# Sticky  Basic Breeder Definitions



## Swampcollie

There have been numerous threads about breeders and/or finding a breeder on this site. The one thing that becomes abundantly clear is people generally do not have a clue as to what the term “Hobby Breeder” means or other types of breeders as well.

A “Hobby Breeder” is someone who actively participates in the sport of purebred dogs (and also breeds). They might be active in Conformation, but that is only one facet in the Sport of Purebred Dogs. For Retrievers, there are also many other venues to choose such as Field, Obedience, Agility, Tracking, etc. Hobby Breeders breed, raise, train and actively participate in their chosen venue with their dogs. They may only have one breeding animal or they may have several spaced a few years apart in age. “Hobby Breeders” will generally strive to produce the best dogs possible, and treat people as fairly as possible because they have a reputation to maintain within the Purebred Dog community. 

“Commercial Breeders” are just what they sound like. They are farms, producing puppies as a product for market on a large scale. They are licensed and inspected by the USDA as an Agricultural operation. Commercial Breeders exist because there is a demand in the marketplace for their product. This is a dollar driven business with the bottom line driving the decision making process. 

Someone who puts two intact animals of the same breed together and makes puppies as their “Hobby” is NOT a “Hobby Breeder”. They are what is referred to as a BYB “Back Yard Breeder”. Their operations are usually very small with only a dog or two, but they can sometimes be larger. BYB’s generally don’t have much invested into a litter (time, or money), and haven’t spent a lot of time learning about the breed and its potential pitfalls. They’re really rolling the dice and hoping for the best. They really have no clue about what they could get, good or bad.


A word about "Puppymills". There is no clear set definition for what constitutes a “Puppymill” It is an often used disparaging term used to malign a breeder. As the saying goes “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and a similar logic applies to the term “puppymill”. It means whatever somebody wants it to mean. Its use is more often driven by personal politics than anything else. In the most conservative rescue and shelter circles, any person that intentionally breeds even ONE litter is considered to be running a “Puppymill”. So you really have to consider the source when you hear disparaging remarks. 

Do your own research and ask lots of questions.


----------



## cubbysan

A term I hear here in Missouri is "licensed breeder". I believe it falls under Commercial Breeder.


----------



## LeilaM

As someone looking for a puppy, another deceptive term used often by backyard breeders is "akc breeder"

This is especially problematic as un or undereducated people looking for a quality puppy may be misled by the akc title. People know that having "papers" means getting a purebred puppy but have no idea that one can get AKC papers and not have all necessary health clearances. confusing to say the least.


----------



## kwhit

Swampcollie said:


> There is no clear set definition for what constitutes a “Puppymill”


Oh, I don't know...to me and many others, these pictures depict what a puppy mill is:

http://www.saawinternational.org/puppy_mills_1.jpg

*ETA: Link not working, removed

ETA: Link not working-removed*

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NscWcVxkCCc/ShojpsODE4I/AAAAAAAAAd0/ZN2gLgjBeMY/s400/small+paws+flufff.jpg


----------



## DanaRuns

The breeder terms are all a little bit loaded, describing as much what the speaker thinks of the breeder as it does the breeder him/herself. I'm sometimes not sure of the difference between a commercial breeder and a puppy mill. They both churn out lots of dogs for profit. I gather the difference has more to do with conditions and the level of care taken, but I'm not sure.


----------



## cubbysan

DanaRuns said:


> The breeder terms are all a little bit loaded, describing as much what the speaker thinks of the breeder as it does the breeder him/herself. I'm sometimes not sure of the difference between a commercial breeder and a puppy mill. They both churn out lots of dogs for profit. I gather the difference has more to do with conditions and the level of care taken, but I'm not sure.


I think of it as all commercial breeders are puppy mills, but not all puppy mills are commercial breeders.


----------



## hvgoldens4

DanaRuns said:


> The breeder terms are all a little bit loaded, describing as much what the speaker thinks of the breeder as it does the breeder him/herself. I'm sometimes not sure of the difference between a commercial breeder and a puppy mill. They both churn out lots of dogs for profit. I gather the difference has more to do with conditions and the level of care taken, but I'm not sure.



There are very large commercial kennels-the Hunte corporations operation is probably the most well known facility of this magnitude. They absolutely mass produce puppies and supply the pet stores with the puppies that they mass produce. However, their kennels are very sanitary and have pretty good marks in reguard to animal husbandry practices. The kennel is state of the art, in a lot of ways. However, that is not the type of place that most people would like to get their puppy from.

You are absolutely correct in the fact that a "puppy mill" usually has a lot to do with the living conditions of the dogs. Dogs living in small, very cramped quarters in filth with minimal care and feeding and left to their own devices to even whelp and raise litters. It is truly a shame the type of lives that these type animals live.

The term "puppy mill" was actually started with HSUS(Humane Society of the United States) and as has already been stated, there are many animal rights groups and people out there who believe if you have ever bred one litter, you are a puppy mill. These groups are working very hard to take our rights to even own dogs away from us. So, I would also like to take this opportunity because a lot of people like to donate to animal shelters this time of the year, that if you are going to donate, donate to your local animal shelter or GR Rescue. They all do amazing work on shoe string budgets and can always use any help they can get and you know the money will be used to help the animals locally and not pay lobbyists in Washington or pay fancy CEO salaries.


----------



## DanaRuns

I don't know about Hunte. I'm thinking right now of Gold Rush as a good example of the difference between commercial and puppy mill. I'd call Gold Rush a commercial kennel, _not_ a puppy mill. True, they have a steady stream of puppies and many dogs and many litters per year. But Ann Johnson is careful about clearances and good lines, shows her dogs, keeps them in a clean environment, doesn't sell to pet stores, and while not in a home environment I understand the dogs get exercise and good care. So, to me, while that might be a commercial kennel it is _no way, no how_ a puppy mill. (As an aside, I am told that she made $500,000 in stud fees off one dog. Now, if true, that dog is a commercial operation by himself!)

I would say that anyone who mass produces puppies for pet stores is a puppy mill, even if the facilities are clean. As for smaller operations, I know of a "back yard breeder on steroids" kind of operation, where they sell Goldens and Weimaraners by website and ads in the paper, and keep the dogs and puppies in small confined areas, in poor conditions, and the dogs do not have any real kind of life, they are just puppy machines. That, to me, is also a puppy mill, even though it is much smaller than a big Hunte operation.

At least, that's how I think of it. Those who would characterize anyone who produces one litter as a puppy mill are just extremists with an extreme agenda, imho, and they do a disservice to everyone by diluting the term into meaninglessness.


----------



## kwhit

hvgoldens4 said:


> There are very large commercial kennels-the Hunte corporations operation is probably the most well known facility of this magnitude. They absolutely mass produce puppies and supply the pet stores with the puppies that they mass produce...



I was under the impression that the Hunte Corp. does_ not_ breed, but they broker puppies. They buy the puppies at 8 weeks, (supposedly 8 weeks, anyway), from mills and then sell them to pet stores.


----------



## Selli-Belle

I believe Hunte does both. They do have their own kennels but they also buy pups from other commercial breeders.


----------



## DanaRuns

Wow, I am learning a lot in this thread.


----------



## kwhit

DanaRuns said:


> I'd call Gold Rush a commercial kennel, _not_ a puppy mill. True, they have a steady stream of puppies and many dogs and many litters per year. But Ann Johnson is careful about clearances and good lines, shows her dogs, keeps them in a clean environment, doesn't sell to pet stores, and while not in a home environment I understand the dogs get exercise and good care.


Back "in the day" this is how most kennels were run. A lot of dogs strickly in kennels with many people employed by the breeder to take care of them. No one ever called them mills and I don't believe they were. 

Lina Basquette's Honey Hollow Kennels is a perfect example. She was a very, very well respected breeder whose dogs are the foundation of a ton of pedigrees. Most if not all, (and she had a lot of dogs), were kept kenneled and were well taken care of. She bred to better the breed, (Danes), which she definitely accomplished. Would I call her a mill? Of course not. But there are those that probably would. This is how it was done before and probably a lot of breeders do it that way today. Is it ideal? No, but I believe the dogs are happy.


----------



## kwhit

Selli-Belle said:


> I believe Hunte does both. They do have their own kennels but they also buy pups from other commercial breeders.


That must be new because they never bred before, they were strictly a broker facility.


----------



## tobysmommy

I'll wade in very carefully here and suggest that there may be another breeder definition, sort of in a grey zone: the "lapsed" hobby breeder. This is the sort of breeder where I got my Toby (unfortunately). Please don't misunderstand me - Toby is my heart, the love of my life, and I'm thrilled to have him, but the fact is that despite best intentions, I didn't do enough research before I got him. His breeder has (had) some CH and CH pointed dogs, used to show/compete and did some (but as it turned out not all) clearances, but didn't keep them current. I would be reluctant to denigrate them to a BYB, but they are, at present, not being responsible hobby breeders. For whatever reason, they've dropped the ball. Am I wrong in thinking they're in a grey zone, a step above a BYB? :hide:


----------



## hvgoldens4

Selli-Belle said:


> I believe Hunte does both. They do have their own kennels but they also buy pups from other commercial breeders.



Yes, they do both. They breed and purchase puppies from other breeders who are then at their facility and then sent to various pet stores. As I said, not the ideal situation and certainly not where any of us would want a puppy from, but there have been AKC seminars there and I am told that it is a very nice kennel from some rather discerning people.

Kennels and dog shows in the past were a thing really only the wealthy participated in. Those big kennels were how all the breeds really got started. They were also typically women, although there are some very well known men who were really founding kennels of different breeds, too, which would be the case with goldens, of course.

I know no one likes to think about dogs living in kennels, but they really served their purpose at the time and the people who owned and ran those large kennels were able to advance their breeding programs much faster and always with the best stock, which is not always the case any more. 

I know, now you are all thinking I have gone round the bend :wave:......but here are the advantages. Those large kennels did have many people working for them and always had a kennel manager besides the person who actually owned the kennel. Because of the sheer number of dogs that were on the premises and the ability to keep and care for that many dogs, they were able to keep 2, 3 or even 4 puppies from a litter to grow out and see who was actually going to be the best represetative of the breed. Unfortuantely, breeders can't really do that anymore and so we have to rely on our best guess at around 8 weeks old as to which puppy is the best puppy in the litter. Sometimes that puppy is and sometimes it is not.  It also allowed for some dogs that were going to need to be culled from a breeding program because they didn't pass a clearance(hips and eyes have been around for a LONG time in our breed), weren't able to conceive, had a breed disqualification or if a number of other things happened. Because they had multiple dogs from the litter, if something happened to one, it didn't wipe their breeding program out and it truly allowed them to concentrate their breeding program around the best of the best.

I have seen all too often with the much smaller hobby breeders that we have now, they keep a girl or boy from a litter and grow them up but if there is a clearance problem, bite issue, or another disqualification to the breed standard, they may not have dogs to breed for years which sets their breeding program back quite a bit. It is hard to build a "line" when you don't have anything to breed. 

It is quite the balancing act to be able to keep enough younger dogs so you will have dogs to later show and then breed and still keep your numbers at something that is manageable that one person can handle. But, you have to be able to go on after you have suffered losses and this and the competitiveness of our breed are two big reasons that many people don't stick around as far as being breeders/exhibitors for long.


----------



## TheZ's

Thanks _HVGoldens_ for this historical perspective on breeding and the practical problems of hobby breeders.


----------



## hvgoldens4

tobysmommy said:


> I'll wade in very carefully here and suggest that there may be another breeder definition, sort of in a grey zone: the "lapsed" hobby breeder. This is the sort of breeder where I got my Toby (unfortunately). Please don't misunderstand me - Toby is my heart, the love of my life, and I'm thrilled to have him, but the fact is that despite best intentions, I didn't do enough research before I got him. His breeder has (had) some CH and CH pointed dogs, used to show/compete and did some (but as it turned out not all) clearances, but didn't keep them current. I would be reluctant to denigrate them to a BYB, but they are, at present, not being responsible hobby breeders. For whatever reason, they've dropped the ball. Am I wrong in thinking they're in a grey zone, a step above a BYB? :hide:


Absolutely-this happens!! I call them the "fringe breeders". Many of them used to do things the right way and have stopped for whatever reason and some of them never have really done things the right way. They do clearances, but many times heart clearances are from practioners and if they have a dog that doesn't pass a clearance, it won't stop them from breeding the dog. Eye clearances don't get sent it to be recorded at all but yet they state that they do clearances on their dogs. Which, if you want to get technical, they are doing clearances, just not removing the dogs from a breeding program if they do not clear.

This type of breeder is very hard for the average person who is looking for a puppy to spot. They know how to "talk the talk" and often times have fancy websites depicting them showing their dogs(but most of the time it is matches or UKC or international shows) which in no way can be compared to AKC shows where there is a lot more competition and judging is much more strict, no matter what the venue the person is competing in.

There are actually some people who are actively showing their dogs in AKC events that I feel would fall more into this category than that of a hobby breeder. That term hobby breeder also needs to come with the wherewithall to do what is best for the breed and the dogs specifically and not have anything to do with personal gain.

