? <- I think they (us groomers) thin the fur so it's a natural fluffy look vs longish dirt-gathering shag on the hock?


 
We do trim it - shaping it up, but it is longer than it the UK. In the UK they take it down close.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> Ok, not that I don't think dogs use their whiskers, but this reasoning is wrong. Do you know what a vestigial structure is? Why do whales have hip bones? Evolution is hardly perfect and you should not assume that just because something is there, it is meant to be, IMO.
> 
> I will have to do a search on the term though and see what I find!


Yes, I know what vestigial structures are, and vibrissae do not fit that definition, not by a long shot. Go back and read my post more carefully. I didn't say that just because something is there that it is "meant to be." I pointed out that whiskers remained on many, many mammal species, including aquatic mammals, because they were useful.

Your analogy is false. Vestigial structures in whales are known to be vestigial precisely because they no longer have all the aspects of a functioning limb or bone. Because whiskers in dogs share similar anatomical features with non-vestigial whiskers in other species (i.e., they have been "fully funded" by the body and are still fully developed organs), that comparison helps illustrates how they do play a role in a dog's senses.

I agree that my post should have been clearer that I wasn't establishing a rule that a shared structure means a useful structure. I should have more clearly articulated that a shared, _fully developed_ structure means a useful structure.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Radarsdad said:


> That statement right there shows how much you *don't* know!!
> It also reflects the value of your opinion.
> I traced the lineages back and found the breeding where the owner of a well known CH knowingly bred with full knowledge the offspring would get cancer and he wasn't the only one that knew about and continued to breed anyway knowing the pups would get cancer, but if it got CH's it continued.
> I found a lot more skeletons in breeding practices the farther I dug into it.
> 
> I know why I had to have my dogs killed and I know where it came from!!
> 
> I invited you to research it. Evidently you might find some facts that get in the way of your opinion so you chose not to.
> 
> By the way, I'm a he last time I checked.




WOW!!!!
Well you surely now have me under control and humbled. :doh:

Sorry,. I normally try to avoid male/female references unless I know but obviously I must have slipped up here along the way. My apologies.
And **** you are right I did not know about the "show breeding practices" of a show breeder breeding CH dogs even after knowing that it would undoubtedly produce cancer in the offspring. Thank you for the enlightening information. But the fact you insist on keeping all this known information to yourself and not sharing with the rest of the dog world is extremely SELFISH. You HAVE the answers and are not sharing??? SHAME on YOU sir!!! There are folks posting here EVERYDAY about losing there beloved Golden to cancer and you refuse to share your knowledge to save future owners this pain simply because we are not smart enough to do the research you have done to uncover these answers. Really BOGGLES my simple mind. 
Now to look for those "facts that get in the way of your opinion so you chose not to." so I to can have the answers and then obviously have the same opinion as you. :wavey:


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> My Drummer was totally blind for nearly a year before he died. He had all his whiskers. He bumped into doors and walls. His saving grace came from Michael and Lyric, who both became "seeing eye dogs" for him, one or the other, or both, would walk next to him, snugged right up against him, and helped to steer him away from things, or into doors, etc. His whiskers didn't help him a bit.


So you think whiskers are totally vestigial in dogs? Or you just wanted to contradict my post where I said that I thought they helped my blind dog?


----------



## tippykayak

Jo Ellen said:


> Reading up on vibrissae (thank you Tippy). Did you know that vibrissae are served by a nerve that is larger even than the optic, auditory and olfactory nerves? There is evidence that vibrissae are very sensitive to wind -- it would seem to me that this could be important for a dog doing scent work. There is actually much evidence out there that shows dogs do use their vibrissae in important ways and that they may be adversely effected when they are removed.
> 
> I'm going to stay with my original opinion that dog 'whiskers" are important sensory organs and that removing them for showing is human vanity. And I have a feeling the GRCA agress with this, otherwise they would not state that while it is acceptable, it is *not preferred*.


But Jo, science doesn't count. The only thing that matters is personal anecdotal experience. Sorry!

(again, I don't agree with the "vanity" part of your comment, but I do agree with the pretty established fact that whiskers are sensory organs in dogs and many other animals)


----------



## annef

Yes it is me handling 'Freddie' at Coventry open show in May. Interesting discussion about the way the dogs are presented as ours look so different to the US ones.Annef


----------



## AmbikaGR

tippykayak said:


> So you think whiskers are totally vestigial in dogs? Or you just wanted to contradict my post where I said that I thought they helped my blind dog?


From where I am sitting I do not read that at all in the post you quoted. Sounds like anecdotal evidence much like yours was. :no:
Or do you have the cryptic translator? If so would you mind sharing it with the rest of us so we can figure out what all the discussions are about?


----------



## Pointgold

Can I get a prize? I said "Vibrissae" first...

I wrote about my Drummer's experience. It is what it is (or, it was what it was.)


----------



## Pointgold

annef said:


> Yes it is me handling 'Freddie' at Coventry open show in May. Interesting discussion about the way the dogs are presented as ours look so different to the US ones.Annef


 
I like the necks trimmed, maybe not quite as much as you do in the UK. Tanyac asked about the "manes' here growing so big. If left untrimmed, wouldn't yours?


----------



## AmbikaGR

Jo Ellen said:


> Not entirely following you, Hank, about the show breeding practices vs breeding practices. I can make the connection in my own mind ... breeders show, showers must have some connection to the breeder (I would hope!), it's all part of the circle. I'm not really clear on what Radarsdad was saying, so maybe that's why I'm not clear on what you're
> saying either? Anyway, it's a small point, not even related to whiskers



You are correct about it having nothing to do with whiskers. But Radarsdad made the statement that he put down two dogs due to "show breeding practices" which implies that there are practices used by show breeders that knowingly cause issues that cause dogs to be put down and yet still continue to do so. Lumping all show breeders together. NOT a small point at all in my opinion.


----------



## tippykayak

AmbikaGR said:


> From where I am sitting I do not read that at all in the post you quoted. Sounds like anecdotal evidence much like yours was. :no:
> Or do you have the cryptic translator? If so would you mind sharing it with the rest of us so we can figure out what all the discussions are about?


My anecdotal evidence was presented as anecdote, along with a comment about structures common across mammals and a neat little article on a science paper. I also included the term "probably" in my interpretation of how my dog used his whiskers, since I know better than to say that I fully understand an individual dog's sense of his world.

I asked two questions about her post's purpose; if neither fits, she's welcome to respond with its actual purpose or to not respond at all. It felt a little like I said "oh, I think my blind dog might have used his," and she wrote "my blind dog definitely didn't," so I was wondering what the point was except to contradict me, and I genuinely wanted to know if she believed whiskers were vestigial in dogs (and I still do!).

Whiskers are definitively _not_ vestigial in dogs. They are fully developed sensory organs, as anybody who googles the anatomy of a whisker will see in about two seconds.

Trim 'em if you want. I don't think it's vain or cruel, nor would I call it amputation, since it's not a limb, and since the part you're cutting doesn't have nerves in it (the nerves are at the base, so as long as you're not plucking, the dog won't feel pain).

But don't tell me that a dog doesn't use them at all, because they are complex, nerve-rich structures. Their removal clearly isn't crippling, but you are absolutely taking a way a piece of his sense data. You can't really get into a dog's head to be sure how important that sense is, but you can get into his anatomy to see how richly sensitive they are.

The issue isn't black and white. It isn't true that whisker removal is evil, vain, stupid, etc. But it also isn't true that they're useless, ornamental, or vestigial. If you want to trim them, you obviously believe that the advantage it gives in the ring outweighs the usefulness. And since your dog doesn't catch his own food and a hunt test is as much about obedience as it is about using the senses, the dog probably isn't going to be significantly impacted.

Still, I like the standard the way it is, even if people choose to ignore it (or are forced to by convention). I think we should prefer a working dog in a condition that gives him even the tiniest advantage as a working dog. That means trimming muppet feet, neatening stray hairs, and (to me) leaving whiskers on. I'm talking in a perfect world where judges really rewarded what's in the standard, and I think the GR standard is a **** good one as it is.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> Here. Use mine.


As long as we're figuring out the cryptic, can you explain to us why you have a countdown of Obama's term running in the top of each of your posts?


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> As long as we're figuring out the cryptic, can you explain to us why you have a countdown of Obama's term running in the top of each of your posts?


 
Yes, I could. I'd ask why a ticker (which so many GRF members have) that has been on my page for literally years, is now a concern for you, particularly when there is no text or anything else identifying it that could be construed as something that shouldn't be there?


----------



## Jo Ellen

The biggest surprise to me in this whole discussion is that popular practice is at odds with the GRCA's code of ethics on this issue.

Has the GRCA responded to this in writing anywhere? Would love to read that if it's out there anywhere.


----------



## golden_eclipse

I would like to clarify, that by starting this thread, I did not imply that I thought removing the whiskers was unethical. I just was curious why so many did it, when the standard from my interpretation denounced it. The reason I assume it said removing the whiskers was not preferred, because whiskers somehow played a role in the dogs abilities in the field. Now that fact seems to be controversial and something that would be difficult to prove or disprove scientifically. But for now, I'm working on hunt tests with my male and won't be back to conformation till next summer, when we hit the AKC circuit. So I have some time to research and see what I think. I can see how removing the whiskers creates a cleaner look and might experiment at some point, but I'm not about to jump on the band wagon as I still remain loyal to the standard and the way its written (regardless of show practices) removing the whiskers is not fitting with our breed. I'm also surprised at how many people are willing to just go with what is done in the ring, regardless of the standard, it makes me feel like this could be a slippery slope to other trends in the ring, that actually don't fit with the standard, for example to dogs "dripping" in coat. Or dogs with hard, sculpted faces. I personally never trim that hair around the top of the ear closer to the eye, where I see a lot of show dogs, completely trimmed down. I think this bit of "furnishing" helps with the softness of the face, which to me is a very important part of a golden retriever. I'm quite pleased personally with the softness I achieve with my male, as almost everyone who meets him, comments he is so "soft" and friendly, not that his fur is soft, but that his face as this "softness" and friendliness that is lost in a sculpted face.