I do not have any friends who are what I call hobby breeders that haven't taken really hard hits over one thing or another. They raise up a dog and it is lovely and then doesn't pass a clearance or has a bad bite, and they have to do what is right for the breed and remove them from a breeding program. Or they have a beautiful dog who isn't having their needs met by living in a "pack" or hates showing or their mothering skills are not up to par, so they decide in the best interests of the dog, to let them go be an only dog. The times that breeders have lost litters, had girls resorb or boys go sterile and yes, even lose dogs much too young to cancer or have a dog develop PU. But, the hobby breeder stands up and is honest about the issues that they are faced with because their loyalties lie with the breed and they aren't doing this for their egos.


----------



## DanaRuns

I just want to note that I am thrilled to soak up all the wonderful insight and knowledge that people on this forum have to share. I'm learning quite a bit in a number of these more "serious" threads.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I want to add that showing your dogs in AKC doesn't make them worthy of breeding, and having a CH or even GRCH before their name also doesn't make them worthy of breeding. It's only one part of the equation.
I have been at shows so many times where the handler/breeder/owner, whatever, was chalking between the dog's toes like crazy to hide the lick stains from ALLERGIES. They breed the dog anyway. 
I have been at shows so many times when the handler/breeder/owner, whatever, is standing ringside trying to control a dog aggressive golden, telling people to keep their dogs away because the dog doesn't do well with other dogs. They breed the dog anyway.
Showing a dog in the AKC breed ring is only one part of having dogs worth breeding. There is also health, temperament, biddability, and intelligence which are an integral part of our breed and sadly sometimes seem to fall by the wayside in search of the "CH" that makes the dog "breedable".
By the same token, "clearances" are only part of the equation. We also have DNA tests now that can, and should, be done on breeding stock. What we do with the information after we have it is for the breeders to discuss and decide, but it's out there and we need to use it. Allergies, early cancers, autoimmune diseases, etc. all need to be considered, not just "clearances". 
One person who is breeding to Tito has asked for permission to contact his veterinarian and discuss his health. I was impressed with her, to say the least. I feel that it should be done much more often.
Anyway, I'm done ranting.


----------



## TheZ's

*"Showing a dog in the AKC breed ring is only one part of having dogs worth breeding. There is also health, temperament, biddability, and intelligence which are an integral part of our breed and sadly sometimes seem to fall by the wayside in search of the "CH" that makes the dog "breedable"."

*For some time I've been wondering as I see all the discussion of the importance of clearances and titles of various sorts who is looking out for maintaining the Golden temperament and how that is assessed before dogs are bred. I like to think that my Zoe is a wonderful example of the Golden temperament, seeming to like and accept all humans and other dogs. She's been exposed to dogs of many sizes and breeds, some pure bred and some rescue mutts . . . the only dog she's ever really had trouble with was a beautiful female Golden about a year older who went after her at the dog park while her owner was telling me how well bred she was . . . sire was a very big name in conformation.

Any comments on how temperament is assessed in determining which dogs will be bred?


----------



## DanaRuns

Aggressive dogs absolutely do not belong in the conformation ring. With Goldens, I think, it's pretty rare that such dogs are shown to finish, unlike some other breeds. That doesn't mean that Golden breeders won't finish dogs that should not be bred. I pulled a dog from specialing when I found out he was sterile. The breeder had a fit and reminded me of the contract that required me to show him to his "full potential." It wasn't for breeding purposes that she wanted him to continue to show! Lol! 

While conformation shows pay lip service to being about breeding stock, my own opinion is that they are often more immediately about simple competition and ego gratification. Because, let's face it, AKC shows aren't truly about identifying and rewarding good breeding stock. If they were, all dogs in the show that met appropriate criteria would be pointed, not just a single class dog and bitch. Now, having said that, I'm sure breeders will express disagreement with my statement, as breeders all over the country do rely on AKC titles as evidence that their dogs are good breeding stock.

In my humble opinion, for the purpose of identifying dogs appropriate for breeding, I wonder if the CCA might actually be a better gauge.


----------



## cubbysan

Don't aggressive dogs get disqualified from showing if they show aggression in the ring?


----------



## sterregold

If they are openly aggressive in the ring, generally, yes, but I have seen certain judges let things go for certain handlers. And I have been asked to take a "difficult" dog in the ring for a handler on more than one occasion--with the specific instruction to keep his head away from other boys--this was a dog who had done some big winning in Canada. So yes, unfortunately, they are out there, and as a breeder you have to be very careful to meet those dogs and know what is lurking in the pedigrees as well.


----------



## hvgoldens4

Unfortunately, there are goldens who have less than wonderful temperaments and they finish their championships and are bred. This is where the part about the hobby breeder doing what is right for the dog and the breed is most important. There is absolutely no way we will ever be rid of temperament problems in our breed. It was there in the dogs that were the founding stock that was imported into the US. Now, when I am talking about aggressive, I am more talking about dominance aggression and not any aggression toward people.

The breeder is the one who has to decide if the dog has the proper temperament and other qualities that are required to be a good example of the breed and be bred. Because of the issues with the founding stock, a bad temperament can come up from almost any breeding. It does not make the breeder a bad breeder. What makes them a good or bad breeder is how they deal with it!!! If this is a dog that they own, will that dog be spayed/neutered so that it cannot contribute to the gene pool. If it is a pet puppy, do they help the family do everything possible up to and including taking the dog back so it can be put down, if need be?? Yes, these things can and do happen because breeding is far from easy.

As to conformation shows, this is how breeding stock has been determined for many, many years. Yes, there is only one winner in each sex and thus with the number of dogs in competition with a breed like our own, it does make it difficult to finish a dog, at times. However, I am a breeder/owner/handler and I have finished plenty of our dogs myself and have also finished dogs that were bred by me but owned by other people. If you have a good dog and the dog is presented well, the dog will do well. The biggest issue with conformation shows is that people are not really honest with what their dogs faults are and if they are worthy of being a champion. The dog needs to be in good condition, the dog need to be in good coat, the dog needs to be trained and the dog does need to fit the standard.

As to a CCA being a better gauge for breeding stock?? I do not agree with this at all. I am a CCA evaluator and that was not what the program was set up for at all. It was to help teach people/breeders about the standard in real life and so they could see how their dog would be evaluated by their peers in a non-competitive setting. If you look at the information on the GRCA's website about the CCA, you will find that it states these are the minimum requirements for a golden to meet the breed standard. I would say that an AKC championship would be the upper requirements for a dog to meet the standard.

Do dogs finish that should not?? Do politics come into play?? Absolutely, but there are politics in every facet of our lives and dogs are no different. It is our job as a breeder/exhibitor/student of the breed to learn what the standard really means and how to apply it to the dogs and be able to look at dogs without being kennel blind and through rose colored glasses. 

Every dog has their faults. There is no such thing as a perfect dog and if a breeder tells you their dog has no issues, run. They are being kennel blind. A good breeder should be able to tell you the areas of their breeding program that they are working on and the strengths and attributes of their breeding program along with each individual dog in their breeding program. We all have areas that are strengths and things that we need to work on.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Awesome post Jenn, thanks.


----------



## njoyqd

I am learning so much from this discussion. And, with this info and hindsight being 20/20 now know I did everything WRONG. I now know my sweet girl with all her problems came from what is termed a BYB. The fact that she came with "papers" is worth nothing. She is only eight months old and we are almost seven thousand dollars in debt from vet bills. (THR).
The fact that the "breeder" named the 'sire' Goober should have been my first clue!
Will we do things differently next time around? Absolutely! Do I regret having her? Not for a minute. Just wish I had found the forum beforehand. Thanks to everyone for sharing their knowledge and experiences.
Dale


----------



## tippykayak

Between SC's initial clearheaded definitions and HVG's contributions, this thread NEEDS to be a sticky.


----------



## Millie'sMom

tobysmommy said:


> I'll wade in very carefully here and suggest that there may be another breeder definition, sort of in a grey zone: the "lapsed" hobby breeder. This is the sort of breeder where I got my Toby (unfortunately). Please don't misunderstand me - Toby is my heart, the love of my life, and I'm thrilled to have him, but the fact is that despite best intentions, I didn't do enough research before I got him. His breeder has (had) some CH and CH pointed dogs, used to show/compete and did some (but as it turned out not all) clearances, but didn't keep them current. I would be reluctant to denigrate them to a BYB, but they are, at present, not being responsible hobby breeders. For whatever reason, they've dropped the ball. Am I wrong in thinking they're in a grey zone, a step above a BYB? :hide:


Sounds very much like the breeder I got my dogs from. At one point in time, they were doing things "right", but as time wore on they seemed to get a little sloppy in some areas. I, too, would hesitate to put them into any of the original breeder definitions.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Dale, we don't love the dogs any less because of where we got them. My Toby dog who I lost in January was my heart and soul. He was from a BYB, too. He had lots of health issues, and I learned my lesson, but it didn't mean I didn't love him totally, and I never regretted one minute of his life with me.


----------



## hvgoldens4

njoyqd said:


> I am learning so much from this discussion. And, with this info and hindsight being 20/20 now know I did everything WRONG. I now know my sweet girl with all her problems came from what is termed a BYB. The fact that she came with "papers" is worth nothing. She is only eight months old and we are almost seven thousand dollars in debt from vet bills. (THR).
> The fact that the "breeder" named the 'sire' Goober should have been my first clue!
> Will we do things differently next time around? Absolutely! Do I regret having her? Not for a minute. Just wish I had found the forum beforehand. Thanks to everyone for sharing their knowledge and experiences.
> Dale


Dale most people do get their first dogs from a BYB because those breeders are the easiest to find. Certainly none of us are born knowing that we should get a dog from a hobby breeder and even if we did know, most of us wouldn't know where to start looking. The BYB's and other breeders out number the hobby breeders by far. They also advertise in newpapers, bulletin boards, pet stores and pet finder type websites. Unfortunately, most hobby breeders don't do much advertising because their puppies are generally placed by word of mouth and referrals so they are spoken for before the puppies are born.

Even among breeders and other exhibitors in the fancy, most of us got our first golden from a BYB. I got mine from one of the "fringe type" breeders. They had clearances but the pedigrees were pretty muddled and they weren't competing with their dogs in any way. Back then, goldens only had hips and eyes done. There were titled dogs with the great grandparents and very well known ones. 

I don't regret having Jazz for one minute. He taught me what a golden really is and got me hooked on the breed. I had wanted a golden from the time I was little and after him, I knew there was no other breed for me. We did competitive obedience together and that led me to wanting to try conformation and eventually become a breeder. He was my start and introduction to the breed and he was a wonderful ambassador of the breed. He had his issues  Conformationally, he was really bowlegged and long in the rib cage among other things. He did have the big golden heart and everyone he met was his friend. I was always the first to know when someone in our training circle was getting a new puppy because they always wanted them to socialize with Jazz. He was an awesome obedience dog and an even better best friend and what more could a person ask for!!!!!


----------



## DanaRuns

hvgoldens4 said:


> As to a CCA being a better gauge for breeding stock?? I do not agree with this at all. I am a CCA evaluator and that was not what the program was set up for at all. It was to help teach people/breeders about the standard in real life and so they could see how their dog would be evaluated by their peers in a non-competitive setting. If you look at the information on the GRCA's website about the CCA, you will find that it states these are the *minimum requirements for a golden to meet the breed standard*. I would say that an AKC championship would be the upper requirements for a dog to meet the standard.


Can you explain what that bolded part means in real life terms? I'm not sure what minimum requirements to meet the standard means. In my limited understanding, the breed standard is an ideal that cannot possibly be reached, but only approached to varying degrees. Am I understanding that correctly?

As to the larger point of the CCA not being enough to demonstrate good breeding stock, is there any single thing that would? My understanding, again limited  , is that there is not. So, why is not CCA a useful tool for both breeder and buyer (and I'm probably thinking of this more from the buyer's standpoint, looking for indications of reliably bred dogs giving the confusion and the generally opaque process of a lay person trying to find a decently bred Golden)? One of the things I like about the CCA is there is some indication of temperament that is wholly absent in AKC shows.

In fact, some very famous conformation dogs have temperaments that are great for the ring but horrible as pets, so how does one evaluate that for "breeding stock" purposes?

Not trying to be difficult. Trying to learn.


----------



## Mayve

My question would be, if someone doesn't do conformation but instead has working titles is a CCA then not appropriate for them??? Is a CCA really saying they meet the standards enough to be bred or is it really just, well useless. I mean no disrespect either I guess I'm trying to understand just what a CCA is good for then?? If that makes sense**


----------



## K9-Design

To me a CCA is more educational for the owner than anything else (getting real feedback and explanations on their dog and the standard), and another major reason GRCA created the CCA was for goldens other than those who can point in the breed ring be eligible for the VC/VCX awards. CCA has nothing to do with breeding.


----------



## hvgoldens4

There seems to be some confusion on what the CCA is and isn't. The CCA was never meant to be a green light to breed any dog whether that dog be an AKC Champion, a Master Hunter or an OTCH dog that has recieved the title. 