----------



## Pointgold

Jo Ellen said:


> The biggest surprise to me in this whole discussion is that popular practice is at odds with the GRCA's code of ethics on this issue.
> 
> Has the GRCA responded to this in writing anywhere? Would love to read that if it's out there anywhere.


 
How is it at odds with the COE? The standard states removal is permitted, but not preferred. If it were to state NOT PERMITTED, it wouln't be done, and as it stands, Board Members who exhibit do remove them for the ring. 

Perhaps you should join the GRCA.

*RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOG OWNER:* 
Members must ensure that their dogs are kept safe and under control at all times. Members should properly train their dogs so that they are an asset to their community and not a nuisance. Dogs must be maintained with their safety and good health in mind at all times, including adequate and appropriate attention and socialization, grooming, feeding, veterinary attention, housing, routine care, exercise and training.
*RESPONSIBILITIES AS A MEMBER OF GRCA:* 
Members’ responsibilities include educating the public about the breed, keeping in mind that they and their dogs represent the breed, the GRCA and the sport of purebred dogs in general. Members are urged to accept the written breed standard as approved by the American Kennel Club (or the other applicable governing body of the country in which they reside or exhibit) as the standard description of physical and temperamental qualities by which the Golden Retriever is to be judged.
Members are required to maintain good sportsmanship at all events and competitions, abiding by the applicable rules and regulations set forth by the governing bodies for such events and competitions. Members’ conduct should always be in accord with the purposes and intent of the GRCA Constitution and By-Laws. 
*RESPONSIBILITIES AS A BREEDER:* 
GRCA members who breed Golden Retrievers are encouraged to maintain the purpose of the breed and are expected to demonstrate honesty and fairness in dealing with other owners and breeders, purchasers of dogs and the general public. 
Owners of breeding animals shall provide appropriate documentation to all concerned regarding the health of dogs involved in a breeding or sale, including reports of examinations such as those applying to hips and eyes. If any such examinations have not been performed on a dog, this should be stated.
Breeders should understand and acknowledge that they may need to take back, or assist in finding a new home for, any dog they produce at any time in its life, if requested to do so. Members who breed should sell puppies, permit stud service, and/or lease any stud dogs or brood bitches only to individuals who give satisfactory evidence that they will give proper care and attention to the animals concerned, and who may be expected generally to act within the intent of the statements of this Code of Ethics. Members are encouraged to use clear, concise written contracts to document the sale of animals, use of stud dogs, and lease arrangements, including the use, when appropriate, of non-breeding agreements and/or Limited Registration. Members should not sell dogs at auction, or to brokers or commercial dealers. 
*ADVISORY GUIDELINES: *
Breeding stock should be selected with the objectives of GRCA in mind; that is:​Recognizing that the Golden Retriever breed was developed as a useful gun dog, to encourage the perfection by careful and selective breeding of Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance, structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability and personality that are characterized in the standard of the breed, and to do all possible to advance and promote the perfection of these qualities. (Paraphrased from Article I, Section 2, of the GRCA By-Laws, as amended in 1995.)​GRCA members are expected to follow AKC requirements for record keeping, identification of animals, and registration procedures. Animals selected for breeding should: 

(i) be of temperament typical of the Golden Retriever breed; stable, friendly, trainable, and willing to work. Temperament is of utmost importance to the breed and must never be neglected; 
(ii) be in good health, including freedom from communicable disease; 
(iii) possess the following examination reports in order to verify status concerning possible hip dysplasia, hereditary eye or cardiovascular disease, and elbow dysplasia: ​a. Hips – for U.S. dogs, a report from Orthopedic Foundation for Animals; or PennHIP at 24 months of age or older. For dogs outside the U.S., report from a health registry approved by the Golden Retriever club of that country (e.g. Canada - Ontario Veterinary College; Great Britain - BVA/KC Hip Score) A report from the accepted health registry of another country may be used for U.S. dogs that are 24 months of age or older when x-rayed.
b. Eyes – appropriate report from a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmology (ACVO) or from a BVA/KC approved ophthalmologist (Great Britain), or a report from the Canine Eye Registry Foundation. For dogs outside the U.S., a report from an ophthalmologist as recommended by the Golden Retriever club of that country after 1 year of age. Examinations must be done within 12 months of a breeding.
c. Hearts – appropriate report from a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Medicine, Cardiology Specialty or a certification by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals by a cardiologist (the number will be followed by a C) at 12 months of age or older.
d. Elbows – for U.S. dogs, a report from Orthopedic Foundation for Animals at 24 months of age or older. For dogs outside the U.S., report from a health registry approved by the Golden Retriever club of that country at 24 months of age or older. A report from the accepted health registry of another country may be used for U.S. dogs that are 24 months of age or older when x-rayed.​Breeders of Goldens in the U.S. who use health registries from other countries should fully reveal their reasons for doing so. Consideration should be given also to other disorders that may have a genetic component, including, but not limited to, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, skin disorders (allergies), and orthopedic disorders such as osteochondritis.
(iv) Assuming all health and examination reports are favorable, the age of the breeding pair also is of consideration. Generally, a Golden Retriever is not physically and mentally mature until the age of 2 years; an individual dog’s suitability as a breeding animal is difficult to assess until that time. 
*Adopted: April 20, 1997, by GRCA Board of Directors.(Rev. 5-01, 2-08)*​


----------



## Mssjnnfer

Wow... the second half of this thread is a fine example of why I don't like coming here as much anymore. Why has it not been closed? It is way past its purpose. 

:no:


----------



## Sally's Mom

I have to say that some of this makes me really laugh out loud. Something about the pot calling the kettle black... if the most unethical thing I do is trim my dogs' whiskers, I own it. And before EVERYONE gets all high and mighty about whether or not to trim whiskers.. I want anyone who has bred a litter to re examine their earlier breeding practices and honestly say that from the moment they bred puppies, all parents had all 4 clearances and the parents had titles. I know I can say that and many who have responded can also, but can everyone???


----------



## Pointgold

Mssjnnfer said:


> Wow... the second half of this thread is a fine example of why I don't like coming here as much anymore. Why has it not been closed? It is way past its purpose.
> 
> :no:



Well, I've enjoyed discussing the topic of leaving on or taking off (or both, as I do) whiskers...


----------



## Mssjnnfer

Pointgold said:


> Well, I've enjoyed discussing the topic of leaving on or taking off (or both, as I do) whiskers...


I had nothing wrong with that discussion, which was like the first 10 pages... but now it's just getting... mean. :uhoh:


----------



## Tanyac

Pointgold said:


> I like the necks trimmed, maybe not quite as much as you do in the UK. Tanyac asked about the "manes' here growing so big. If left untrimmed, wouldn't yours?


Laura, here is my boy Obi, untrimmed & never shown! I think you must agree the "mane" is nothing like those I've seen in the US. He is only around 18months in the first pic, and now at 5 1/2 in the second.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Mssjnnfer said:


> I had nothing wrong with that discussion, which was like the first 10 pages... but now it's just getting... mean. :uhoh:


I agree with you on that, I'm hoping we're circling back around to the topic now.


----------



## Pointgold

Sally's Mom said:


> I have to say that some of this makes me really laugh out loud. Something about the pot calling the kettle black... if the most unethical thing I do is trim my dogs' whiskers, I own it. And before EVERYONE gets all high and mighty about whether or not to trim whiskers.. I want anyone who has bred a litter to re examine their earlier breeding practices and honestly say that from the moment they bred puppies, all parents had all 4 clearances and the parents had titles. I know I can say that and many who have responded can also, but can everyone???


No, because elbows weren't being done yet. And I've already been crucified for having allowed a breeder in Canada to breed her CH (with all clearances, and her last litter) to one of my stud dogs on prelims.


----------



## Pointgold

Tanyac said:


> Laura, here is my boy Obi, untrimmed & never shown! I think you must agree the "mane" is nothing like those I've seen in the US. He is only around 18months in the first pic, and now at 5 1/2 in the second.


 
Thanks! Very pretty!

Here, some dogs don't develop that length until well after the age of two. Crew sure didn't, it seemed to come after he'd been bred the first time, also.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Actually, PG, you are right. I forgot that the first CH male I bred to didn't have elbows done as they weren't routinely doing them. But I have routinely done elbows since 1997 on my girls. And, in fact, I never bred my first girl who had all 4 clearances and a thyroid clearance....


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> How is it at odds with the COE? The standard states removal is permitted, but not preferred. If it were to state NOT PERMITTED, it wouln't be done, and as it stands, Board Members who exhibit do remove them for the ring.


 
Why doesn't the GRCA code of ethics state "not permitted?" If it's such an overwhelmingly common practice to remove vibrissae even among board members, why hasn't the language been changed?

And I'd be interested to know if any of the show people here are okay with plucking out the vibrissae as opposed to simply clipping them? Is plucking a common practice at all? I will be appalled to learn this is the case, I'm hoping not.


----------



## Radarsdad

AmbikaGR said:


> WOW!!!!
> Well you surely now have me under control and humbled. :doh:
> 
> Sorry,. I normally try to avoid male/female references unless I know but obviously I must have slipped up here along the way. My apologies.
> And **** you are right I did not know about the "show breeding practices" of a show breeder breeding CH dogs even after knowing that it would undoubtedly produce cancer in the offspring. Thank you for the enlightening information. But the fact you insist on keeping all this known information to yourself and not sharing with the rest of the dog world is extremely SELFISH. You HAVE the answers and are not sharing??? SHAME on YOU sir!!! There are folks posting here EVERYDAY about losing there beloved Golden to cancer and you refuse to share your knowledge to save future owners this pain simply because we are not smart enough to do the research you have done to uncover these answers. Really BOGGLES my simple mind.
> Now to look for those "facts that get in the way of your opinion so you chose not to." so I to can have the answers and then obviously have the same opinion as you. :wavey:


I think it's best you find out for yourself. That way you might believe it. Could possibly make a more knowledgeable and enlightened about previous breeding practices.

By the way the first stone cast on breeding issues were brought up here:

*Pointgold*



> breeding undersized Goldens for speed in the field and the like...


Probably wrong, but I am pretty sure they were bred to be a field and hunting dog.

Evidently I've got this all wrong and they were really bred for the show ring and get whatever equipment they were born with cut off or removed to win a ribbon.


----------



## Pointgold

Jo Ellen said:


> Why doesn't the GRCA code of ethics state "not permitted?" If it's such an overwhelmingly common practice to remove vibrissae even among board members, why hasn't the language been changed?
> 
> And I'd be interested to know if any of the show people here are okay with plucking out the vibrissae as opposed to simply clipping them? Is plucking a common practice at all? I will be appalled to learn this is the case, I'm hoping not.


 
The COE doesn't even _mention _whiskers/vibrissae. 

And you won't have the opportunity to be appalled by yet another horrific show/breeder practice, as whiskers are not plucked. This was already answered when you asked it earlier.


----------



## golden_eclipse

I'm not sure why people keep mentioning the GRCA... they have nothing to do with this. To me it is about the interpretation of the standard sent out by the AKC/CKC. And again, to people saying it is unethical are just plain uninformed. Its not. They are whiskers, its not like removing the dogs ears or breeding a dog with hip dysplasia. Its whiskers. This thread was not meant as a battle against show breeders, it was meant as a preference questions and an interpretation of the standard. I personally think golden retriever show dogs are one of the most genuine dogs out in the ring (thus why we have trouble competing with the ultra altered breeds and toy breeds, when we get to the BIS ring) but we don't care, golden retrievers are doing pretty well as far as I can see at remaining a hunting dog. I would like to raise the issue of GSD, I mean if you think Golden retriever breeders of show dogs are unethical at removing whiskers, have you seen a show GSD? They have the most unsound rear end I have ever seen. I know little of the issue, but to me, breeding an unsound dog purely for appearance is unethical, not trimming whiskers that may or may not be useful in the field.


----------



## Pointgold

www.grca.org

Includes information on joining, for those interested in the breed, health, training, exhibiting, breeding and everything the parent club has to say about it.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Jo Ellen said:


> Why doesn't the GRCA code of ethics state "not permitted?" If it's such an overwhelmingly common practice to remove vibrissae even among board members, why hasn't the language been changed?
> 
> And I'd be interested to know if any of the show people here are okay with plucking out the vibrissae as opposed to simply clipping them? Is plucking a common practice at all? I will be appalled to learn this is the case, I'm hoping not.


Because one practice is not preferred over the other. 
As stated a while ago whiskers are not plucked, they are not hairs.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Okay, I'm mixing up my terminology -- easy to do not being a show person.

So it's the Golden Retriever Breed Standard that issues the statement that removing the vibrissae is permitted but not preferred.

Does the GRCA endorse the Golden Retriever Breed Standard? From the GRCA website... 



> Members are urged to accept the written breed standard as approved by the American Kennel Club (or the other applicable governing body of the country in which they reside or exhibit) as the standard description of physical and temperamental qualities by which the Golden Retriever is to be judged.


I understand that clipping the vibrissae is not the worst violation of breed standard. They do grow back -- though I do have questions how they do grow back and if their essential structure might somehow be changed through repeated removal. 

My point in all this is that there is room for people like myself who don't approve of the practice. I'm certainly not alone. 

When was the golden retriever breed standard written, lastest update 1981? Is it antiquated? Does it need to be updated? Is there anything in the works along this line?


----------



## LibertyME

I suspect the language has not been changed because there is no evidence that the dogs are suffering from having their whiskers clipped. 

Speaking from my own experience with my own dogs - They find food, Eat, Play, Sniff the ground while trotting along, Can dodge a cats paw, Retrieve, Swim, Don't run into objects, ...etc...during the short period of time from being clipped to the time when they have grown back. 

I have hung around with show-people (of several different breeds) for a decade/+ now...Ive never even heard of anyone plucking whiskers. A person might be able to pluck one whisker...but I cant imagine any dog tolerating a second one to be plucked.




Jo Ellen said:


> Why doesn't the GRCA code of ethics state "not permitted?" If it's such an overwhelmingly common practice to remove vibrissae even among board members, why hasn't the language been changed?
> 
> And I'd be interested to know if any of the show people here are okay with plucking out the vibrissae as opposed to simply clipping them? Is plucking a common practice at all? I will be appalled to learn this is the case, I'm hoping not.


----------



## Jo Ellen

kdowningxc said:


> I'm not sure why people keep mentioning the GRCA... they have nothing to do with this.


I'm learning. Give me some credit for taking the time


----------



## AmbikaGR

Radarsdad said:


> Probably wrong, but I am pretty sure they were bred to be a field and hunting dog.
> 
> Evidently I've got this all wrong and they were really bred for the show ring and get whatever equipment they were born with cut off or removed to win a ribbon.



Please don't! :no:


----------



## Jo Ellen

And please forgive me for not remembering everything that has been written in 23 pages. I am over 50 you know 

Glad to know that plucking is not practice.


----------



## Pointgold

I would encourage anyone questioning the GRCA, COE, breed standard, board member's feelings, etc etc, join the club.

If the standard is "antiquated", and were to be changed, I'm guessing that it would simply state "Removal of whiskers is permitted" if mention of it were nto eliminated altogether. 
Changing the wording of a breed standard is a complicated matter.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Jo Ellen said:


> I understand that clipping the vibrissae is not the worst violation of breed standard. They do grow back -- though I do have questions how they do grow back and if their essential structure might somehow be changed through repeated removal.



It is NOT a VIOLATION of the Standard. 
Like a man's beard cutting them can cause appearance to change slightly but not there effectiveness. 




Jo Ellen said:


> My point in all this is that there is room for people like myself who don't approve of the practice. I'm certainly not alone.


I guess there are some and even some who show. As I stated earlier on one dog they were not distracting and thus I did not trim them. 





Jo Ellen said:


> When was the golden retriever breed standard written, lastest update 1981? Is it antiquated? Does it need to be updated? Is there anything in the works along this line?


From the GRCA website

"The Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club has approved the following revised Standard for Golden Retrievers submitted by the Golden Retriever Club of America, Inc., to be effective September 1990:"

To my knowledge there is nothing in the works to change it which in my opinion is a good thing. As things like this usually get changed to adjust to what is popular at the time and not necessarily what is best for the breed.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Is it possible that the ones who pen the breed standard are reluctant to amend that language or remove it altogether because scientifically we really don't understand the full functionality of vibrissae in dogs?


----------



## LibertyME

If they were plucked...I could see overtime, how the hair structure/follicle would change... Ive plucked my eyebrows for 25+ years...and it is easier to and less painful to pluck now then it was when I was younger..

However clipping a whisker is more akin to getting your hair cut....
The whisker is cut below the furline, but not so close to the skin that the follicle itself is touched in any way. 
It doesn't hurt ...grows back fast...and doesn't change the structure of the hair (other then blunting the tip) or the follicle...
The softer whiskers on Tracers muzzle come back just as soft...the more hard/dense whiskers comeback just the same.





Jo Ellen said:


> Okay, I'm mixing up my terminology -- easy to do not being a show person.
> 
> So it's the Golden Retriever Breed Standard that issues the statement that removing the vibrissae is permitted but not preferred.
> 
> Does the GRCA endorse the Golden Retriever Breed Standard? From the GRCA website...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that clipping the vibrissae is not the worst violation of breed standard. They do grow back -- though I do have questions how they do grow back and if their essential structure might somehow be changed through repeated removal.
> 
> My point in all this is that there is room for people like myself who don't approve of the practice. I'm certainly not alone.
> 
> When was the golden retriever breed standard written, lastest update 1981? Is it antiquated? Does it need to be updated? Is there anything in the works along this line?


----------



## Jo Ellen

Thanks for your answers, Hank. And thank you for being kind, it's a jungle out here


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Radarsdad said:


> Evidently I've got this all wrong and they were really bred for the show ring and get whatever equipment they were born with cut off or removed to win a ribbon.


Wow. Really? Well....I guess we know what you think about conformation.


----------



## Ljilly28

Copley loves to be groomed, and hops up onto the big grooming table the instant he can. He wags and loves being fluffed and "boootified". The attention? He adores it. He has never reacted at all to having his whiskers clipped. It is fun to get dressed up. . .


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> I think it's best you find out for yourself. That way you might believe it. Could possibly make a more knowledgeable and enlightened about previous breeding practices.
> 
> By the way the first stone cast on breeding issues were brought up here:
> 
> *Pointgold*
> 
> 
> 
> Probably wrong, but I am pretty sure they were bred to be a field and hunting dog.
> 
> Evidently I've got this all wrong and they were really bred for the show ring and get whatever equipment they were born with cut off or removed to win a ribbon.


 
Yep. Primarily a hunting dog. _Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21 1/2 - 22 1/2 inches. Dogs up to one inch above or below standard size should be proportionately penalized. Deviation in height of more than one inch from the standard shall disqualify. Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65-75 pounds; bitches, 55-65 pounds._

My "casting a stone" on breeding issues was gemaine to the conversation. Breeding undersized dogs so as to be faster in field trials (which are a blast, but do not replicate actual hunting conditions) is IMO a far worse pactice than is (temporary) removal of whiskers. I could say the same thing about purposely breeding undersized dogs so as to not have to jump as high in Agility trials, or oversized dogs because someone thinks they are better/stronger. Whatever. My point is quite clear, as opposed to your comments about "show breeding practices causing dogs to be put down" and expecting people to somehow know what/who you are talking about without clarifying/verifying/qualifying any of it, and declaring very knowlegeable people (including veterinarians) as being "ignorant", and knowing nothing.