*What the CCA Program IS AND ISN’T*​
*IT ISN’T* just another title and a quick way to earn a versatility certificate. 
*IT ISN’T* just a way for Goldens from show lines that don’t compete in the breed ring to get an easier title. 
*IT ISN’T* a program where Goldens from working lines will get scored tougher and/or evaluated against a style that is being shown in the breed ring today. 
*IT ISN’T* a program where all scores will be identical even though Evaluators are comparing the same dog to the same Standard. Scores will vary to some degree and each Evaluator’s interpretation of the written words in the Standard and the scoring system will differ. This has been taken into consideration and that is why you can enter the same dog in two events and/or a maximum of six evaluation tries. 
*IT ISN’T* a program where you can just visually assess which dogs should or shouldn’t get a CCA Title by being a spectator or looking at pictures. There is no substitute for a hands-on written critique scored against all the written components of the Standard including temperament. 
*IT ISN’T* a program where Goldens are compared to each other and placed or awarded placements because of what the other Goldens looks like. 
*AND *
*IT ISN’T* that easy. 
To earn the CCA Title, a golden must have three scores of seventy-five or above with no two categories scoring four or less, no category scoring two or less and no disqualifying faults. An Honorable Mention is awarded to those that earned three scores above or between sixy-five and seventy-four, these scores are noted in the program as above acceptable conformation for a Golden Retriever and *IT IS* an award to be very proud of. 
*IT IS* a program where the Evaluators are qualified to interpret the Standard. They have met strict criteria, are knowledgeable about the breed’s history and have had years of hands-on experience. They certainly wouldn’t be volunteering all their time and energy if they didn’t care about you, your Golden and the future of this breed. 
*IT IS* a program where it takes guts to enter your Golden and have your dog critiqued by someone you only heard of and probably never met before. 
*IT IS* a program that will archive the information, critiques and pictures for future breeders and owners. 
*AND *
*IT IS* an educational gateway for everyone to reflect on the written description of what is “ideal” for this incredible breed, the essence of a Golden Retriever, that is timeless, without prejudice and not subject to changing fashion or popular style. 
_The CCA Committee _


 When the CCA started being discussed as a program amongst the GRCA Board and the members, it was done as a learning tool and not a breeding tool. There are non-competitive venues in other areas of competition for goldens-hunt tests, obedience trials, tracking tests, etc. Dogs in these areas of competition can be awarded a title or certificate(when talking about the WC/WCX program) without ever having to defeat another dog. The GRCA wanted to do this for conformation and as a teaching tool for people.

Also from the GRCA's website:  

 Overview of program
The GRCA offers a Noncompetitive Conformation Assessment
Program for Golden Retrievers at which a Certificate of
Conformation Assessment (CCA) may be earned. This program
is open to all Golden Retrievers over the age of 18 months that
are AKC or CKC registered or that have an AKC PAL or ILP
number. Spayed and neutered animals are expressly permitted
to participate, as are dogs owned by non-members of the
GRCA. However, see “Limitations of Entries” below.
General Purposes of Program
The purposes of the CCA program are to (a) provide a noncompetitive
means of evaluating and scoring the conformation
qualities of individual Golden Retrievers against the Breed
Standard (as opposed to a competitive “dog-to-dog” comparison
as in dog show competition); (b) provide a useful and
informative evaluation with verbal and recorded assessments
by knowledgeable evaluators of the conformation qualities of
individual Golden Retrievers; (c) provide archived records of
the completed evaluations for all Golden Retrievers that have
been assessed to generate reports for historical purposes.
Recognition will be based on achievement by any Golden
Retriever of three qualifying scores of 75 or greater (out of a
possible 100) for a CCA as assessed by three different evaluators.
It is expected that many dogs that may never enter in formal
conformation competition would qualify for a CCA under
the program. In addition to the qualifying score of 75 or
greater, certain minimum scores will be required in order to
obtain the CCA title (explained under “Scoring”). In addition,
the number of attempts to qualify will be limited to six evaluations
for any one Golden Retriever.​

If you look above, a golden only has to get 75 points out of a possible 100 to get a qualifying score toward a CCA. As Annie pointed out and the information from the GRCA's website shows, this was never meant to have anything to do with breeding. It is an educational tool to help people understand more about their dog and how it compares in respect to the standard in a non-competitive venue so they can learn about their dogs strengths and weaknesses in a non-competitive venue. The above is what I am speaking about in reguard to the minimum requirements necessary to meet the breed standard. ​

As a CCA evaluator I can tell you that there are many, many dogs who can get a CCA who could never get a single point in a AKC conformation show and a CCA was not created to say that they could. There are also plenty of dogs who can get a WC/WCX and will never have what it takes to be a MH and the same would be true in every other venue.​ 
The purpose of conformation dog shows has always been to evaluate breeding stock and it still is to a great degree. However, as things have changed with reguard to how dogs are kept and the number of dogs that are kept, some things have also changed about dog shows. Some people will continue to show a dog who has failed a clearance to their championship so they can count toward a parents OS or OD award or simply because they believe the dog has the merit to be awarded their championship. When dog shows were started, there were not clearances being done on breeding stock.​ 
As far as the "mingling" part of the CCA really being used to assess a dogs temperament, I don't believe that it can. The only thing that can evaluate a dogs temperament is to spend time with that dog and get to know them under various situations. Trainers/handlers can very easily train a dog to behave on a leash and dogs aren't stupid either and they are much more apt to behave when they are on a leash vs off lead. The mingle part of a CCA is really no more than what happens at every dog show when the handlers and owners are standing around ringside waiting for the dogs to go into the ring.​ 
Breeders have always been the ones to evaluate the dogs fitness toward being bred and remaining in the gene pool. There will always be people who will cut corners and breed a dog without clearances or breed a dog who displays dominance issues around other intact dogs. As a pet owner/buyer, you best way to make sure that you are getting a dog with the correct temperament is to talk with other people who have dogs from that breeder and to spend time with the parents of the litter. Temperament, for the most part, is genetic. It can be affected by life experience but there would have to be a pretty horrific set of events happen to make a dog with a good temperament all of a sudden have a bad temperament. The puppies will inherit the tmperament of their parents. The mom is even more important because not only is she passing along her genetic material to the puppies, she is the one who is raising the puppies and the puppies will learn a great deal from her. It is hard for a mom who is shy and nervous to raise a litter of puppies that will be confident and outgoing. The puppies will learn by her reactions to different stimuli to be nervous or worried about things as well.​ 
As far as evaluating a dog temperament to the standard for breeding purposes, our standard is pretty straightforward in that department: ​ 
*Temperament *-- friendly, reliable and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility towards other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character. Such actions should be penalized according to their significance. ​ 
There will always be differences of opinion on temperament because one person will prefer a dog with more energy if they are a more active person themselves and another person, who may be more sedentary, will prefer a dog who is a couch potato.​ 
Goldens should not be hyper/high strung or couch potatos. They are a sporting dog so they should possess drive, biddability and a desire to do the job they were intended to do. Those traits also need to be addressed as well as their ability to meet the physical requirements of the breed standard. ​ 
No, there are no perfect dogs but there are certainly dogs that come closer to meeting that ideal than other dogs do. Breeders need to assess all these things(as well as physical health and clearances) before making a decision about breeding the dog. ​


----------



## GoldensGirl

tippykayak said:


> Between SC's initial clearheaded definitions and HVG's contributions, this thread NEEDS to be a sticky.


So far this is a great discussion and it is staying well within bounds. If we don't have to close it, I'd be delighted to make it a sticky. Promise!


----------



## TheZ's

Thanks again to to HVG for the most recent post. I was particularly interested in the comments on temperament. Unfortunately the typeface for that portion of the post is really tiny and difficult to read. Any chance it can be adjusted or is there something I can do to make it easier to read.


----------



## GoldensGirl

TheZ's said:


> Thanks again to to HVG for the most recent post. I was particularly interested in the comments on temperament. Unfortunately the typeface for that portion of the post is really tiny and difficult to read. Any chance it can be adjusted or is there something I can do to make it easier to read.


You can try zooming in your browswer. I don't have time right now to enlarge the font, but I'll try to remember to come back to this tomorrow. You are welcome to PM me with a reminder.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

GoldensGirl said:


> You can try zooming in your browswer. I don't have time right now to enlarge the font, but I'll try to remember to come back to this tomorrow. You are welcome to PM me with a reminder.


I just enlarged it


----------



## Mayve

Thanks HVG for the information


I realize that a CCA is not a green light to breed...I was trying to understand why and whom they would benefit...

I appreciate the answers and the tone of this thread. It is indeed refreshing...*:You_Rock_*


----------



## hvgoldens4

Let me try again as to why and whom the CCA will benefit. Going back again to the origins of the breeds and those big kennels. If you then wanted to get started in showing your dogs or breeding or into hunting, you would go to one of those big kennels and work and learn about the dogs and how the kennels were run and about animal husbandry practices and everything else that was involved with the dogs. These people had mentors and were mentors to others who were involved or wanted to be involved in the fancy. A person could go to one of these big kennels and see upwards of 100 dogs that were all closely related and generation after generation so they could see and learn about structure and movement and breed type and how the form of the dog follows the function they were bred to do.

We don't have that anymore. Property restrictions, zoning ordinances, money and so many other things and so those big kennels don't exist anymore.

So, just where does someone who wants to learn about the breed go? How do they learn? Ok, you can read books, you can look at things on the internet and you can go to dog shows. But, if you really don't know what the golden standard means when it says:
*Head
*Broad in skull, slightly arched laterally and longitudinally without prominence of frontal bones (forehead) or occipital bones. _Stop_ well defined but not abrupt. _Foreface_ deep and wide, nearly as long as skull. *Muzzle* straight in profile, blending smooth and strongly into skull; when viewed in profile or from above, slightly deeper and wider at stop than at tip. No heaviness in flews. Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred. *Eyes* friendly and intelligent in expression, medium large with dark, close-fitting rims, set well apart and reasonably deep in sockets. Color preferably dark brown; medium brown acceptable. Slant eyes and narrow, triangular eyes detract from correct expression and are to be faulted. No white or haw visible when looking straight ahead. Dogs showing evidence of functional abnormality of eyelids or eyelashes (such as, but not limited to, trichiasis, entropion, ectropion, or distichiasis) are to be excused from the ring. *Ears* rather short with front edge attached well behind and just above the eye and falling close to cheek. When pulled forward, tip of ear should just cover the eye. Low, hound-like ear set to be faulted. *Nose* black or brownish black, though fading to a lighter shade in cold weather not serious. Pink nose or one seriously lacking in pigmentation to be faulted. *Teeth* scissors bite, in which the outer side of the lower incisors touches the inner side of the upper incisors. Undershot or overshot bite is a _disqualification._ Misalignment of teeth (irregular placement of incisors) or a level bite (incisors meet each other edge to edge) is undesirable, but not to be confused with undershot or overshot. Full dentition. Obvious gaps are serious faults.

just where and to whom do you go to find out??

To be a better breeder, exhibitor, you need to be constantly learning more-what we call a student of the breed. So, the GRCA set up the CCA as a very INFORMAL-and I am stressing informal event so that people could learn in the hopes that by learning more from their peers and with a hands on written evaluation that they could refer back to from evaluators that the GRCA had approved as knowledgeable about the breed and the standard.

So, lets go back to form follows function. What and why is this important? The standard isn't just there so that goldens keep looking like goldens. That is part of it and that is type. Type refers to when you see a dog off in the distance, can you tell it is a golden or does it look like an Irish Setter?? But then we have all these words that talk about how tall and long and how much the dogs should weigh and how their front assembly should be built and what their toplines should look like and so on and so forth. So, you may say to yourself, I just want a pet-why are these things important to me? They are important to you because if the dog isn't built at all like it should be(not even remotely close) the dog will have issues down the road even being able to go out and hike and play ball. If the stifle(the knee area) is too straight and not a gentle half moon, as I like to describe it, this can result in torn cruciate ligaments. Now, there are other factors that can contribute to this as well, such as weight and age but structural issues also contribute to issues the dog will have down the road.

So, you want a dog to be an agility dog or a hunting companion on the weekend. Why do you care if the dog has a straight upper arm and upright shoulders?? Because the dog will get tired faster when the dog isn't built properly. If the dog has a strong desire to please and a good work ethic, they can overcome some of these structural issues but over time, these issues will cause the dog problems. The dog will break down and be prone to more injuries than if they are built properly. 

So, now you have a dog that has a few obedience titles and maybe some agility titles or a tracking title-just fill in the blanks. She gets all her clearances and she has a great temperament-she is biddable, learns quickly and gets along well with other dogs and all people. So, how do you decide who to breed her to?? If you don't know where the structural problems with her lie, you can't improve and the goal of any breeding program is to improve on what you have(or it should be  )

So, now you decide-OK, I am going to take her to a CCA. You find out that she has a dip in her topline and maybe she is missing a tooth and her coat is a little softer than it should be. With this information, you can then find Studly who does not have those issues and then hopefully, you will be able to improve upon what she is in regaurd to the standard while keeping the good things about her.