----------



## Pointgold

Jo Ellen said:


> Is it possible that the ones who pen the breed standard are reluctant to amend that language or remove it altogether because scientifically we really don't understand the full functionality of vibrissae in dogs?


 
Not likely. It's simply not that complicated. Whiskers on, or whiskers off. PERMITTED either way. Semantics. Whatever. Having done it for generations, people pretty much see that in domesticated dogs it affects them _very _little, if at all. But, that's just anecdotal.


----------



## Pointgold

Ljilly28 said:


> Copley loves to be groomed, and hops up onto the big grooming table the instant he can. He wags and loves being fluffed and "boootified". The attention? He adores it. He has never reacted at all to having his whiskers clipped. It is fun to get dressed up. . .


 
So does Crew. Seriously. He WANTS to get a bath, and LOVES to be on the table, and he pouts if someone else is and he isn't. Daniela gave Jag a bath last wek and Crew was mad...he certainly DOESN'T get that from his mother. Zoom's standard re: grooming is "Permitted but not preferred".


----------



## Jo Ellen

So basically what this whole discussion boils down to is whether or not we believe vibrissae have a useful function for dogs. I think the verdict is out on that, and I do have a feeling that is why the breed standard has not changed it's language regarding this. 

I really do not like it when humans step in to change things because they are not functional to us. That is, in my opinion, the epitomy of human arrogance (or vanity, whichever term, both work). When I originally posted about the vanity, that's what I was referring to -- it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but more to just the general human tendency to change things to fit or suit OUR purposes. Sometimes we've caused great harm. 

I've enjoyed the discussion for the most part, I've learned quite a bit. And I can even spell vibrissae now LOL Thanks to all here who have contributed along the way


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> Not likely. It's simply not that complicated. Whiskers on, or whiskers off. PERMITTED either way.


I don't think it is that simple, otherwise there would not be the added language that it* is not preferred*.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Jo Ellen said:


> So basically what this whole discussion boils down to is whether or not we believe vibrissae have a useful function for dogs. I think the verdict is out on that, and I do have a feeling that is why the breed standard has not changed it's language regarding this.




I do not think anyone here believes whiskers do not perform some function. The thought is that in a domesticated animal the useful function is very low on the chart compared to being in the wild. 



Jo Ellen said:


> I really do not like it when humans step in to change things because they are not functional to us. That is, in my opinion, the epitomy of human arrogance (or vanity, whichever term, both work). When I originally posted about the vanity, that's what I was referring to -- it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but more to just the general human tendency to change things to fit or suit OUR purposes. Sometimes we've caused great harm.


So if a person was to remove a dog's dew claws would you think them vain and/or greedy?


----------



## Pointgold

Whiskers are such an inconsequential part of the standard that no one really cares much, frankly. They are of little import to what makes a Golden Retriever a Golden Retriever (or any other breed, for that matter.) And changing the standard is such a huge undertaking that if it were to be done it certainly wouldn't be because of whiskers.


----------



## Pointgold

AmbikaGR said:


> I do not think anyone here believes whiskers do not perform some function. The thought is that in a domesticated animal the useful function is very low on the chart compared to being in the wild.
> 
> 
> 
> So if a person was to remove a dog's dew claws would you think them vain and/or greedy?


 
Or a uterus or testicles or even hairy feet (those are "natural"...)?


----------



## Debles

LOL! I can't believe trimming whiskers has caused this much discussion!


----------



## Jo Ellen

AmbikaGR said:


> So if a person was to remove a dog's dew claws would you think them vain and/or greedy?


I don't know, I'd have to think about that. What is the functionality of the dew claw? I admit I had a ready made opinion on whiskers before I did any research, I don't seem to have that same position with dew claws. I wonder what that's about  

Why is vibrissae removal okay in some breed standards and not okay in others? Out of 23 breed standards I looked at, very few actually say removal is not permitted. Most are optional, many have the not preferred clause. The standard for the *Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever: Whiskers must be present." * 

Why is the golden retriever standard on vibrissae so different than the duck trolling retriever standard? Aren't they bred to do the same kind of work?


----------



## Radarsdad

You haven't clarified or qualified anything!



> declaring very knowlegeable people (including veterinarians)


Who are they, where are they, you are throwing stones from a very large glass house.

You have yet to show me where a Golden has gotten cancer from cutting their coat.

You've been involved with Goldens for 30 years I am pretty certain you know exactly the breedings I am talking about.



> Breeding undersized dogs so as to be faster in field trials (which are a blast, but do not replicate actual hunting conditions) is IMO a far worse pactice than is (temporary) removal of whiskers.


So you are against breeding healthier dogs with more stamina and speed. But breeding longer coat lengths is OK right?



QUOTE=Pointgold;1489386]Yep. Primarily a hunting dog. _Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21 1/2 - 22 1/2 inches. Dogs up to one inch above or below standard size should be proportionately penalized. Deviation in height of more than one inch from the standard shall disqualify. Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65-75 pounds; bitches, 55-65 pounds._

My "casting a stone" on breeding issues was gemaine to the conversation. Breeding undersized dogs so as to be faster in field trials (which are a blast, but do not replicate actual hunting conditions) is IMO a far worse pactice than is (temporary) removal of whiskers. I could say the same thing about purposely breeding undersized dogs so as to not have to jump as high in Agility trials, or oversized dogs because someone thinks they are better/stronger. Whatever. My point is quite clear, as opposed to your comments about "show breeding practices causing dogs to be put down" and expecting people to somehow know what/who you are talking about without clarifying/verifying/qualifying any of it, and declaring very knowlegeable people (including veterinarians) as being "ignorant", and knowing nothing.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> They are of little import to what makes a Golden Retriever a Golden Retriever (or any other breed, for that matter.)


Apparently this isn't the case for the duck trolling retriever, according to that breed standard.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I would dare say removing healthy body organs via major surgery on a completely healthy dog is considerably more dramatic of a move than cutting off whiskers, but few people object to spay and neuter.


----------



## Megora

Jo Ellen said:


> Why is the golden retriever standard on vibrissae so different than the duck trolling retriever standard? Aren't they bred to do the same kind of work?


This has nothing to do with the whiskers, but I did want to say that they were not bred for the same purpose even if they are both gun dogs and retrievers. I think they were used differently while hunting? They are sent out to splash up the birds? And they are supposed to appear fox like or something. Or I remember reading something to that effect when they were introduced to the AKC.

And of course their appearance is vastly different than the golden retriever....


----------



## Jo Ellen

I definitely see some differences between the appearance of the duck tolling retriever and the golden retriever ... but i'm not sure those differences would account for the different position on the vibrissae in the breed standard.


----------



## John_NY

If whiskers are so unimportant how come they have a university named after them? Answer me that!


----------



## mybuddy

John_NY said:


> If whiskers are so unimportant how come they have a university named after them? Answer me that!


 
I am dying!!!! HAHAHAHAHA....


----------



## Jo Ellen

John_NY said:


> If whiskers are so unimportant how come they have a university named after them? Answer me that!


THANK YOU, for the one greatest laugh of this entire discussion!!!


----------



## Radarsdad

LOL,
That's good!

:--big_grin:


John_NY said:


> If whiskers are so unimportant how come they have a university named after them? Answer me that!


----------



## mybuddy

HAHAHA..I am still laughing!!! OMG, that has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this entire site! hahahaha...oh...needed that just before bed too. Nice!


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> You haven't clarified or qualified anything!
> 
> 
> 
> Who are they, where are they, you are throwing stones from a very large glass house.
> 
> You have yet to show me where a Golden has gotten cancer from cutting their coat.
> 
> You've been involved with Goldens for 30 years I am pretty certain you know exactly the breedings I am talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against breeding healthier dogs with more stamina and speed. But breeding longer coat lengths is OK right?
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE=Pointgold;1489386]Yep. Primarily a hunting dog. _Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21 1/2 - 22 1/2 inches. Dogs up to one inch above or below standard size should be proportionately penalized. Deviation in height of more than one inch from the standard shall disqualify. Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65-75 pounds; bitches, 55-65 pounds._
> 
> My "casting a stone" on breeding issues was gemaine to the conversation. Breeding undersized dogs so as to be faster in field trials (which are a blast, but do not replicate actual hunting conditions) is IMO a far worse pactice than is (temporary) removal of whiskers. I could say the same thing about purposely breeding undersized dogs so as to not have to jump as high in Agility trials, or oversized dogs because someone thinks they are better/stronger. Whatever. My point is quite clear, as opposed to your comments about "show breeding practices causing dogs to be put down" and expecting people to somehow know what/who you are talking about without clarifying/verifying/qualifying any of it, and declaring very knowlegeable people (including veterinarians) as being "ignorant", and knowing nothing.


[/QUOTE]


Seriously, man. What on earth are you talking about????? Who is _who? _Where is _who? WHAT _"big glass house"???

I've didn't say that Goldens "get cancer from cutting their coat". (Although there are recorded cases of some skin cancers being found in dogs who have had coats shaved down, exposing their light colored skin to the sun... "Yes dogs are quite prone to getting skin cancers in fact the skin is the most common site for cancer in dogs. Skin cancer manifests itself in various forms of tumors or pigmentation patches on the skin. Middle aged to older dogs are more vulnerable to skin cancers. While definite causes of skin cancer is yet to be known, over exposure to the sun can increase the chances of certain types of skin cancer in dogs that have a thin coat and are light colored, or when they are just recently shaved down for a summer cut from grooming. Applying sunscreen can help reduce the factor of skin cancer caused by the sun." source Cancer from the Sun Month | Animal Central *there are others...) The coat _is _protective, and insulative. Fact. Dogs do not "sweat" from their skin. Fact.