Now going back to informal......at the last CCA I judged at, I had some very well known obedience exhibitors who have been showing for many years and who have had many OTCH dogs come thru to have their dogs evaluated. Every single one of them said that they had learned quite a bit and found the process quite interesting. Now some of them also weren't very good at gaiting because they had never been taught to gait. They had been taught to heel as obedience dogs. But, an experienced evaluator can use their hands to feel the dogs structure and also see the few steps where the dog was actually gaiting and still be able to give an evaluation and opinion on the dog.

That is part of the reason that a lot of performance people do a CCA and as like Anney had also mentioned it does fulfill the conformation aspect for a dog to be able to earn a VC(versatility certificate) where before the CCA, they would have had to be entered in conformation shows and gotten minor points or major reserves. For many people, this wasn't something they were interested in doing because they couldn't show the dog themselves and it would entail them hiring a handler or something along those lines.

No matter how long you have been a breeder or exhibitor, you always need to be learning and improving on what you have. If you are a performance person and you learn your golden has upright shoulders and a straight upper arm, that all of a sudden explains why when they are heeling that they want to swing wide, forge, etc. The degree of the issue will have an affect on the problems that you see with them structurally. So, now you know what those look and feel like so the next time you get a new puppy, you can overcome that obstacle or when you are looking at stud dogs, you can look for a dog who has a better front to improve on what you already have.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I did a CCA on Tito after he was already a CH, and it was fascinating. I learned a ton of stuff about him, especially for future breeding, that I never would have learned just in the show ring. When bitches' owners call me to discuss his strengths and weaknesses, I am able to honestly and objectively discuss whether he will compliment their bitch and their breeding intentions.
That said, I have seen a few dogs pass a CCA that barely resemble goldens. I think some of the evaluators just hate to "fail" anyone. They give a 75 rather than fail the dog....
Also, the temperament test part of the CCA is a total joke. Just letting 3 dogs wander around, on leash, for a couple seconds isn't really a temperament test.


----------



## Mayve

HVG..

Awesome, that answered my questions. I appreciate you taking the time to type all that out.


----------



## kwhit

This is so interesting! I had never heard of the CCA. What a great learning tool for anyone interested in learning more about the Golden standard and also how it applies to their own dogs. They should have this with _every_ breed.

I also had a question on the CGC. Why are such young dogs allowed to get it? Is there an age limit? I would think that it would be better to get it when your dog is older because to me, that would make for a better and more honest evaluation. Am I off base on this? I've always thought that most dogs come into their personality as they get older and personalities can sometimes change. If you test a really young dog, is that a true evaluation of their adult temperament or do they have to re-test to get the title? I've always been curious about this.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Karen, I totally agree about the CGC, and also the evaluations for therapy dogs which are done at 1 year of age. The dogs should need to be "re-evaluated" every year, or at the very least, every-other-year, as their temperaments do differ over time.


----------



## Vhuynh2

hotel4dogs said:


> Karen, I totally agree about the CGC, and also the evaluations for therapy dogs which are done at 1 year of age. The dogs should need to be "re-evaluated" every year, or at the very least, every-other-year, as their temperaments do differ over time.


Is the CGC really a temperament test though? I thought of it as a training test. If a young puppy doesn't pass, most people will say because they are not mature enough and not very well trained yet.. it doesn't say anything about their temperament. Molly just got hers at 10 months. We may or may not retake it in the future. Regardless, we will be training for a long, long time. Those who plan on not doing any training after the CGC should probably wait until their dog is an adult to take the test. But for dogs in ongoing training, I don't see a problem with taking the test as a puppy. And, some competitive obedience trainers require passing the CGC as a prerequisite. Our trainer doesn't require it, but the class was really cheap and less than a mile away, so why not? I needed to get Molly's jumping under control, and I did, and we passed the test at the end of the course. Is there anything wrong with that? And since we ARE continuing training, I will not believe for one second that Molly might not be able to pass as an adult.


----------



## TheZ's

hotel4dogs said:


> Karen, I totally agree about the CGC, and also the evaluations for therapy dogs which are done at 1 year of age. The dogs should need to be "re-evaluated" every year, or at the very least, every-other-year, as their temperaments do differ over time.


Delta(Pet Partners) does require retesting every two years for participants in their therapy dog program and dogs under a certain age (1 year I think) are not eligible to participate. I think Delta is pretty unique in the retest requirement.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Sorry, the way I lumped the CGC and the Therapy dog tests together it appeared that I meant they are both temperament tests, and you are right, the CGC test is not at all. 
I didn't know the Delta Society required re-testing. Kudos to them!!! I haven't seen the goldens' temperaments change as much as some other breeds, but around 3 years old you see the "adult temperament" and evaluating dogs before that, without re-evaluating them, seems like poor practice.


----------



## kwhit

hotel4dogs said:


> Sorry, the way I lumped the CGC and the Therapy dog tests together it appeared that I meant they are both temperament tests, and you are right, the CGC test is not at all.


But isn't the CGC partly a test for a dog's acceptance of strangers and their tolerance of being handled by people they don't know? I would think that falls under temperament, or at least their demeanor. In the conformation ring, when a judge has to go over the dog, if that dog snaps or shows aggression, that dog would be excused because of an undesirable temperament, right? 

I know Chance wouldn't pass the CGC because he is fearful of new situations and that is his temperament. So, to me, it seems as if it could be somewhat of a temperament test of the dog's ability to handle new situations and people.


----------



## Loisiana

I feel the same way about conformation shows. What good does it do to give a Champion title to a puppy, when you haven't seen the finished result. Just because they're great as puppies doesn't mean it will hold true as an adult. I know in some breeds where being oversized is a big concern, people are getting their dogs out as soon as they turn six months, trying to get a CH before they have a chance to grow over standard.


----------



## DanaRuns

kwhit said:


> In the conformation ring, when a judge has to go over the dog, if that dog snaps or shows aggression, that dog would be excused because of an undesirable temperament, right?


You reminded me of something I've wondered about, and I hope someone here has the expertise to teach me.

In the conformation ring, I have occasionally seen Golden handlers ask the judge if it's okay if the handler opens the dogs mouth rather than having the judge do it. I presume that's so the dog doesn't bite the judge! The times I have seen that it confounded me, because a Golden shouldn't pose any risk, and I would think the mere request by the handler would make the judge reluctant to put up that dog. But if the judge can't examine the dog herself, shouldn't that dog be excused?


----------



## kwhit

DanaRuns said:


> In the conformation ring, I have occasionally seen Golden handlers ask the judge if it's okay if the handler opens the dogs mouth rather than having the judge do it. I presume that's so the dog doesn't bite the judge!


I've always thought it was due to not spreading disease. I wouldn't want a judge's hand in my dog's mouth if he just got through putting his hand in a lot of other dogs' mouths. Now I'm curious...


----------



## DanaRuns

kwhit said:


> I've always thought it was due to not spreading disease. I wouldn't want a judge's hand in my dog's mouth if he just got through putting his hand in a lot of other dogs' mouths. Now I'm curious...


Oh, good point! I hadn't even thought of that. :doh:


----------



## K9-Design

Oh it's definitely for disease prevention 
I can't imagine anyone showing a golden that wouldn't allow a judge to look at their teeth.


----------



## Vhuynh2

kwhit said:


> But isn't the CGC partly a test for a dog's acceptance of strangers and their tolerance of being handled by people they don't know? I would think that falls under temperament, or at least their demeanor. In the conformation ring, when a judge has to go over the dog, if that dog snaps or shows aggression, that dog would be excused because of an undesirable temperament, right?
> 
> I know Chance wouldn't pass the CGC because he is fearful of new situations and that is his temperament. So, to me, it seems as if it could be somewhat of a temperament test of the dog's ability to handle new situations and people.


I'm not an expert, but I would think if a dog suddenly exhibits these behaviors, a traumatic experience must have occurred, or there is a health problem to blame. I don't think that if a dog is used to meeting and being handled by strangers will suddenly develop aggression towards them for no reason at all. If it is truly in their temperament, there would be some indication when they were younger that they don't like strangers or being handled.


----------



## kwhit

Vhuynh2 said:


> I'm not an expert, but I would think if a dog suddenly exhibits these behaviors, a traumatic experience must have occurred, or there is a health problem to blame. I don't think that if a dog is used to meeting and being handled by strangers will suddenly develop aggression towards them for no reason at all. If it is truly in their temperament, there would be some indication when they were younger that they don't like strangers or being handled.


I've known quite a few dogs that as they matured, they became much more leery of strangers than they were as puppies without any traumatic experiences or health issues. Maybe hormones? I don't know why, but it happens. I know that Pits, if they're going to, generally come into being DA at around 2-3 years of age. So changes in temperament do happen without any outside circumstances. Maybe not often, but it happens.

As for happening suddenly, I don't really think that happens too often. IMO, It's usually due to the fact that most people have no idea how to read a dog's body language. Most of the time there have been a ton of signals being given by the dog that owners just don't pick up on. Then finally the dogs snaps when their signals have been ignored and everyone thinks it happened suddenly.


----------



## Vhuynh2

kwhit said:


> I've known quite a few dogs that as they matured, they became much more leery of strangers than they were as puppies without any traumatic experiences or health issues. Maybe hormones? I don't know why, but it happens. I know that Pits, if they're going to, generally come into being DA at around 2-3 years of age. So changes in temperament do happen without any outside circumstances. Maybe not often, but it happens.
> 
> As for happening suddenly, I don't really think that happens too often. IMO, It's usually due to the fact that most people have no idea how to read a dog's body language. Most of the time there have been a ton of signals being given by the dog that owners just don't pick up on. Then finally the dogs snaps when their signals have been ignored and everyone thinks it happened suddenly.


I think all puppies will become less enthusiastic to meet strangers when they get older. But as for leeriness or fearfulness (if not caused by an external factor), I think the pup would display shyness and/or a lack of confidence as a precursor to these behaviors, and then didn't receive the appropriate socialization as a puppy to mature into a confident adult. Maybe not, I don't know.

As for hormones, Molly took the test after her first heat.. So she is sexually mature... Or almost is?


----------



## hotel4dogs

In goldens I haven't seen a calm, outgoing puppy turn into a fearful, timid adult. But I have certainly seen a slightly hesitant puppy turn into a fearful, timid adult.
You do seem to see more changes in their attitudes toward other dogs rather than toward people. I've seen a LOT of people blame their dog's sudden change of attitude toward other dogs on an event, when it probably has more to do with maturity than anything else. A well socialized, genetiacally sound dog can take a lot of strange events (including being attacked by another dog) in stride. Not saying that there are no events that will cause them to become different, just that a sound dog can really take a lot with no changes in personality.


----------



## kwhit

hotel4dogs said:


> In goldens I haven't seen a calm, outgoing puppy turn into a fearful, timid adult. But I have certainly seen a slightly hesitant puppy turn into a fearful, timid adult.
> You do seem to see more changes in their attitudes toward other dogs rather than toward people.


Those are two really good points. I've seen attitude changes in Goldens toward other dogs, not people. But...I've seen it in Danes with both people and/or other dogs. One of mine included. He was socialized tremendously, actually went to work with me every day for the first 8 months or so. I worked in a pet store and different people came in every day. He loved everyone. Then he progressively got more and more leery of people, (maybe starting around 11 months old), until he was unpredictable. I worked with him _a lot_, but he never really got back to how he when he was younger. 

If he had taken the CGC test before he was about a year old he would have passed. After that, not a chance.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Honestly, I don't get what the big deal is with the CGC. It's a certificate.. It doesn't matter what it says on paper if your dog's temperament is not up to par. Does passing the CGC give your dog any special privileges? The therapy dog evaluation should definitely be given when the dog is an adult and then retested because they are going to be in situations where the temperament of a dog really does matter. The CGC is a just an exam that you pass and might not pass the next day depending on the circumstances. It is not a very thorough exam. The dog is not going into therapy work with a CGC. I guess when the owner of the dog believes no other training is needed after passing then there is a problem.


----------



## tippykayak

There's also the possibility of thyroid issues cropping up later in life, which can change behavior—particularly attitude towards strangers and other new experiences—dramatically.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Also, a male giant breed who matures way later than other dogs I can understand testing later. How about small and medium breeds and females? But still, I don't think it is a really big deal.


----------



## raqinmex

Those puppy mill photos are scary. I have a feeling our two new goldens were in similar conditions. It is beyond my understanding how they could continue to be such happy and loving animals after living like that. 

I don't care about their breeding, just that they are happy and healthy dogs. Well, a bit skinny at the moment, but with Mom and dad cooking for them they'll quite a lot bigger very soon.


----------



## TheZ's

Vhuynh2 said:


> Honestly, I don't get what the big deal is with the CGC. It's a certificate.. It doesn't matter what it says on paper if your dog's temperament is not up to par.* Does passing the CGC give your dog any special privileges? *The therapy dog evaluation should definitely be given when the dog is an adult and then retested because they are going to be in situations where the temperament of a dog really does matter. The CGC is a just an exam that you pass and might not pass the next day depending on the circumstances. It is not a very thorough exam.* The dog is not going into therapy work with a CGC. *I guess when the owner of the dog believes no other training is needed after passing then there is a problem.