I'm NOT against "breeding healthier dogs with more stamina and speed" - I have been a vocal advocate of doing health clearances, and have no problem whatsoever with "more stamina & speed" (as my own dogs would prove) but I do NOT condone purposely breeding them undersized to do so. They lose type, for one thing. We are talking about Golden Retrievers, after all. There is a size standard.
As for "breeding longer coat lengths", no. I do not. My dogs do not carry excessive coats. I don't condone breeding for ANY one attribute. It's the whole dog. 

And no, I have NO idea what breedings you refer to. None whatsoever. This is a BIG country, and there are LOTS of breeders. LOTS of them have bred champions. LOTS of them have bred dogs with cancer. LOTS of them haven't.

I honestly do not find your posts to be rational...


----------



## Pointgold

Megora said:


> This has nothing to do with the whiskers, but I did want to say that they were not bred for the same purpose even if they are both gun dogs and retrievers. I think they were used differently while hunting? They are sent out to splash up the birds? And they are supposed to appear fox like or something. Or I remember reading something to that effect when they were introduced to the AKC.
> 
> And of course their appearance is vastly different than the golden retriever....


 
Exactly. They were sent out to "play" with a stick, or ball, and the white markings on their chest supposedly piqued the interest of the ducks, bringing them in closer to the hunters.


----------



## Megora

Jo Ellen said:


> I definitely see some differences between the appearnce of the duck tolling retriever and the golden retriever ... but i'm not sure those differences would account for the different position on the vibrissae in the breed standard.


It could be the breed club decided that it has to be part of their appearance when they set the breed standard. I mean, if they are supposed to appear foxlike while they are dancing around in the water... : 

I don't think it's that important. I've never cut whiskers off my dogs other than clipping eyebrow whiskers shorter if they are curling into the eyes. But our Sammy (for example) would get broken whiskers all the time for various reasons (he bowled rocks with his nose and feet). It did not handicap or hurt him. 

I'm really confused about all of this hype about whiskers serving a major purpose for these dogs. Clipping them off is cosmetic and does no harm to the dogs or change their appearance too much. Arguing about it to this degree of passion seems really strange.


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> Exactly. They were sent out to "play" with a stick, or ball, and the white markings on their chest supposedly piqued the interest of the ducks, bringing them in closer to the hunters.


But what is it about the duck trolling retriever's work that necessitates the vibrissae remain intact and not trimmed? How does the vibrissae serve that breed but not the golden retriever?


----------



## Pointgold

Jo Ellen said:


> But what is it about the duck trolling retriever's work that necessitates the vissibrae remain intact and not trimmed? How does the vissibrae serve that breed but not the golden retriever?


Ask 'em. The standards do not state any reason for it. (The UK standard doesn't mention whiskers. ) You may be reading more into it than is there. It is not expressly listed as a DQ if they aren't...


----------



## goldensrbest

Omg, silly me, i thought the thread on pro plan, would get hot, never thought about cutting whiskers!!!


----------



## Radarsdad

> I honestly do not find your posts to be rational...


I can see why when you give a link to cancer on their LIPS to prove your point. I promise you I won't shave the hair on my dogs lips.

Thank you for posting that. This time you posted something to back your opinion which you have been asking of others. (your glass house)


----------



## Jo Ellen

Pointgold said:


> Ask 'em. The standards do not state any reason for it. (The UK standard doesn't mention whiskers. ) You may be reading more into it than is there. It is not expressly listed as a DQ if they aren't...


With the language as it is, and the inconsistency between breed standards with respect to vibrissae, I see room for both points of view -- vibrissae are valuable and vibrissae are not valuable. I'm of the position that they are valuable so I pick up on the not preferred verbage. Some believe they are not so valuable and pick up instead on the permiitted verbage and the overwhelmingly common practice in the show circuit of removing them.

The debate didn't originate here on GRF with this thread. And I think it's a very interesting debate, obviously a passionate one, but it's been around for awhile.

The difference between the duck trolling retriever standard and the golden retriever standard merely reinforces for me that either we don't fully understand the function or usefulness of the vibrissae or that breed standards are more about what humans want a dog to be than what the dog actually is.

Time to go fishing, have a great day everyone :wave:


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Radarsdad,

I get that you're fired up over this issue, but I'm personally a bit offended by a lot of the statements you've made in this thread about conformation showing and conformation breeders/exhibitors. And I don't breed, so I can understand why the people who do are reacting the way they are. I would never jump into a thread about obedience or agility and make such general and offensive statements about the people who participate in the activity. Conformation people are all apparently breeding dogs (or purchasing dogs that have been bred) intentionally with cancer and excessive coat? Really? Seriously, this is really what you think? There must be a big spot in hell waiting for all us conformation folk. Geez louise. 

The glass house statement (made by AmbikaGR?) is correct, IMO. No sport is without it's issues, INCLUDING field/hunt training. I mean seriously, just the subject of e-collars themselves would be just as polarizing as this whisker issue apparently has become. But to act as though you can lump all conformation (or field, agility, etc) people into one boat is just not correct. There are bad apples in every bunch.

You're cryptically referring to an unknown breeder intentionally breeding sick dogs to win. Without any identification of the breeder or the dogs you're referring to, it just sounds like you're fabricating or exaggerating information for the sake of making your point that conformation people are terrible and just out to win ribbons without any regard to the well being of their dogs.


----------



## DNL2448

So, how 'bout that local sports team???


----------



## John_NY

I shave my cat whiskers.


----------



## John_NY

Ooops, sorry. That should have said, "I shave my cat, Whiskers."


----------



## Bella's Mama

How could I shave these precious whiskers off my baby


----------



## Mirinde

Twenty seven pages, guys? _Twenty seven pages!? _ Can we put this passion to better use in a way that will actually benefit someone? There are plenty of threads on this forum with people reaching out for help and it's the thread about whiskers that hit twenty seven pages, goodness! Haha!


----------



## sophiesadiehannah's mom

went to bed 19 pages, wake up 27 pages. can't we all get along. there has always been such discourse between show people and pet owners. i am just a pet person, however if i was a show person, i would want my dog to be the best looking golden they could be, even if it meant trimming whiskers. the main thing is that all our dogs are loved and well taken care of.


----------



## Radarsdad

I am not fabricating anything. I spent a lot of time and research going back through pedigrees and articles. Since I have moved I cannot find them nor a bunch of training videos among other things. I had no intention of bringing that up until mention was made of breeding practices in field dogs. I believe I stated I did not want to get in a debate about it. As far as jumping in, the simple fact is the descriptions she (OP) used, fit the practice. Your offended by my posts why are you not offended by others at the OP. 
Nowhere in my statements did I say that was taking place now. Although it could be.
There are also some field breedings I don't agree with. 



> But to act as though you can lump all conformation (or field, agility, etc) people into one boat is just not correct. There are bad apples in every bunch.


I didn't do that someone did it for me. Reread *my *posts again.

I had to put down the first Golden I ever owned and a second that were great dogs that I spent lot of time with in the field and at home. I have already stated the reasons why. And you are right I am very angry about it. Hence the statement I do not want to debate. Ambika posts up that I could be making this up and it happens like it's not big deal. Then makes the statement that I accused all show golden breeders I find that very offensive also.


----------



## golden_eclipse

going back to the breed standard, I went to the GRCC's illustrated breed standard, that people on here preach about..... this is what they say, which is quite different from what I see in the show ring... "Whiskers are considered as an important part of the dog’s sensory abilities and on the versatile 
golden retriever they are generally not removed for show purposes.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> I am not fabricating anything. I spent a lot of time and research going back through pedigrees and articles. Since I have moved I cannot find them nor a bunch of training videos among other things. I had no intention of bringing that up until mention was made of breeding practices in field dogs. I believe I stated I did not want to get in a debate about it. As far as jumping in, the simple fact is the descriptions she (OP) used, fit the practice. Your offended by my posts why are you not offended by others at the OP.
> Nowhere in my statements did I say that was taking place now. Although it could be.
> There are also some field breedings I don't agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't do that someone did it for me. Reread *my *posts again.
> 
> I had to put down the first Golden I ever owned and a second that were great dogs that I spent lot of time with in the field and at home. I have already stated the reasons why. And you are right I am very angry about it. Hence the statement I do not want to debate. Ambika posts up that I could be making this up and it happens like it's not big deal. Then makes the statement that I accused all show golden breeders I find that very offensive also.


 
You demand proof from others yet REFUSE to offer your own. You state we are "ignorant" and "know nothing".Your statement was the "*show breeding practices caused you to put down two dogs." *Without you clarifying what you are throwing out there, your credibility and anyon'es capacity to believe something like this (and knowing that NO one can "know that pups will have cancer"), you are making an enormous accusation that is completely without facts/foundation.

If you didn't want to "debate" it you shouldn't have brought it up. You tossed that gas into the fire, no one else did. 

People are urged to put the COD into their dog's records on K9 Data base. It's a wonderful tool to help breeders and puppy buyers alike to make decisions re: breedings, purchases, etc. Looking at the dogs that you entered, I see "accident" as a COD. Were the dogs that you refer to as having to be killed because of show breeding practices not entered?


----------



## Megora

> I had to put down the first Golden I ever owned and a second that were great dogs that I spent lot of time with in the field and at home. *I have already stated the reasons why.*


This is not intended to be an attack on you... but one thing I wanted to ask as a clarification - 

Are you talking about Gold Rush Charlie or Teddy Bear here - and people choosing to go with those lines to produce show and breeding stock? 

Or are you referring to a more recent issue, or possibly somebody breeding a dog whose parents passed away early from cancer?


----------



## Sally's Mom

Don't you live in the US? As I see it both the GRCA and the GRCC consider whisker removal optional, as do I. I have found the whole topic as well as side topics interesting and sometimes entertaining.


----------



## Radarsdad

DNL2448 said:


> So, how 'bout that local sports team???


Don't know their still locked out:--big_grin:


----------



## Pointgold

kdowningxc said:


> going back to the breed standard, I went to the GRCC's illustrated breed standard, that people on here preach about..... this is what they say, which is quite different from what I see in the show ring... "Whiskers are considered as an important part of the dog’s sensory abilities and on the versatile
> golden retriever they are generally not removed for show purposes.


 
Yet another difference in the US and CAN standard. At every show I have ever exhhibited in in Canada, the top dogs all have had them removed. The word "generally" is, it would seem, interpreted by exhibitors similarly to "permitted/preferred" here.


----------



## Kmullen

Radar's dad, 

I think IMHO that the people getting upset, including me, are not upset about whether you approve or not about the whiskers. You have your opinion just like the rest of us. What i do not get is how you can assume breeding practices for conformation people. How do u know how things are being done in the dog show world...bc you got 2 dogs that obvious had cancer from a show breeder? Seriously...? I do not understand or maybe i am interpreting your post incorrectly. You said that they did it intentionally...how do u know that? Were you not aware before you got the pups of the history of cancer within the pedigree? I am still trying to figure out what i am supposed to be researching from you? Your post make it sound like show people only own goldens to win and they are not first and foremost our beloved pets!! I am sorry you have bad opinion of show breeders. Most do everything for their babies.....and i know i do!


----------



## golden_eclipse

well I found it interesting that the CKC says optional but the GRCC says not generally done...the AKC says not prefered.....its all so strange...but hey I don't think removal of my males' whiskers will give him a win, he gets a win with them  This is all quite ambiguous....but its interesting to learn, even though the standard says it is not preferred, it is not a fault. Because I had originally read into it like a dog having a lighter pigment (not pink) but not completely black, it is permitted, but will be faulted within the amount that it is lighter than black/"dark.... or like the size requirement, if you are not within the range you will be faulted proportionally to the amount you are under or over, until an inch then you are out....that sort of thing. But it seems that the wording though clear whiskers are preferred, it does not make a difference in the ring, and "the top dogs" don't have whiskers.


----------



## whiskey creek goldens

tippykayak said:


> My anecdotal evidence was presented as anecdote, along with a comment about structures common across mammals and a neat little article on a science paper. I also included the term "probably" in my interpretation of how my dog used his whiskers, since I know better than to say that I fully understand an individual dog's sense of his world.
> 
> I asked two questions about her post's purpose; if neither fits, she's welcome to respond with its actual purpose or to not respond at all. It felt a little like I said "oh, I think my blind dog might have used his," and she wrote "my blind dog definitely didn't," so I was wondering what the point was except to contradict me, and I genuinely wanted to know if she believed whiskers were vestigial in dogs (and I still do!).
> 
> Whiskers are definitively _not_ vestigial in dogs. They are fully developed sensory organs, as anybody who googles the anatomy of a whisker will see in about two seconds.
> 
> Trim 'em if you want. I don't think it's vain or cruel, nor would I call it amputation, since it's not a limb, and since the part you're cutting doesn't have nerves in it (the nerves are at the base, so as long as you're not plucking, the dog won't feel pain).
> 
> But don't tell me that a dog doesn't use them at all, because they are complex, nerve-rich structures. Their removal clearly isn't crippling, but you are absolutely taking a way a piece of his sense data. You can't really get into a dog's head to be sure how important that sense is, but you can get into his anatomy to see how richly sensitive they are.
> 
> The issue isn't black and white. It isn't true that whisker removal is evil, vain, stupid, etc. But it also isn't true that they're useless, ornamental, or vestigial. If you want to trim them, you obviously believe that the advantage it gives in the ring outweighs the usefulness. And since your dog doesn't catch his own food and a hunt test is as much about obedience as it is about using the senses, the dog probably isn't going to be significantly impacted.
> 
> Still, I like the standard the way it is, even if people choose to ignore it (or are forced to by convention). I think we should prefer a working dog in a condition that gives him even the tiniest advantage as a working dog. That means trimming muppet feet, neatening stray hairs, and (to me) leaving whiskers on. I'm talking in a perfect world where judges really rewarded what's in the standard, and I think the GR standard is a **** good one as it is.



OMG!! all this about whiskers WOW!! The above really well said!!


----------



## Jo Ellen

I see there is a lot of room for interpretation in breed standards, both in the US and Canada. Discard what you don't like or what you feel is not useful.


----------



## golden_eclipse

I disagree that it is optional in the US, it is in Canada according to the CKC, but not according to the GRCC. But according to the AKC it is not preferred, to me that is not optional otherwise it would explicitly state optional if it was indeed optional. 



Sally's Mom said:


> Don't you live in the US? As I see it both the GRCA and the GRCC consider whisker removal optional, as do I. I have found the whole topic as well as side topics interesting and sometimes entertaining.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

kdowningxc said:


> I disagree that it is optional in the US, it is in Canada according to the CKC, but not according to the GRCC. But according to the AKC it is not preferred, to me that is not optional otherwise it would explicitly state optional if it was indeed optional.


If something is permitted but not required, then it is optional. So it is optional in the US. You're focusing too much on the "preferred" part of the sentence and not reading it as a whole.


----------



## Pointgold

goldenjackpuppy said:


> If something is permitted but not required, then it is optional. So it is optional in the US. You're focusing too much on the "preferred" part of the sentence and not reading it as a whole.


 
I would tend to agree with this. 
As for simply picking and choosing what one feels is useful or not in the standards, or discarding what one doesn't like, that is hardly the case. If the standard read that removal of whiskers (none of the standards use the term "vibrissae") is prohibited, no one would. It's permitted, and certainly is currently "preferred" that is, it IS the preference to show dogs without. The choice is made.
I find it very interesting that people who are trying to make an issue of this part of the standard have been non-chalant about size, which IS expressly identified, and is a disqualification if out. Is that discarding what you don't like or don't feel is useful?


----------



## golden_eclipse

or just the "not" part of it...seems like a negative thing, as "not" is negative. The wording would indicate optional if it was, as in the AKC you can find breed standards that say optional....thus I must keep my opinion that even though everyone is doing it, mom and dad (the AKC) said not to.


----------



## Jo Ellen

I think it's easy to focus on the "preferred" part. It's not so much that vibrissae removal is permitted but not required, it's more that vibrissae removal is permitted but not preferred. Big difference there in my mind.


----------



## Radarsdad

> You said that they did it intentionally...how do u know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Articles I found while researching pedigrees. I didn't save them, started getting my pups from field lines. No more problems. Didn't save the stuff because I didn't think I would need it found out all I needed to know and moved on until now.
> Probably going to keep moving. After I go back and find it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pointgold

It is amusing that people who are opposed to the removal of whiskers focus on the word "vibrissae". Because then they can cite how important they are, and their function, and that their removal is somehow akin to lopping off a leg. The standards, even those which expressly state that whiskers NOT be removed, call them "whiskers".


----------



## HiTideGoldens

kdowningxc said:


> or just the "not" part of it...seems like a negative thing, as "not" is negative. The wording would indicate optional if it was, as in the AKC you can find breed standards that say optional....thus I must keep my opinion that even though everyone is doing it, mom and dad (the AKC) said not to.


No, the AKC does not say not to. Whether or not it's "preferred," it is still "permitted." I would agree that the standard, strictly construed, would encourage people not to remove whiskers by saying it's not preferred, but it certainly doesn't tell a reader not to remove them. It EXPRESSLY permits it.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> Articles I found while researching pedigrees. I didn't save them, started getting my pups from field lines. No more problems. Didn't save the stuff because I didn't think I would need it found out all I needed to know and moved on until now.
> Probably going to keep moving. After I go back and find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that there are actually articles documenting that show breeders intentionally bred dogs that they knew would produce puppies with cancer? Really...:scratchch
> Where were these articles published? National Enquirer?
Click to expand...


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Radarsdad said:


> Articles I found while researching pedigrees. I didn't save them, started getting my pups from field lines. No more problems. Didn't save the stuff because I didn't think I would need it found out all I needed to know and moved on until now.
> Probably going to keep moving. After I go back and find it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're making that grand of an accusation against "show breeding practices" then you need to be able to say who it was, when they did it, how you know it was intentional, and what dogs were involved. I would be interested to read such an article and am, frankly, surprised it's not well publicized, if it exists at all......
Click to expand...


----------



## AmbikaGR

Radarsdad said:


> I am not fabricating anything. I spent a lot of time and research going back through pedigrees and articles. Since I have moved I cannot find them nor a bunch of training videos among other things. I had no intention of bringing that up until mention was made of breeding practices in field dogs. I believe I stated I did not want to get in a debate about it. As far as jumping in, the simple fact is the descriptions she (OP) used, fit the practice. Your offended by my posts why are you not offended by others at the OP.
> Nowhere in my statements did I say that was taking place now. Although it could be.
> There are also some field breedings I don't agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't do that someone did it for me. Reread *my *posts again.
> 
> I had to put down the first Golden I ever owned and a second that were great dogs that I spent lot of time with in the field and at home. I have already stated the reasons why. And you are right I am very angry about it. Hence the statement I do not want to debate. Ambika posts up that I could be making this up and it happens like it's not big deal. Then makes the statement that I accused all show golden breeders I find that very offensive also.