It's my understanding that some settings where therapy dogs work require a CGC but not another certification. Each hospital, nursing home, school etc. will have it's own rules about what qualifications are required of a dog visiting there. You're right it's not terribly demanding but it does establish a certain level of temperament, socialization, and obedience to the handler. Many dogs could not pass it without lots of work.


----------



## kwhit

raqinmex said:


> Those puppy mill photos are scary.


They are scary, aren't they?  That's why it can't be said enough...*never buy as much as a dog biscuit in a shop that sells puppies.* If we all boycott them and never give them a penny of our money, they'll go out of business or stop selling mill puppies and start supporting rescues. It can be done, it will just take everyone being aware and getting involved.


----------



## Vhuynh2

TheZ's said:


> It's my understanding that some settings where therapy dogs work require a CGC but not another certification. Each hospital, nursing home, school etc. will have it's own rules about what qualifications are required of a dog visiting there. You're right it's not terribly demanding but it does establish a certain level of temperament, socialization, and obedience to the handler. Many dogs could not pass it without lots of work.


If that is the case they should make the CGC a more difficult test, or those facilities should really raise their standards. I know a lab who was 10 months and in therapy work. When did he get certified? At 8 weeks of age. And he does not have his CGC and probably can't pass it. I just don't think it is fair to say puppies should not be able to take the test because some facilities set low standards, *just like how I wouldn't ever say that 10 month old lab has no business doing therapy work*. The facilities allow it. Molly would definitely have an easier time passing when she is older and more mellowed out. At the most they should be required to retest. 


Sent from my iPhone using Petguide.com Free App


----------



## kwhit

Vhuynh2 said:


> At the most they should be required to retest.


Actually, the AKC suggests to have dogs re-tested when they get older. Here's an excerpt from their site:

"There is no age limit for the CGC test. A dog is never too old to be a good citizen. Puppies who have completed all immunizations and boosters may be tested, however, because we know that behavior and temperament can change over time, when puppies pass the CGC test, owners should have them re-tested as adults."


----------



## Vhuynh2

kwhit said:


> Actually, the AKC suggests to have dogs re-tested when they get older. Here's an excerpt from their site:
> 
> "There is no age limit for the CGC test. A dog is never too old to be a good citizen. Puppies who have completed all immunizations and boosters may be tested, however, because we know that behavior and temperament can change over time, when puppies pass the CGC test, owners should have them re-tested as adults."


Yes.. I am aware of that.. Thank you.. That is why I said at the most they should be retested and not be barred from taking it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Petguide.com Free App


----------



## raqinmex

kwhit said:


> They are scary, aren't they?  That's why it can't be said enough...*never buy as much as a dog biscuit in a shop that sells puppies.* If we all boycott them and never give them a penny of our money, they'll go out of business or stop selling mill puppies and start supporting rescues. It can be done, it will just take everyone being aware and getting involved.




I'm in. So far I have donated a $300 gift to a local animal shelter for a raffle. Will be donating an unwanted crate, and paid extra on our adoption fee for our two new babies. Oh yes, donated all my european and south american shoes and handbags to a charity for a woman who spent her life caring for dogs and is now in a nursing home, penniless.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Since the AKC insisted on making the CGC a title rather than a certificate, it does need to have some consistent rules about what is and is not passing behavior.


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> Not saying that there are no events that will cause them to become different, just that a sound dog can really take a lot with no changes in personality.


I do agree here. It's obviously really complicated, so I wouldn't take a fearful adult as proof, per se, that the dog had below-average stability of temperament, but I think one of the defining characteristics of "good temperament" is that the dog is relatively durable in the face of bad experiences—not hard-headed necessarily, but durable. There are plenty of dogs who are soft to correction who have very stable temperaments when it comes to new experiences and scary experiences.


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> Since the AKC insisted on making the CGC a title rather than a certificate, it does need to have some consistent rules about what is and is not passing behavior.


Do you mean more specific guidelines about what constitutes a passing or failing behavior? I agree that the current guidelines are sometimes a bit unclear on exactly what the dog has to show in order to pass the item.

That said, the CGC exams I've been at have not passed dogs who behaved inappropriately on any test items.


----------



## Loisiana

Vhuynh2 said:


> Honestly, I don't get what the big deal is with the CGC. It's a certificate.. It doesn't matter what it says on paper if your dog's temperament is not up to par. Does passing the CGC give your dog any special privileges? The therapy dog evaluation should definitely be given when the dog is an adult and then retested because they are going to be in situations where the temperament of a dog really does matter. The CGC is a just an exam that you pass and might not pass the next day depending on the circumstances. It is not a very thorough exam. The dog is not going into therapy work with a CGC. I guess when the owner of the dog believes no other training is needed after passing then there is a problem.


I've heard of many uses for the CGC, including insurance only covering "dangerous breeds" if they have a CGC, or housing only allowing dog's who have passed.


----------



## tippykayak

I've definitely used my guys' CGCs as selling points when I'm trying to persuade vacation rentals that don't allow dogs that they should make an exception for mine. Between that, their breed, and the fact that I usually offer a double security deposit, about 75% of them will bend their rules for my boys.

I love the CGC for being a very attainable goal for people like me. It gives you a great set of skills for a companion dog to have, a great goal to structure a class around, and an great benchmark for showing your dog has a stable temperament and solid training.

There's certainly some reform that could help it meet those qualities even better, like more precise rules for passing, tighter restrictions on instructors helping dogs pass, and some other stuff that might rule out manipulation or easy passes for dogs who aren't "good citizens," but overall it's a wonderful program.

I don't see why it's getting converted to a title rather than a certification, since you're not competing against other dogs for it nor asking a dog to perform under the same kinds of conditions that they have to in shows and trials, but I'm also not complaining about having "titled" dogs.


----------



## Shalva

tippykayak said:


> I don't see why it's getting converted to a title rather than a certification, since you're not competing against other dogs for it nor asking a dog to perform under the same kinds of conditions that they have to in shows and trials, but I'm also not complaining about having "titled" dogs.


Remember in most obedience you are not competing against other dogs ... sure there are placements but a qualifying score is a qualifying score regardless of whether you get a placement or not.. only in OTCH's and a few others are you actually competing against anyone else... 

I think the title allows the CGC to be recognized at the end of a dogs name and encourages people to go on once they see those letters... CGC to BN to CD to GN to CDX they are trying to make the steps smaller and more attainable and raise money... if you want the title of CGC you need to pay like 15 bucks


----------



## Vhuynh2

tippykayak said:


> I've definitely used my guys' CGCs as selling points when I'm trying to persuade vacation rentals that don't allow dogs that they should make an exception for mine. Between that, their breed, and the fact that I usually offer a double security deposit, about 75% of them will bend their rules for my boys.
> 
> I love the CGC for being a very attainable goal for people like me. It gives you a great set of skills for a companion dog to have, a great goal to structure a class around, and an great benchmark for showing your dog has a stable temperament and solid training.
> 
> There's certainly some reform that could help it meet those qualities even better, like more precise rules for passing, tighter restrictions on instructors helping dogs pass, and some other stuff that might rule out manipulation or easy passes for dogs who aren't "good citizens," but overall it's a wonderful program.
> 
> I don't see why it's getting converted to a title rather than a certification, since you're not competing against other dogs for it nor asking a dog to perform under the same kinds of conditions that they have to in shows and trials, but I'm also not complaining about having "titled" dogs.


It's getting converted into a title probably so the AKC can make money. It costs more for a title. You can still pay less for the certificate option. 

I love the program too; I just don't think there should be an age requirement not allowing puppies to take it. The reason I think that way is because it forces the owner to really work on issues that should be addressed ASAP. All owners should begin training their pups to pass all 10 items starting from day 1.


----------



## tippykayak

I think the potential difficulty of passing the CGC goes up and down over a dog's age. It's certainly easiest with a fully grown and matured dog (barring late-onset health or temperament changes), but with my guys, it would probably have been easier in the 6-9 month period than in the 15-20 month period. So I think there's a drop in difficulty from 8 weeks (essentially impossible) to about 9 months (potentially doable, depending on the dog), and then the difficulty graph starts going back up, peaks during the adolescent phase, and then drops off after that.


----------



## Sally's Mom

My Samantha got her CGC at around seven months. She would still pass today. Her brother, George, flunked the first time, would still pass today. In fact both dogs still get passing scores in the obedience ring at 10.5 years. As I look at all of my dogs with CGC's, they would still pass regardless as they are not any less trained. 

I do agree, that with maturity comes the real temperament that you will see... But in a golden, especially, you are not going to get a dog that goes from having a terrific temperament to being a freak.

Personally, I hold more value in real obedience titles, not rally, not CGC. The CGC to me is a stepping stone to further learning....and titles.


----------



## tippykayak

Sally's Mom said:


> Personally, I hold more value in real obedience titles, not rally, not CGC. The CGC to me is a stepping stone to further learning....and titles.


Me too, though some folks will say that CGC is harder to get than a CD. Not having gotten a CD, I don't yet have an opinion on the subject.


----------



## Vhuynh2

tippykayak said:


> I think the potential difficulty of passing the CGC goes up and down over a dog's age. It's certainly easiest with a fully grown and matured dog (barring late-onset health or temperament changes), but with my guys, it would probably have been easier in the 6-9 month period than in the 15-20 month period. So I think there's a drop in difficulty from 8 weeks (essentially impossible) to about 9 months (potentially doable, depending on the dog), and then the difficulty graph starts going back up, peaks during the adolescent phase, and then drops off after that.


Molly would not have passed at 6-9 months for sure. She was a jumper and we only got that under control literally one week before the exam at 10.5 months... It does depend on the dog and what their "weaknesses" are because for Molly it was over excited greetings with strangers.


----------



## kwhit

Vhuynh2 said:


> Also, a male giant breed who matures way later than other dogs...


Physically, yes. But I think all males mature mentally at about the same rate...late. 



tippykayak said:


> It's obviously really complicated, so I wouldn't take a fearful adult as proof, per se, that the dog had below-average stability of temperament, but I think one of the defining characteristics of "good temperament" is that the dog is relatively durable in the face of bad experiences—


You know, you actually made me think differently of Chance's temperament because of this post. He shies away from anything/anyone new, but has a great disposition. When we first had him he was in a lot of pain because his previous owners didn't have him on any pain meds for his ED. He could hardly put any weight on his right leg. 

On the first night with us he was sleeping in our living room and my daughter was dancing around in there. Well, she tripped and fell right on top of his bad leg. :yuck: He woke up startled and went limping into the other room. It must have been so painful for him, yet he didn't snap at her or anything like that. My daughter started crying and Chance heard her. He immediately came over to her and kissed her face.

So even though he would never pass the CGC, I do believe his temperament is wonderful. 



Vhuynh2 said:


> It's getting converted into a title probably so the AKC can make money...I just don't think there should be an age requirement not allowing puppies to take it...


I don't think anyone said that puppies shouldn't be allowed to take it, only that it may not give a clear indication of the dog's adult temperament. And if it's to make money for the AKC, (which I agree it probably is), then maybe there should be different tests for different ages and the title is only given to the dog when the adult age appropriate test is passed. 



Sally's Mom said:


> I do agree, that with maturity comes the real temperament that you will see... But in a golden, especially, you are not going to get a dog that goes from having a terrific temperament to being a freak.


But you could very well have this happen in a Working Breed. Maybe not a "freak", but definitely there could be some changes.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Lots of great discussion here!
I haven't been to a CGC test for a few years, but the last one I went to, some of the dogs that were allowed to pass should not have, no way, no how.


----------



## Sally's Mom

No way, no how will anyone convince me that a CGC is harder to attain than a CD. My Can Ch Celebrations Taking Liberties CGC is no where close to getting a CD from Novice B. she walks respectfully on a leash, stays, etc. She does not heel which she would need to do to,get a CD. If I want to prove trainability, mine get straight up obedience titles....


----------



## Loisiana

It really just depends on what a particular dog's issues are. My first golden failed her first CGC because every time the evaluator would pick up a paw, she would flip over on her back. Yet the next month she got her first CD leg. She always hated having her paws messed with, and paws arent touched in obedience.

Other dogs can't handle having their owner go out of sight. Something else not needed for a CD.


----------



## GoldensGirl

My thanks to everyone who has contributed to making this thread informative and to keeping the tone positive. I am delighted to make it a sticky, as tippykayak suggested.


----------



## Roushbabe

After taking the time to read through this thread, I too am very thankful for all the information that has been explained and discussed. One thing I might suggest is a explanation of all the titles everyone is throwing out there. As a novice in this area, I had to use Google for help and found a great site with some descriptions to help me understand what you all were talking about. On the other hand, I guess if people were really into showing they should already know these prefix titles.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Roushbabe, that site is great.


----------



## Selli-Belle

tippykayak said:


> I do agree here. It's obviously really complicated, so I wouldn't take a fearful adult as proof, per se, that the dog had below-average stability of temperament, but I think one of the defining characteristics of "good temperament" is that the dog is relatively durable in the face of bad experiences—not hard-headed necessarily, but durable. There are plenty of dogs who are soft to correction who have very stable temperaments when it comes to new experiences and scary experiences.