Sorry Mike but you are the one who posted

*"I have had to put two Goldens down because of show breeding practices"* 

In my opinion, which you have quite clearly told me you do not think much of, that translates to there is a practice by those who breed for show that would cause someone to put a dog(s) down. No where have you stated that you felt an IRRESPONSIBLE breeder who happened to breed show dogs was in your opinion responsible for causing you to have to put down two of your dogs. So you can find what I posted throughout here as offensive to you, but you were given the chance on numerous occasions to rephrase your wording and all you did was dig in deeper. :doh:


----------



## golden_eclipse

Pointgold said:


> I would tend to agree with this.
> As for simply picking and choosing what one feels is useful or not in the standards, or discarding what one doesn't like, that is hardly the case. If the standard read that removal of whiskers (none of the standards use the term "vibrissae") is prohibited, no one would. It's permitted, and certainly is currently "preferred" that is, it IS the preference to show dogs without. The choice is made.
> I find it very interesting that people who are trying to make an issue of this part of the standard have been non-chalant about size, which IS expressly identified, and is a disqualification if out. Is that discarding what you don't like or don't feel is useful?


 I'm not sure if you are referring to me, when you say "people" making an issue out of this. But I certainly take size as a very important part of the standard, more so than whiskers. It just seems that dogs in the show ring, generally are within the size range EXPLICITLY described in the standard. Now what you are saying that without whiskers IS preferred is true in the show ring, although this explicitly is expressed in the AKC standard that this is NOT preferred, so I choose not to jump on the bandwagon and listen to the AKC. Unless I really need to get rid of his whiskers, I prefer not to. I do want to touch on something said a LONG time ago in this thread, that they are "show dogs' and they are supposed to look good. Well my dog that I show is not just a show dog, he is a hunter, an obedience dog, but actually mostly just my best friend. So really his main job is not to look good, but to be a good friend. He does that. SO although this thread is huge and lot of arguing going on, its not a big deal, its whiskers. But my goal here is to get people to pay attention to the standard again, and not just the dog lined up in front of you at the dog show. We should go back to our routes and really examine why we do the things we do. I want to keep grounded. I am not about to do something because of pressure from other show dogs. But it seems that is the main reason for trimming the whiskers "all the top dogs are trimmed". Well all the cool kids are smoking and you are over 18, so why not smoke, its permitted.....you know well, not all things that are allowed are for the best.


----------



## Florabora22

:wavey:



This post is so amusing I think I'll stay here for a while! (Geez, 30 pages on... whiskers.)


----------



## AmbikaGR

kdowningxc said:


> I do want to touch on something said a LONG time ago in this thread, that they are "show dogs' and they are supposed to look good. Well my dog that I show is not just a show dog, he is a hunter, an obedience dog, but actually mostly just my best friend.



I actually do remember who stated that and that person's dog is a finished AKC Champion, Utility Dog and has several Master Hunter legs, goes everywhere with her and shares her bed. (I hope I am not disclosing anything I will regret later :uhoh. Now I am sure she has no problem with you leaving your dog's whiskers on but don't feel a dog can not do it all while having it's whiskers removed for the breed ring.


----------



## golden_eclipse

goldenjackpuppy said:


> No, the AKC does not say not to. Whether or not it's "preferred," it is still "permitted." I would agree that the standard, strictly construed, would encourage people not to remove whiskers by saying it's not preferred, but it certainly doesn't tell a reader not to remove them. It EXPRESSLY permits it.


if something is not preferred, wouldn't you expect to be penalized somehow? I don't prefer to eat liver very much, I will, but I would rather eat steak. I don't know how else to interpret this. Its not preferred, so why not do the thing that is MORE preferred??


----------



## Pointgold

And no cancer in "field" dogs?

Really.

It is discussed a lot.
Cancer in Field dogs vs general population? [Archive] - RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF

Canine Health Events - About Us *
_*Gayle Watkins, PhD, President and Co-Founder*_
Gayle has been breeding golden retrievers and competing in a wide array of dog events--conformation, agility, obedience, tracking, hunt tests and field trials--for nearly 30 years. In 2003, she lost 2-year old Torch, Gaylan's Sparks A Flying TD JH WC, to malignant histiocytosis. The loss of this wonderful dog to such a terrible disease at such a young age inspired Gayle to channel her grief into raising money for studies focusing on understanding, preventing and curing the many diseases that are striking dogs today.

Cancer in Goldens Making National News « Retrieverman's Weblog



Sadly, cancer does not pick and choose. No dog, no matter the breed or mix, is not at risk.


----------



## Radarsdad

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Radarsdad said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're making that grand of an accusation against "show breeding practices" then you need to be able to say who it was, when they did it, how you know it was intentional, and what dogs were involved. I would be interested to read such an article and am, frankly, surprised it's not well publicized, if it exists at all......
> 
> 
> 
> IT WAS PUBLICIZED HOW DO YOU THINK *I* FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## AmbikaGR

kdowningxc said:


> if something is not preferred, wouldn't you expect to be penalized somehow? I don't prefer to eat liver very much, I will, but I would rather eat steak. I don't know how else to interpret this. Its not preferred, so why not do the thing that is MORE preferred??



But I LOVE liver (especially smothered in onion) and would eat it before a steak!!! So would you penalize me for this???


----------



## Pointgold

kdowningxc said:


> I'm not sure if you are referring to me, when you say "people" making an issue out of this. But I certainly take size as a very important part of the standard, more so than whiskers. It just seems that dogs in the show ring, generally are within the size range EXPLICITLY described in the standard. Now what you are saying that without whiskers IS preferred is true in the show ring, although this explicitly is expressed in the AKC standard that this is NOT preferred, so I choose not to jump on the bandwagon and listen to the AKC. Unless I really need to get rid of his whiskers, I prefer not to. I do want to touch on something said a LONG time ago in this thread, that they are "show dogs' and they are supposed to look good. Well my dog that I show is not just a show dog, he is a hunter, an obedience dog, but actually mostly just my best friend. So really his main job is not to look good, but to be a good friend. He does that. SO although this thread is huge and lot of arguing going on, its not a big deal, its whiskers. But my goal here is to get people to pay attention to the standard again, and not just the dog lined up in front of you at the dog show. We should go back to our routes and really examine why we do the things we do. I want to keep grounded. I am not about to do something because of pressure from other show dogs. But it seems that is the main reason for trimming the whiskers "all the top dogs are trimmed". Well all the cool kids are smoking and you are over 18, so why not smoke, its permitted.....you know well, not all things that are allowed are for the best.


No, I wasn't referring to you. I don't think you've made an "issue" of it at all. I'm a BIG fan of standards. (ad nauseum here on GRF...) You are I dffer in how literally that particular part of the GR standard is to be interpreted. I think your intentions and how you've presented your viewpoint is entirely valid. And again, those concerns in the standard that are "black and white" leave no room for (mis)interpretation). If the standard said "NO", I'm all about it.


----------



## golden_eclipse

AmbikaGR said:


> I actually do remember who stated that and that person's dog is a finished AKC Champion, Utility Dog and has several Master Hunter legs, goes everywhere with her and shares her bed. (I hope I am not disclosing anything I will regret later :uhoh. Now I am sure she has no problem with you leaving your dog's whiskers on but don't feel a dog can not do it all while having it's whiskers removed for the breed ring.


I know nothing of this person, and did not read into it too much, but I do think there are people out there in the show ring that don't take advantage of their golden as this person does very well. There are many a dogs in the ring I saw in just the first two weekends out that were too shy to be examined, pulling at the leash, dragging the handler around wildly, dogs that were fat and unconditioned, a dog that had no tail, generally all of this was pretty shocking..... But I don't think trimming the whiskers does this at all, but I do think that some people out there loose touch with why we are doing this all in the first place. That is to have primarily a hunting dog. Which a dog that is too shy to be gently examined by a judge would not qualify as that, let alone a friendly companion. So before you take my remarks personally, I was making a general statement, that we all need to respect this breed in whatever interests we have whether, agility, obedience, confirmation, or just a best friend. They are wonderful gift that we must protect for the future and at the same time enhance the great characteristics of this wonderful breed.


----------



## K9-Design

AmbikaGR said:


> I actually do remember who stated that and that person's dog is a finished AKC Champion, Utility Dog and has several Master Hunter legs, goes everywhere with her and shares her bed. (I hope I am not disclosing anything I will regret later :uhoh.


Geeze Hank how many times do I need to go over this. I will NOT share a hotel room with you at the national, even if your wife permits (but not prefers) it!!!! 
Dang, it's like having to beat em back with sticks around here.


----------



## Pointgold

Radarsdad said:


> goldenjackpuppy said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT WAS PUBLICIZED HOW DO YOU THINK *I* FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE DON'T KNOW HOW* YOU *FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!! WE DON"T EVEN HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT YOU DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## AmbikaGR

Radarsdad said:


> goldenjackpuppy said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT WAS PUBLICIZED HOW DO YOU THINK *I* FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly I think you found some opinions during your research that placed the blame on cancer in this breed to one or two popular dogs that were used a LOT. No scientific documentation but people's opinions. And it helps you to rationalize how two wonderful dogs were cheated of a full life and place your anger and disgust on those folks.
> Mike bad things happen to good folks as often as they do to bad folks and sometimes there is no one to blame.
> 
> In my signature is my Kizmet. She was 15 months old when I lost her to leukemia. It was about the most difficult time in my life. I listened as "knowledgeable" folks told me how the breeder should have known something like this could occur. I started to believe them and was very upset with her breeder. Then later i got to speak with some of the folks DOING the research on cancer in Goldens and it was explained that they have no idea how cancer occurs. They do NOT have any proof that any line is more likely to contract it. They told me my pup had no greater chance of getting it than any other dog (not just Goldens). My anger with Kizmet's breeder at that time eased, although the pain still has not years later. I was happy that I was minimally able to help by providing samples from Kizmet for research. The breeder was relieved that this pup had not gone to another family and caused such pain to them, especially seeing they all had children except one family. I could not have dealt with that as I was Kizmet's breeder and I wonder to this day what I did to cause this.
Click to expand...


----------



## golden_eclipse

wow this made me laugh!!! great post. (even though, there is probably an inside joke I'm missing  ) 



K9-Design said:


> Geeze Hank how many times do I need to go over this. I will NOT share a hotel room with you at the national, even if your wife permits (but not prefers) it!!!!
> Dang, it's like having to beat em back with sticks around here.


----------



## DNL2448

Here's a thought, the AKC permits whisker removal but those without whiskers, are not to be preferred over those who have them. 

Just thowing my hat into the preverbial ring here (I don't show Goldens in breed, but did GSD's several years ago, so I'm greedy and vain too!) whiskers are cool, no whiskers are cool as well.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Hey hey hey, I'm pretty sure I didn't post this: 


> IT WAS PUBLICIZED HOW DO YOU THINK *I* FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AmbikaGR

kdowningxc said:


> So before you take my remarks personally, I was making a general statement, that we all need to respect this breed in whatever interests we have whether, agility, obedience, confirmation, or just a best friend. They are wonderful gift that we must protect for the future and at the same time enhance the great characteristics of this wonderful breed.



It was not taken personally at all, I was trying to say somewhat the same thing but that it can happen with or without whiskers. :wavey:


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Pointgold said:


> WE DON'T KNOW HOW* YOU *FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!! WE DON"T EVEN HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT YOU DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In the words of the Fonz, EXACTAMUNDO!!!!


----------



## AmbikaGR

kdowningxc said:


> wow this made me laugh!!! great post. (even though, there is probably an inside joke I'm missing  )



Anney is the person i was speaking of!


----------



## Pointgold

AmbikaGR said:


> Anney is the person i was speaking of!


 
(Not to mention any names or anything...)


----------



## Pointgold

DNL2448 said:


> Here's a thought, the AKC permits whisker removal but those without whiskers, are not to be preferred over those who have them.
> 
> Just thowing my hat into the preverbial ring here (I don't show Goldens in breed, but did GSD's several years ago, so I'm greedy and vain too!) whiskers are cool, no whiskers are cool as well.


 
I am going to leave whiskers on one side of the muzzle and remove them from the other.


----------



## golden_eclipse

AmbikaGR said:


> It was not taken personally at all, I was trying to say somewhat the same thing but that it can happen with or without whiskers. :wavey:


yes yes of course. I made the comment to sort of side track away from whiskers or sort of throw my two cents about the people who keep a well conforming dog in a crate, and show it, because they get stud money. but otherwise, no whiskers whiskers, lets just love our goldens! 

Its funny I was worried that no one would reply to this thread, as I thought I was being extremely nit-picky in bringing it up. But it seems to be a bit of a political issue, you know how they say don't discuss politics or religion, well if you are in company of golden enthusiasts, don't discuss whiskers , politics or religion.


----------



## DNL2448

Pointgold said:


> I am going to leave whiskers on one side of the muzzle and remove them from the other.


ROFL!

That is a very insightful thought PG! That way if the judge on the first day, of a two day show, prefers a clean face (no whiskers) then you can show that side to him/her. The next day, however the judge prefers whiskers, then you are...AHEM...Golden! :


----------



## K9-Design

Pointgold said:


> I am going to leave whiskers on one side of the muzzle and remove them from the other.


Ahh, diplomacy at its finest. Now the real debate is which side gets the whiskers??? the *LEFT* or *RIGHT*???? LOL


----------



## HiTideGoldens

K9-Design said:


> Ahh, diplomacy at its finest. Now the real debate is which side gets the whiskers??? the *LEFT* or *RIGHT*???? LOL


Show side only. Then they can be business on the left and party on the right...like a doggie mullet


----------



## Pointgold

K9-Design said:


> Ahh, diplomacy at its finest. Now the real debate is which side gets the whiskers??? the *LEFT* or *RIGHT*???? LOL


 
RIGHT side, of course. HAHAHAHAHA! How appropo, eh? (Funny, the LEFT side is "show side"...)


(Now I'm gonna get banned for making a post that might be considered you-know-what...)


----------



## Kmullen

Ok...so next time I read an article, I WILL believe everything it says!!?? Can not believe you are basing your opinion of show breeding practices off of an article!!


----------



## Pointgold

kfayard said:


> Ok...so next time I read an article, I WILL believe everything it says!!??


 
Why wouldn't you?


----------



## DNL2448

Pointgold said:


> Why wouldn't you?


C'mon, who is going to believe that??? A Mini Cooper cannot out run a police car :doh:.


----------



## Kmullen

pointgold said:


> why wouldn't you?


too funny!!!


----------



## Pointgold

DNL2448 said:


> C'mon, who is going to believe that??? A Mini Cooper cannot out run a police car :doh:.


 
Water spewage from nostrils. Thanks. :


----------



## whiskey creek goldens

Radarsdad said:


> goldenjackpuppy said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT WAS PUBLICIZED HOW DO YOU THINK *I* FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> If it was publicized then give us a hint so we can look it up for our selves.
> 
> Someone early on made a comment about statistics. The more you breed the more chance you have for cancer, joint issues etcetera. With goldens being one of the top 10 most popular dogs our rate of cancer is of course going to be higher.
> 
> I do not believe for two seconds that reputable breeder (be it field or conformation) would breed a dog knowing that the puppies would end up with cancer. How cruel would that be to the buyers not to mention that most of us keep puppies from our litters.
> 
> I don't know about everyone else but I would never put my self through that kind of pain as to loose a dog from cancer.:no:
Click to expand...


----------



## Claire's Friend

Pointgold said:


> Why wouldn't you?


I think "Bat Boy" was trying to get to copper's mom's house :


----------



## Loisiana

Hey I have a fun idea. Let's resurrect that old circumcision thread!


----------



## Pointgold

Loisiana said:


> Hey I have a fun idea. Let's resurrect that old circumcision thread!


 
Ooooh. Fun. :no:


----------



## whiskey creek goldens

Pointgold said:


> I am going to leave whiskers on one side of the muzzle and remove them from the other.


LOL It would be interesting and funny to see the expression on the judges face when you do that Hee Hee


----------



## tippykayak

DNL2448 said:


> C'mon, who is going to believe that??? A Mini Cooper cannot out run a police car :doh:.


Have you driven a Cooper S in the last few years? Those things can HAUL.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> It is amusing that people who are opposed to the removal of whiskers focus on the word "vibrissae". Because then they can cite how important they are, and their function, and that their removal is somehow akin to lopping off a leg.


Who said that?


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> Who said that?


 
This debate has gone on for YEARS. Not just here. And it's the same everywhere. Those who are opposed _always _refer to them as "vibrissae", and bemoan their "amputation". (Hence my reference in post 53, I think, even before you mentioned the word.) Those who have no problem with removing them refer to them as "whiskers". (So do the standards.) So, my comment wasn't about you.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> No, because elbows weren't being done yet. And I've already been crucified for having allowed a breeder in Canada to breed her CH (with all clearances, and her last litter) to one of my stud dogs on prelims.


If you're referring to what I called you a bully and a hypocrite for doing, I think "crucified" is a little dramatic. You're not the Jesus of breeding, and I ain't the Pontius Pilate of GRF.

I didn't call you a bully and a hypocrite for studding your dog out on prelims. I called you a bully and a hypocrite for telling others that it was against the CoE and a bad idea (holding them to rules that you yourself bend and being mean in the process).

Also, I was bringing it up in reference to a dog you obtained out of a prelim breeding someone else had done. I wasn't aware at the time that you had also studded a dog on prelims yourself. 

So let's be clear. Your crucifixion was over the hypocrisy and mean posts, not the breaking (bending, semantics, whatever you call it) of the CoE itself.

Unless you're referring to a different crucifixion, in which case I apologize for misunderstanding.


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> If you're referring to what I called you a bully and a hypocrite for doing, I think "crucified" is a little dramatic. You're not the Jesus of breeding, and I ain't the Pontius Pilate of GRF.
> 
> I didn't call you a bully and a hypocrite for studding your dog out on prelims. I called you a bully and a hypocrite for telling others that it was against the CoE and a bad idea (holding them to rules that you yourself bend and being mean in the process).
> 
> Also, I was bringing it up in reference to a dog you obtained out of a prelim breeding someone else had done. I wasn't aware at the time that you had also studded a dog on prelims yourself.
> 
> So let's be clear. Your crucifixion was over the hypocrisy and mean posts, not the breaking (bending, semantics, whatever you call it) of the CoE itself.
> 
> Unless you're referring to a different crucifixion, in which case I apologize for misunderstanding.


 
Good grief. 
Onandonanonymous...
Back to my original plan and the ignore button.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> Yes, I could. I'd ask why a ticker (which so many GRF members have) that has been on my page for literally years, is now a concern for you, particularly when there is no text or anything else identifying it that could be construed as something that shouldn't be there?


You could? Why don't you? Am I wrong and it's actually an apolitical countdown that happens to coincide with the last day of Obama's first term? I seriously doubt it. I think it's a bit specious to compare it to other members' tickers, all of which have to do with dogs' ages, picking up new puppies, etc.

I only mentioned it now because I noticed it recently. I have no idea how long you've had it up or why you've been allowed to by the mods. 

And if you agree that it's something that shouldn't be there, why is it still there? Are we all allowed to post political statements and slogans in our sigs, so long as we can pretend that they might not be political?


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> This debate has gone on for YEARS. Not just here. And it's the same everywhere. Those who are opposed _always _refer to them as "vibrissae", and bemoan their "amputation". (Hence my reference in post 53, I think, even before you mentioned the word.) Those who have no problem with removing them refer to them as "whiskers". (So do the standards.) So, my comment wasn't about you.


So you're responding to people who aren't participating in the thread? Why?


----------



## Rob's GRs

Well after numerous complaints about this thread it is now closed. I do not have the time to read all 34 pages to gather what was said and what caused this topic to go down hill. I'll have the MOD team review it later and go from there......


----------