I don't think that "softness" on the training front is necessarily correlated to a timid or neophobic dog. A dog who is timid may (or may be far more likely to be) also be soft in training, but the reverse is far from true. In working dogs they separate the concept of "nerve" or "steadiness" from the concept of "soft/hard" in training. I think that distinction is useful here. A dog can have "strong nerve" or extreme "steadiness" but be "soft" and I think this is where most Goldens are especially in comparison to working breeds like GSDs and Malinois (hmmmm....what is the plural of Malinois?).


----------



## tippykayak

Selli-Belle said:


> I don't think that "softness" on the training front is necessarily correlated to a timid or neophobic dog. A dog who is timid may (or may be far more likely to be) also be soft in training, but the reverse is far from true. In working dogs they separate the concept of "nerve" or "steadiness" from the concept of "soft/hard" in training. I think that distinction is useful here. A dog can have "strong nerve" or extreme "steadiness" but be "soft" and I think this is where most Goldens are especially in comparison to working breeds like GSDs and Malinois (hmmmm....what is the plural of Malinois?).


I totally agree, since I have both a fairly hard/very steady dog and a very soft/ very steady dog.


----------



## Selli-Belle

As to the CCA, I agree it is an extremely valuable teaching tool, but I also think it is a valuable tool for breeding decisions.

From what HVgoldens posted about the CCA program taken from the GRCA website *

The purposes of the CCA program are to (a) provide a noncompetitive
means of evaluating and scoring the conformation
qualities of individual Golden Retrievers against the Breed
Standard (as opposed to a competitive “dog-to-dog” comparison
as in dog show competition).

*If someone (i.e., Me) has a Golden that is not a show type dog, or even if they are from show lines but has something about them that would mean they are not likely to win in the ring (for example, my girl has what the CCA evaluators considered a "working" coat, which is perfectly acceptable in the standard, but realistically would not win in the ring), but they want have an independent certification that that dog does conform to the standard before they decide, or to help them decide, if they want to breed their dog.

In addition, although a passing score in the CCA is 75 from three evaluators (yes there are other restrictions in that score), a dog can get three 75s or they can get three 99s, so there is a way to get more information about how closely a dog conforms to the standard through the CCA.

Finally, to the point that some dogs people do not think should pass do pass since evaluators do not fail dogs, that is a problem with the evaluator and as time goes by with the club that asks that evaluator to be part of their CCA evaluation. When my girl got her CCA, maybe a third of the dogs that day passed. Granted, the evaluators were known as being sticklers and not at all likely to pass a dog to prevent hurting someone's feelings. One dog failed the temperament portion of the test due to timidity during the individual evaluations.

In short, I think the CCA program is an amazing educational program, but it CAN also be useful as a tool to independently evaluate potential breeding dogs.

Note, although my girl did pass her CCA, I decided not to breed her.


----------



## Swampcollie

Correct Temperament is another concept that is difficult for people to grasp and understand. As referenced earlier in this thread the breed standard states 


*Temperament *-- friendly, reliable and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility toward other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character. 

Getting the temperament correct is one of the most difficult challenges if not the most difficult challenge a breeder faces. I'll put it very bluntly, there are a LOT of Golden Retrievers that lack correct temperament. To get the temperament right, the breeder first must have a thorough understanding of the breed, its' purpose and reason for being. The breed standard quite prominently states in the very first paragraph the breeds intended purpose, "Primarily a Hunting Dog". At no time does the breed standard describe a Golden Retriever as calm, gentle or laid back. 

A Golden Retriever with correct temperament will possess great courage and still have a little streak of mean and nasty buried in its personality. A streak of "hostility" being correct? For a Golden? Yes, it is an essential element to the Golden Retrievers personality. Look to the purpose stated in the breed standard for the golden retriever, this is supposed to be a hunting dog. That means it will encounter wounded game as part of doing its job. The dog has to chase down, get in there and do what is necessary to subdue the prey and return it to the hunter. A large goose is a formidable opponent for a Golden, nearly 1/4 of the dogs size. A Golden Retriever is not really a large dog so it needs ample attitude and courage to be successful in doing its job.

Getting all of the essential personality traits together, and in the proper proportions, is what gives a dog "Correct" temperament for the breed. 

It is very very hard for a breeder to get the temperament right and maintain it over the long term in successive generations. You're always making slight adjustments to keep the balance. 

It is NOT easy. 
​


----------



## Selli-Belle

A Golden does not need a "mean streak" to subdue a goose, it needs to know its job and be willing to do it. Courage and attitude do not necessarily combine to make "mean." After killing the goose, the dog must naturally bring it back in its mouth without leaving a mark, that is not a dog with a "mean streak." Hostility toward prey seems to be to a meaningless idea since the ability to subdue prey is actually prey drive and has no necessary relationship to the dog's attitude about anything else.

The first sentence of the standard states in part (and before "primarily a hunting dog") *displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. *I believe the "displaying a kindly expression" implies that the dog is kind and kindness includes attributes like gentleness at least.

So the terms used in the standard to describe temperament are KINDLY, EAGER, ALERT, SELF-CONFIDENT, FRIENDLY, RELIABLE and TRUSTWORTHY. no suggestion of meanness or nastiness.


----------



## hotel4dogs

The field pro that we train under says that, of the retrieving breeds, the goldens are the least likely to start a dog fight....and the most likely to see it thru to the end if one does start.


----------



## solinvictus

A Golden does not need a "mean streak" to subdue a goose, it needs to know its job and be willing to do it. Courage and attitude do not necessarily combine to make "mean." After killing the goose, the dog must naturally bring it back in its mouth without leaving a mark, that is not a dog with a "mean streak."

I do believe you have said this better.  I would add determination.


----------



## Swampcollie

Selli-Belle said:


> So the terms used in the standard to describe temperament are KINDLY, EAGER, ALERT, SELF-CONFIDENT, FRIENDLY, RELIABLE and TRUSTWORTHY. no suggestion of meanness or nastiness.


Well, read the standard again.

The standard does not say that the dog shall demonstrate NO hostility of any kind. It states the dog should show no hostility towards humans or other dogs. 
If you're a duck, pheasant or goose you're perspective is quite different is it not. From the perspective of the prey animal, the dog is extremely hostile, as it should be. 

What it comes down to is this, when the dog reaches a wounded bird and the bird flaps and prepares itself for a fight, the dog is presented with a choice. Do I square off and go in after it, or do I shy away and return to the hunter without it. In that split second where the dog is making its decision, critical elements of its temperament are revealed. Are you a hunting dog or not? 

There are a LOT of Goldens that will shy away, and return to their handler without attempting to pick up the bird. These dogs do NOT possess correct temperament for a Golden Retriever.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I think the problem is the negative connotation of the words "mean", "hostile", or "nasty".
I call the traits you are describing "courageous" and "perserverance", not mean nor hostile.
And as you said, a golden certainly must possess both courage and perserverance to be a good hunting dog, and to be true to the original purpose of the breed.
It is sad to see a golden (or lab) refuse to chase down or pick up a cripple. 
That's the only time I've seen Tito injure or kill a bird; when it's just wing nicked or barely crippled; but I don't think of it as him being mean or hostile. I think of him doing the job he was sent out to do, which is bring the bird back. If the bird is putting up a big fight and he has to give it the "death squeeze" to get it back, so be it.



Swampcollie said:


> Well, read the standard again.
> 
> The standard does not say that the dog shall demonstrate NO hostility of any kind. It states the dog should show no hostility towards humans or other dogs.
> If you're a duck, pheasant or goose you're perspective is quite different is it not. From the perspective of the prey animal, the dog is extremely hostile, as it should be.
> 
> What it comes down to is this, when the dog reaches a wounded bird and the bird flaps and prepares itself for a fight, the dog is presented with a choice. Do I square off and go in after it, or do I shy away and return to the hunter without it. In that split second where the dog is making its decision, critical elements of its temperament are revealed. Are you a hunting dog or not?
> 
> There are a LOT of Goldens that will shy away, and return to their handler without attempting to pick up the bird. These dogs do NOT possess correct temperament for a Golden Retriever.


----------



## solinvictus

The word mean still doesn't fit. I don't believe hostility fits either. 

Predatory skills. 
Excellent working hunt and prey drive and will use his/her predatory skills as needed to complete the job intended.


----------



## hvgoldens4

Selli-Belle said:


> As to the CCA, I agree it is an extremely valuable teaching tool, but I also think it is a valuable tool for breeding decisions.
> 
> 
> Finally, to the point that some dogs people do not think should pass do pass since evaluators do not fail dogs, that is a problem with the evaluator and as time goes by with the club that asks that evaluator to be part of their CCA evaluation. When my girl got her CCA, maybe a third of the dogs that day passed. Granted, the evaluators were known as being sticklers and not at all likely to pass a dog to prevent hurting someone's feelings. One dog failed the temperament portion of the test due to timidity during the individual evaluations.
> 
> In short, I think the CCA program is an amazing educational program, but it CAN also be useful as a tool to independently evaluate potential breeding dogs.
> 
> Note, although my girl did pass her CCA, I decided not to breed her.


I am not quite sure who said that evaluators won't fail dogs. I absolutely disagree with this. The program was not put out there to give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling. I am an evaluator and if I felt the dog being presented to me did not meet the minimum standards allowed for in the CCA, I would have no problem with not giving the dog a passing score. There are also disqualifications for bite and height, like there are in the standard and of course, for temperament.


----------



## sterregold

I think what Swampy is trying to get at is not hostility in that sense of a teenager with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight, but that soldierly attitude of getting the job done--that involves some prey aggression. And I think the other component of the point that he is making is that that sort of drive SHOULD be present in a Golden RETRIEVER, and should be a consideration in making breeding decisions. It is supposed to be a hunting dog, not a lounge-around-on-the-couch dog (although they do excel at that!) And if breeding individuals are being selected for calm passivity then we are losing something that is essential to retaining the characteristics of the breed as a gundog. More and more, I try to select for working drive in my breedings, and I have had people ask, "Well how do you place those dogs in pet homes?" Frankly, I do not place a dog of that breeding solely as a companion. I place them with people who want to do something with them. And when I get inquiries looking for "just a companion for around the house" I am clear that that is not what I am producing, and that it is not what a Golden is meant to be in my interpretation of the standard. It might be what people want, I just don't think it is what the breed is supposed to be. Are my dogs good companions in my home? Yes, but they are because of the training and activity and work that they get, and the same goes for my puppy families now.


----------



## GoldensGirl

sterregold said:


> I think what Swampy is trying to get at is not hostility in that sense of a teenager with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight, but that soldierly attitude of getting the job done--that involves some prey aggression. And I think the other component of the point that he is making is that that sort of drive SHOULD be present in a Golden RETRIEVER, and should be a consideration in making breeding decisions. It is supposed to be a hunting dog, not a lounge-around-on-the-couch dog (although they do excel at that!) And if breeding individuals are being selected for calm passivity then we are losing something that is essential to retaining the characteristics of the breed as a gundog. ...


I have deep respect for all of the breeders who post here, not to mention gratitude that the thread remains a discussion of important issues while still being constructive. And I am struggling to find the right way to say what I feel to compelled to say in response to this. I hope you'll bear with me and not take offense.

Is it time to reconsider the idea that Goldens are "gun dogs"? How many members of the breed actually live that life now? My guess - and it is only that - is that if you polled the GRF members and the thousands who read but do not post, you would find that most Goldens today are pets who hold down a couch...who have never been near a gun and never will... that most retrieve tennis balls, not birds. Is that bad, or is it a reflection of this century instead of the last one? Or at least of urban life in this century? If Goldens continue to be bred as gun dogs, does that mean that more and more will be unsuited to the homes they inhabit and thus end up in shelters? Or do we somehow need to move towards two breeds, one of which is bred for hunters and the other for home life? 

I honestly don't know what to make of this, but I hope that nobody will be offended by having the questions asked. I realize that the breed standard belongs to many, many people who are not represented here and that breeders are bound to that standard, but there must be a way to make the standard responsive to the changing needs of the breed and the times.

With abiding love for the dogs and deep respect and regard for all concerned,
Lucy


----------



## hotel4dogs

Lucy, a very valid question. I believe it was Shelly that wrote an outstanding article that explains why the same traits that make goldens good gun dogs/hunting dogs also make them outstanding family pets. (Sorry if I have the wrong author).
I don't remember a lot of what it said, but things like their intelligence, trainability, gentle mouth, non-reactivity (is that a word?) to loud noises, ability to get along with other dogs (in hunting, they will often be with other dogs they don't know, and they have to get along!), and there was a lot more, make them such great family dogs.
The goldens, as gun/hunting dogs, aren't very reactive to pain. That's pretty valuable around small children who tend to accidentally hurt them. A good hunting dog has an "off" switch, too. Think of a dog in a duck blind, they can't be jumping around, barking, acting like idiots all day. They sit quietly until told to GO, and then they pour their heart out into it until they return with the bird....then they sit quietly again. 
Good hunting dogs are pretty quiet. They don't bark endlessly for no reason. 
More thoughts....a good hunting dog has to have an outgoing, confident nature. No fearfulness, fear aggression, skittishness, and so on. They are happy, eager, confident dogs if they are going to succeed in the field.
While they are a very mouthy breed, they don't tend to chew up furniture and drywall like some breeds do. They learn easily what is and is not an appropriate chew item. Another characteristic necessary in a good hunting dog.
Even their willingness to retrieve things endlessly makes them wonderful pets, especially for families with children who just love to play with them.
I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this. But the traits that we value in the goldens do derive from their hunting background.
As a final thought, and yes this is going to sound like a brag, but...Tito is a fantastic hunting dog according to the people who have hunted over him. Everyone enjoys him and they often comment that most guys would give a lot to hunt over a dog like him. But he is also the easiest dog I have ever lived with. So yes, in a well bred dog, you certainly can, and should, have the traits that make a fine hunter even if the dog never hunts. And I think of Tito as the "norm" in a well bred golden, not the exception.
Now the dogs being bred to run field trials (which don't resemble hunting very much), well, that's another whole discussion. No where in the golden standard does it say "primarily a field trial dog".


----------



## solinvictus

Is it time to reconsider the idea that Goldens are "gun dogs"

My opinion only but no it is not a good idea to reconsider Goldens are "gun dogs".

What makes a golden retriever is the standard and being a gun dog is part of that standard.

I won't be good at explaining this as I am not an expert in science so..........

FORM follows FUNCTION

Form- The outer appearance of the dog. The total structure.
Function- what the dog has been bred to do.

If you change the function of the dog different genes will come into play and will change the look and behavior of the dog.

Over time all the things that we love about Golden Retrievers could be changed.

At this point genes can't all be picked one by one. The one that picks for the proper tail may also be connected to the how bidable the dog will be. So it is possible that if we pick for a couch potato dog we over time may end up with a dog that looks like a different dog all together. And will also act totally different.


----------



## sterregold

GoldensGirl said:


> I have deep respect for all of the breeders who post here, not to mention gratitude that the thread remains a discussion of important issues while still being constructive. And I am struggling to find the right way to say what I feel to compelled to say in response to this. I hope you'll bear with me and not take offense.
> 
> Is it time to reconsider the idea that Goldens are "gun dogs"? How many members of the breed actually live that life now? My guess - and it is only that - is that if you polled the GRF members and the thousands who read but do not post, you would find that most Goldens today are pets who hold down a couch...who have never been near a gun and never will... that most retrieve tennis balls, not birds. Is that bad, or is it a reflection of this century instead of the last one? Or at least of urban life in this century? If Goldens continue to be bred as gun dogs, does that mean that more and more will be unsuited to the homes they inhabit and thus end up in shelters? Or do we somehow need to move towards two breeds, one of which is bred for hunters and the other for home life?
> 
> I honestly don't know what to make of this, but I hope that nobody will be offended by having the questions asked. I realize that the breed standard belongs to many, many people who are not represented here and that breeders are bound to that standard, but there must be a way to make the standard responsive to the changing needs of the breed and the times.
> 
> With abiding love for the dogs and deep respect and regard for all concerned,
> Lucy


No offense taken. There are still many Goldens who are hunted over. Mine are, and I have at least 6 friends with Goldens in just my corner of Ontario who hunt over their Goldens. Get into Wisconsin and Minnesota and you will find a real hotbed of practical Golden gundogs. To me, part of what makes creates the breed type in attitude, intelligence and temperament is its working purpose--type is not just defined by physical conformation. *If we take away those behavioural and prey drive elements we have a different breed.* Keeping that drive is maintaining the integrity of the breed.

I would rather see fewer Goldens bred, than see us change the breed to suit a home that cannot channel that working energy that makes a well-bred Golden not only a good hunting partner, but also an excellent prospect for obedience, agility, tracking, SAR work, and service dog work. In many respects, the breed was in better shape before it became so popular, I am afraid. I do place dogs with families who have children, but they are active families, dedicated to providing appropriate training and outlets for that energy. Not all opf them hunt, but they are active as hikers, or do agility etc. That is where the breeder's responsibility comes in in placing their pups appropriately. I have turned three families away already from the wait list for my next litter because of this. I also have a nice wait list of homes who understand what they will need as well.  My dogs are not "crazy" but a dog like my Bonnie has the drive and determination to get the job done no matter what is in her way--first cripple she ever saw she tackled--and she was 9 months old. She has received significant training from the time she was tiny, and so have the three siblings, who are also in homes experienced with working lines. Even so she ate my Blackberry and finds interesting ways to get herself into trouble. If she had been in a home which provided less structure and guidance she would have taken over!

Just some additional food for thought: we do not seem to have the same pressure to soften the temperament in working/guardian breeds. We accept that they are going to be stronger headed, and need significant training and leadership to channel their innate behaviours appropriately. But we do not see a big demand there to change the temperament to suit a non-working home. Just something interesting to me.


----------



## TheZ's

From Hotel4Dogs:* "Now the dogs being bred to run field trials (which don't resemble hunting very much), well, that's another whole discussion. No where in the golden standard does it say "primarily a field trial dog".

*Don't people looking for a Golden for hunting like to see FC's and AFC's in the pedigree? What am I missing?


----------



## sterregold

TheZ's said:


> From Hotel4Dogs:* "Now the dogs being bred to run field trials (which don't resemble hunting very much), well, that's another whole discussion. No where in the golden standard does it say "primarily a field trial dog".*
> 
> Don't people looking for a Golden for hunting like to see FC's and AFC's in the pedigree? What am I missing?


Some hunters want to see those FT titles, others want to see at least a load of MH's. The FT's themselves have generally gone beyond the realm of what you would encounter in a normal day's hunt, but the qualities which those dogs must possess to be successful in the FT game also tend to make dogs which have the perserverance and water courage to get the job done in really challenging hunting conditions. I would say that most FT bred Goldens I know are not over the top crazy maniacs--because a dog that wild has difficulty focusing, which is a definite detriment with marks as long as you see in FTs. But the mental and physical toughness that some of them have that makes them such good hunting dogs can also make them a real challenge to an inexperienced trainer/handler.


----------



## Selli-Belle

For the last year I have decided that rather than being the ideal family dogs, Goldens should be thought of as the dog for ideal families!

I loved Hotel4Dogs post.....LOVED IT!

I do think the attributes that make Goldens great personal hunting dogs is what makes them great pets as long as they get what they need, i.e., training and exercise and I do think getting enough training and exercise makes them calm, laid-back, gentle dogs. (more than puppy classes and at least 1 1/2 hours off leash running at least 5 out of 7 days a week).


----------



## kwhit

sterregold said:


> Just some additional food for thought: we do not seem to have the same pressure to soften the temperament in working/guardian breeds. We accept that they are going to be stronger headed, and need significant training and leadership to channel their innate behaviours appropriately. *But we do not see a big demand there to change the temperament to suit a non-working home.*


Really? Maybe due to the fact that the early breeders have already taken care of it. You honestly think the temperament of a Dane or let's say a Doberman hasn't been softened? Dobies were maniacs in the earlier days and Danes were extremely aggressive. Breeders through the years have absolutely softened their temperaments. If they didn't, they would not be suitable to live with us. Danes were _not_ the "Gentle Giants" they are today. True, most working breeds are protective and have strong temperaments, but to say that there's no demand to change their temperaments is misleading. That demand was already met years ago when there was definitely a demand for it. 

And still to this day, Dane breeders consistently strive to breed temperaments that are gentle and predictable. If not, you'd have a 170 lb. liability on your hands. I also don't know of many Danes that hunt wild boar, which is what they were originally bred for. Most are family pets and are _now_ well suited to that role.


----------



## sterregold

There are some people are who are starting to use Danes for hunting wild hogs again now that there is a growing problem with them in the US--and they are good at it! And I have seen that side turn on in a Dane at a show--it picked a fight with a Newfy and it was a doozy for the handlers to break up. My handler friend who bred my Cavalier started in dogs with his parents who bred Danes, and he is quite open that they did have dogs who while stable, were also game. There is a big difference between situational aggression, and just generalized reactivity, and that quest for stabilization was not just a recent thing. They may not be as ferocious as in the old old days, but that prey drive can still be present. 

I also do not think the pressure to soften the temperaments of working breeds is to the degree or extent that we have been seeing with the split in Goldens. I have met too many Goldens now who are lumps of blonde fur. Just dull, and lacking in personality and joie de vivre. I am seeing this in the ring, and I am seeing it at hunt tests.


----------



## kwhit

sterregold said:


> There are some people are who are starting to use Danes for hunting wild hogs again now that there is a growing problem with them in the US--and they are good at it!...


I've been involved in Danes for 39 years and I've yet to meet anyone who hunts boar with their Dane. Now on my board, there are I think 3 people who hunt with their dog. This is out of over 20,000 members worldwide. The percentage is miniscule. 



sterregold said:


> And I have seen that side turn on in a Dane at a show--it picked a fight with a Newfy and it was a doozy for the handlers to break up.


Well, yeah...of course it was a doozy to break up. You probably had over 350 lbs. of dog involved. Every breed has the capability to fight and every breed will fight. Just when 2 Giants go at it, it's a lot more obvious, so to speak. I guarantee you that the "olden" Danes would not have been capable of being around that many dogs at a time as you encounter at a show. Their temperaments would never have allowed that type of interaction. 




sterregold said:


> I also do not think the pressure to soften the temperaments of working breeds is to the degree or extent that we have been seeing with the split in Goldens.


I disagree. All the responsible breeders of working breeds have a tremendous amount of pressure to continually keep their breeds' temperaments stable. In fact, all breeds are pressured in this way. Dogs have to live in a society that is much, much more populated than before. They _have to have_ a softer temperament unless you want your breed to be obliterated by breed bans. The majority of dogs are family pets. That's the reality. "Family pet" equals a softer temperament...for all breeds. 




sterregold said:


> I have met too many Goldens now who are lumps of blonde fur.


Well, I love my "lump of blonde fur" as I'm sure many others on this board do as well.


----------



## sterregold

I love my lump, too, she is almost 11 and I hope she is here years more. She is an easy keeper who never wrecks a thing, but she does not have the working attitude or biddability that she should. She didn't like to show. She hates birds. She worked only for food! She did not clear and so was never bred, and in retrospect I think that was for the best as a key part of the bigger picture was missing with her.
My drivey dogs still have stable temperaments. So do the dogs of my friends who do schutzhund work. I agree that any dog who has to work as a partner with people has to have a stable temperament. I just don't think we need to sacrifice the working temperament of a breed that is _is still doing its intended job_ to make them easier to keep any more than most of us would think it appropriate to set out to breed a 110 lb Golden or a 20 lb Golden because people wanted it.


----------



## kwhit

sterregold said:


> I just don't think we need to sacrifice the working temperament of a breed that is _is still doing its intended job_ to make them easier to keep...


In a world that exclusively used the different breeds for the purposes that they were originally intended to perform, your statement would have no argument from me. But...in reality, the majority of dogs do _not_ perform in their original roles...they are family pets. If original temperaments were kept intact with no modifications, there would be few breeds that would be able to fulfill a pet/companion status and I really don't think everyone here would want a Pug, (I would, though. ) 

Should only hunters own Goldens, Labs, Poodles, Wolfhounds? That is, after all, their intended purpose, right? Only boar hunters own Danes? Only ranchers own Border Collies? The list could go on and on and on. By taking their original temperaments down a few notches, many breeds can now live contently as companions. There will always be those Goldens with a higher drive, but does it have to be _all_ Goldens? 

I guess I'm grateful to those breeders that have/breed calmer Goldens. I don't hunt and I never will. It doesn't appeal to me _on any level_. But Goldens sure do...I'm very glad they're not all high drive or I wouldn't have one. And that would be awful. :no:


----------



## hotel4dogs

And right there you have summed up the problem of what's happening in the breed (you said hunting, not field trials, and it is very distinct).
You should be able to take any well bred golden out, train them, and hunt with them, with no FC's or AFC's needed in the pedigree. Obviously that's no longer the case, so hunters are looking for the FC and AFC pedigrees to prove the dog still has some of the original instinct and ability for which the breed was noted.





TheZ's said:


> Don't people looking for a Golden for hunting like to see FC's and AFC's in the pedigree? What am I missing?


----------



## kwhit

hotel4dogs said:


> You should be able to take any well bred golden out, train them, and hunt with them, with no FC's or AFC's needed in the pedigree.


I think the only way to be able to attain that, in one aspect anyway, would be to not allow a dog to be given a CH. in conformation until they prove themselves in the field. That way, all Goldens including those bred more toward the conformation lines, would have to be capable hunters. Don't they kind of do this in Europe? Before a dog can get a championship, don't they require a test on their working ability and their stability of temperament? I don't know if it's all breeds but I thought working breeds have to be tested first.


----------



## hotel4dogs

whew, we're going to get into some sticky territory here.
My personal opinion is that the only way we're going to be able to do that is if breeders quit breeding for "just one thing", be that looks, agility, obedience, field, whatever. Of course, that will never happen. But when you breed for just one thing, the others seem to fall by the wayside and we end up with goldens who are no longer the versatile dog they originally were.
As always, I like to use Tito as an example. Most people here know his "story", but if not....he was bred to be a nice structured pet with a good temperament. Nothing more. I bought him as a pet for my daughter, originally on a limited registration with a neuter contract (which was obviously since lifted). I had no plans to do anything with him except love him.
He wasn't bred to be a show dog. He wasn't bred to be a field dog. Etc., etc., etc.
But look at what he has been able to accomplish. If you look at his pedigree, there is nothing in there that would foretell of what he has done. 
He was bred to be a versatile companion dog, and he is what people call an "old-fashioned golden retriever". He is what the breed used to be.
So why has Tito been so successful? Lord knows it's not ME, I've never done any of this before with my dogs.
Because he is to the golden standard in ALL ways.
He succeeds in obedience because he is intelligent and highly trainable,and because like all good gun dogs, he is not overly reactive to the environment, and he is able to focus well. He isn't at all fearful or skittish, and he gets along fine with all other dogs.
He succeeds in agility because he's a medium sized, well muscled, athletic dog. Again, as per the standard. Also, the ability to focus is very important in agility. 
He succeeds in the field because he has tremendous prey drive, and tons of bird instinct. He has a natural love of water, and the gentle mouth that the breed is supposed to have.
And that is why we need to breed the dogs to ALL of the standard, not just to the physical part of it. 
Tito truly can and will do anything that is asked of him, and as I said before, I believe him to be the norm for a well bred golden, not the exception.


Also, the LRCA (labradors) have done that, requiring at least a WC (working certificate) of their dogs. So what ended up happening is the WC for labradors got dumbed down to the point that I think my cat probably could have passed.


----------



## kwhit

Do you feel that Tito is the exception or that more people don't go the different routes with their Goldens? I'm not talking the conformation ring, I know that hardly any of our pet Goldens would do well there, mine included. That doesn't happen too often in_ any _breed and those dogs that were determined to be pets but go on to their CH. are unusual. But maybe if given the chance, a lot of Goldens would do good in the field. But because the majority of owners choose not to go that route with their dogs, we'll never know. 

I can say for sure that Chance would freak at the sound of a gun being fired, (me, too). But then again, he's never been exposed, especially at an early age. I know that he's extremely "interested" in birds, (and squirrels ). So who knows, right? Maybe our "pet" Goldens would do well in the field if given the opportunity...


----------



## hollyk

kwhit said:


> Do you feel that Tito is the exception or that more people don't go the different routes with their Goldens? I'm not talking the conformation ring, I know that hardly any of our pet Goldens would do well there, mine included. That doesn't happen too often in_ any _breed and those dogs that were determined to be pets but go on to their CH. are unusual. But maybe if given the chance, a lot of Goldens would do good in the field. But because the majority of owners choose not to go that route with their dogs, we'll never know.
> 
> I can say for sure that Chance would freak at the sound of a gun being fired, (me, too). But then again, he's never been exposed, especially at an early age. I know that he's extremely "interested" in birds, (and squirrels ). So who knows, right? Maybe our "pet" Goldens would do well in the field if given the opportunity...


I think my girl Winter and I are the poster children for giving dog games a try.
At the tender age of 49, I got my first dog ever. She was acquired as a pet, nothing really performance in her pedigree. I believe we told her breeder that we were looking for a light colored puppy, who would swim, play fetch, and would be easy going. I took her to puppy obedience so we would have a well behaved girl. It turned out that I loved taking classes with her so I just kept signing up. One thing led to another and on her first birthday we ended up at a field training day. That day I watch something amazing click on in Winter. This was a game she already knew how to play. Fast forward 2+ years and we are one pass away from her Senior Hunter title and she still amazes me. No FC's, MH, or even JH in her pedigree. I think there is one WC in 5 generations but the retriever is alive and kicking in her.
So I say, what the heck give field or some other dog game a try.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Karen, I strongly feel that Tito is NOT the exception. Not at all. I think a lot of the pet goldens, which is all he was meant to be, would be capable of doing many, many things if people chose to follow that path. And we need to be sure in our breeding practices that the breed never loses that ability and versatility.
Like Holly's Winter, another prime example. She is doing field, and obedience. I'm positive she could do agility, too. 
No, they can't all be CH. But if they are well bred goldens, they can get out there and do a lot of other doggie games, and do them well, and have a great time doing it. And the bond we form with our dogs when we do these things is incredible.


----------



## kwhit

Another thing that I was thinking...in all the years I managed pet shops, the majority of my customers with Labs hunted. I'd say at least 65% and that's a conservative estimate. My customers with GSPs, it had to be _at least_ 85%. Goldens, not that many. I'd give it a guess of 25%, if that. Again, I'm sure that many more had the capabilities to do field work, but they were not utilized in that venue, but other breeds were. 

I also remember that when I first started working in shops, over 35 years ago, we regularly carried and sold out of duck scent, pheasant scent and rabbit scent. And we couldn't keep the bumpers in stock, either. No matter how many we carried, they would sell out. But over the past, at least 20 years, I don't remember ever selling or stocking the scents in any other stores I worked at. The training bumpers yes, we carried them, but hardly ever sold one. Maybe they're buying these things elsewhere, IDK. Still, I was never even asked about them, ever.


----------



## Bella Floden

hotel4dogs said:


> And right there you have summed up the problem of what's happening in the breed (you said hunting, not field trials, and it is very distinct).
> You should be able to take any well bred golden out, train them, and hunt with them, with no FC's or AFC's needed in the pedigree. Obviously that's no longer the case, so hunters are looking for the FC and AFC pedigrees to prove the dog still has some of the original instinct and ability for which the breed was noted.


Good point. While I agree titles are great to gauge the trainability, I also keep in mind that what happens while hunting doesn't always make for a good hunt test.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Here are a few things that have come up here lately-
1. OFA prelims do not come in 'ranges' like, "OFA prelim fair to good"... they just don't.
2. CH pedigree means nothing. Effectively, every single dog has a CH somewhere back there, and if a breeder isn't putting *AKC or Canadian *CH on their dogs, no other CH means much, and they are adding value that probably isn't deserved. AKC CH sire or CH dam does mean something.
3. DNA is not a clearance. There are very few diseases we have DNA testing for, and DNA is just a tool to avoid creating affected for those diseases.
4. Prelims are not clearances. Only 24+mo of age evals count.
5. Color breeders are not good breeders. I literally cannot think of a single one who mentions 'eng creme, white goldens, whatever' on their site who are good breeders. Coincidentally, many of these also have Bible verses throughout. I see Bible verses as red flags (meant to comfort the viewer as to the breeder's honesty).
6. Titles matter. Without involvement through competition, a breeder does not have any way of judging their animals besides their own faulty eyes.
7. There is NO reason to breed underaged, ever.
8. Elbows- Goldens are sporting dogs. Failed elbows are failed because of structure and not because they ran stairs as a pup or stepped in a hole as a young dog. If whatever accident is being claimed doesn't have backup via ortho vet, it is probably imaginary and an excuse to breed anyway a dog with less than solid joints.
9.practitioner (pet vet) heart exams are fine for some breeds, but NOT Goldens. Yes, OFA will issue a cert done by a p(ractitioner) rather than a c(ardiologist)- but that doesn't mean it is adequate. It's not, it never will be.
10. importing of uteruses from eastern Europe to use to make white dogs is not good practice.


----------



## nolefan

Prism Goldens said:


> 1. OFA prelims do not come in 'ranges' like, "OFA prelim fair to good"... they just don't.
> 2. CH pedigree means nothing.
> 3. DNA is not a clearance.
> 4. Prelims are not clearances.
> 5. Color breeders are not good breeders.
> 6. Titles matter. Without involvement through competition,* a breeder does not have any way of judging their animals besides their own faulty eyes.*
> 7. There is NO reason to breed underaged, ever.
> 8. Elbows- Goldens are sporting dogs. Failed elbows are failed because of structure.
> 9. Practitioner (pet vet) heart exams are fine for some breeds, but NOT Goldens.
> 10. importing of uteruses from eastern Europe to use to make white dogs is not good practice.


Thank you so much for all the time you've spent here over the past 10 years educating people and trying to do right by the dogs.


----------



## Lyndsey0456

Quick question - is there anything inherently wrong with getting a puppy from a backyard breeder, if you’ve observed the living environment of the dam and litter, and you’ve observed that all of the health clearances for both parents are in place? The breeder in question does not show or compete with their goldens. They produce about 1 litter per year. They board goldens in their home as a side job in addition to breeding/their other jobs. I am feeling wary because all of the other breeders we have considered either show or compete. But does this matter??


----------



## Cnith

What do you mean by all clearances?


----------



## K9-Design

Lyndsey0456 said:


> Quick question - is there anything inherently wrong with getting a puppy from a backyard breeder, if you’ve observed the living environment of the dam and litter, and you’ve observed that all of the health clearances for both parents are in place? The breeder in question does not show or compete with their goldens. They produce about 1 litter per year. They board goldens in their home as a side job in addition to breeding/their other jobs. I am feeling wary because all of the other breeders we have considered either show or compete. But does this matter??


Rarely are the health clearances actually complete in these situations. If they truly are, good on you, and go for it.


----------



## Lyndsey0456

Thank you for your responses! This was a hypothetical question as the breeder I am considering SAID they have all clearances in place but has not shared them with us yet. If/when they do I will post them
on this forum to let the experts tell me if they are actually and truly in place and complete. I just asked because even without the clearances in front of me yet, I didn’t know if JUST being a “backyard breeder” (vs. a hobby breeder that shows or competes) was enough to pass on this litter. Or if I am being too picky (if everything else checks out?) For reference, they are asking 3,000 for a pup which is the same price I am seeing from breeders who show and compete etc. 

We are waiting to hear back regarding another litter from a very reputable breeder who was highly recommended on this forum (who shows and competes - I will post a follow up if we get confirmation that we can get a pup from that litter!) so I am hoping all of this will be a moot point and we will get a puppy from the breeder I am feeling more sure about. But in case we don’t, I just wanted to check if I am being too picky saying no to this other litter from a BYB (assuming all clearances are good).


----------



## K9-Design

I would not assume all the clearances are good on the BYB especially if they aren't immediately sharing the clearances with you. It is just one in a hundred of these types of breeders have all the necessary clearances. Or they have a foggy notion of what clearances are (hips? vaccines? a vet exam? all clearances to them!), and will tell you they do have clearances because it's the answer you want to hear. They couldn't tell you what all those clearances are if their life depended on it. If it is newspaper pedigree with actual clearances, $2000 is a reasonable price to pay. For $3000 you can get a pup from Champion parents with all clearances for generations.


----------



## Lyndsey0456

Here are the names … would someone on here be able to check these out for me?
-names redacted-


----------



## sam34

Lyndsey0456 said:


> The breeder in question does not show or compete with their goldens. They produce about 1 litter per year. They board goldens in their home as a side job in addition to breeding/their other jobs. I am feeling wary because all of the other breeders we have considered either show or compete. But does this matter??


I guess you have to ask yourself what you are looking for. You selected a golden for specific reasons, Im assuming. There are a ton of bad golden breeders out there that breed dogs with problems and dogs that don't meet the standards for the breed. How else will you know the dog you're getting is a good example of the breed if the breeder doesn't show their dogs in one of the disciplines that defines the breed? An AKC pedigree is pretty meaningless by itself 

I'll go further to mention, in my opinion, that a dog that hasn't shown it has a reason to contribute to the gene pool with real evidence in titles and pedigree, it should not be bred.


----------



## Lyndsey0456

what are all the clearances you NEED to see (talking to breeder now)…?


----------



## pawsnpaca

Nothing comes up in OFA for Sadie's Macie May, so at the moment I would assume she has NONE of the required clearances (if there's a chance the name is spelled wrong, we can check by AKC registration number if you can provide it).

Here is a link to the sire's OFA page: Advanced Search | OFA
Nothing but a heart clearance and out of date eyes.

So, no, neither parent has complete clearances.

As far as buying from a backyard breeder with all clearances (which will be very hard to find)... One of the things you are losing out on is an independent assessment of whether or not the parent dogs have conformational flaws (because they've never been assessed in a show ring), or have a biddable temperament or intelligence (because they've never been trained beyond basic house manners, and rarely interact with anyone outside their own home). There's a reason that responsible hobby breeders are also referred to as "preservation breeders." Their goal is not to just produce golden retriever puppies. It's to produce the BEST golden retriever puppies. Ones that are everything that makes the breed special... and more.


----------



## cwag

I couldn't find anything in K-9 Data for Sadies Macie May
Baxter has eyes that are 5 years old and a heart certification but no hips or elbows which would be a hard no for me
The GRCA Code of Ethics for Breeders requires a yearly eye exam by an ophthalmologist, a one time heart exam by a cardiologist and hip and elbow clearances.


----------



## Lyndsey0456

Thank you all. So sad that this is going to be another no for us. I feel like this process has been so hard, but I don’t want to cut any corners.


----------



## sam34

Lyndsey0456 said:


> what are all the clearances you NEED to see (talking to breeder now)…?








GRCA Code of Ethics - Golden Retriever Club of America







grca.org


----------

