# The GRCA COE



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

For me, the COE is a bare minimum to attain before I enter into any business transactions with others, breed any litters, or have any relationships with others that relate to Goldens. I feel that there is absolutely no excuse to not do the very little required to be in accordance with the COE. 
I'd like to imagine that it affects puppy people's end 'product' in that if they buy puppies from people who abide by the Code, they're likelier to get a puppy that has a shot at health and longevity- but I am not sure that that is how it actually plays out...


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Ok, I'll join the party

The COE has a good purpose to protect the breed but in application it is all about the health clearances and most of the rest of it is never used, talked about, or even considered. Few people even know that there are elements of the COE other than the 4 mandated health clearance and 2 years old.

There is a good section in the COE about dog ownership that applies to breeders, competitors, and plain old dog owners. Yes, the COE applies to dog owners and they too have responsibilities. Good care, keeping the dog contained, trained, be a good citizen in the community. 

There is a reference to good sportsmanship at events and that too is seldom mentioned. I have seen a few instances at AKC events where dog owners acted more like a donkey's hind end than human beings. 

How about the discussion of honesty and full disclosure? For buyers and sellers? I have had a number of buyers forget to mention that they have a 9 month old baby or that they wife is pregnant when they contact me about buying a puppy.

My favorite part is that is often "forgotten" in the COE is the first responsibility of the breeder to maintain the purpose of the breed as a gun dog. While not every dog will have the drive and the birdiness needed to be a Master Hunter, I would expect that the majorty of the dogs to have interest in birds and have a strong work ethic.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

What is it?

The COE is a set of Guidelines regarding how GRCA Members should conduct themselves when dealing with everything related to the Golden Retreiver in the Sport of Purebred Dogs. 

What is its’ purpose?

The COE installs boundries for the Golden Retriever Fanciers that members of the GRCA strive to stay within. 


Who does it affect?

For the most part the COE applies to GRCA Members or those who state that they try to uphold the GRCA COE.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

> *There is a reference to good sportsmanship at events and that too is seldom mentioned. I have seen a few instances at AKC events where dog owners acted more like a donkey's hind end than human beings. *


You've touched upon a significant portion of the COE that often goes overlooked here. GRCA Members have a responsibility to act in a sportsmanlike manner and to treat other competitors, breeders and the public in an open, honest and *fair* manner.


----------



## fourlakes (Feb 16, 2013)

I just went back and re-read the GRCA Code of Ethics. Of course the biggies are not breeding a dog before 24 months of age or without the basic health clearances. It also says breeders must be willing to take back and rehome any dog they produce. There is mention of honesty and fairness and of clear, concise contracts. All good things  I think an especially interesting section is the mention of the Golden Retriever as a gun dog. Not wanting to get everyone lining up on the conformation vs. field battlelines here, but just interesting. Here is that section:

Re_cognizing that the Golden Retriever breed_​ _was developed as a useful gun dog, to encourage the_​ _perfection by careful and selective breeding of_​ _Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance,_​ _structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability_​ _and personality that are characterized in the standard_​ _of the breed, and to do all possible to advance and_​_promote the perfection of these qualities._


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Minimally speaking, majority of dog homes looking for golden retrievers are concerned about health and distancing good breeders from puppy mills. A lot of us grew up with those things on TV about puppy mills stuffing dogs in crates and breeding them ASAP and breeding dogs with all kinds of defects and health and behavioral disorders. 

That's why you get the check the COE chant when people query about disputable quality breeders who do not follow the COE. Meaning the specific guidelines.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The COE includes far more than just guidelines regarding recommended health screenings and clearance information. Health clearances are important however they are only but one facet of the COE. The other facets are equally important, need to be understood and honored.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

fourlakes said:


> I just went back and re-read the GRCA Code of Ethics. Of course the biggies are not breeding a dog before 24 months of age or without the basic health clearances. It also says breeders must be willing to take back and rehome any dog they produce. There is mention of honesty and fairness and of clear, concise contracts. All good things  I think an especially interesting section is the mention of the Golden Retriever as a gun dog. Not wanting to get everyone lining up on the conformation vs. field battlelines here, but just interesting. Here is that section:
> 
> Re_cognizing that the Golden Retriever breed_​ _was developed as a useful gun dog, to encourage the_​ _perfection by careful and selective breeding of_​ _Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance,_​ _structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability_​ _and personality that are characterized in the standard_​ _of the breed, and *to do all possible* to advance and_​_promote the perfection of these qualities._


I wonder what "all possible" means.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

Is there a f8nancial reason for breeders to shortchange clearances and do only prelims? Is the ofa fee less for prelims?


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

lhowemt said:


> Is there a f8nancial reason for breeders to shortchange clearances and do only prelims? Is the ofa fee less for prelims?



It's $5 less to do prelims versus actual clearance.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

lhowemt said:


> Is there a f8nancial reason for breeders to shortchange clearances and do only prelims? Is the ofa fee less for prelims?


 
Yes, the OFA fee is less but not by much. It is the charge for the x-rays that have many breeders gulping. Plus the x-rays cost the same for prelims and finals so that will double the breeders investment in the clearances. If a breeder is cutting corners they might do prelims and then skip the finals because they are already breeding the dog. If the prelims are good they might not want to chance having a newer record with a lesser rating. As we see on this forum, many buyers never ask for clearances, never know what they look like, and migh take a prelim as "proof" 

Many breeders, myself included, use an experienced vet to take the x-rays for prelims. If he thinks there is any doubt that they would not be at least good, then we send them off to OFA for their opinion. It is not much of a savings but it is something.

The only value in the prelims is to allow a breeder to wash out a dog with poor hips, elbows, or a slight heart murmur at a year, and find them a nice pet home. No sense in continuing to train and campaign a dog that will never be bred.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

I think that the real point of this thread is to discuss the items in the COE that are NOT clearance related.

There is a lot of information about what people should be doing and what they should not be doing that is outlined in the COE. That is seldom discussed or even noticed.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> The COE includes far more than just guidelines regarding recommended health screenings and clearance information. Health clearances are important however they are only but one facet of the COE. The other facets are equally important, need to be understood and honored.


Swampy - I don't disagree. But the other areas of the COE are very loose/general and open to interpretation depending on where you are coming from. They aren't necessarily spelling out that these dogs need to be master hunters - natural ability could simply be dogs having a keen interest in retrieving and desire to please and ability to be trained without too much trouble. It does not necessarily spell out that these dogs need to run X amount of yards across field and into water AWAY from their owner to retrieve something that might be flapping, clawing, and biting (or be rotten and disgusting) and bring it directly back to their owners. 

From a conformation perspective (and I admittedly am more dug into conformation than field simply based on exposure and active participation) - I have a different perspective on the following lines....

Re_cognizing that the Golden Retriever breed_​ _was developed as a useful gun dog, *to encourage the*_​ _*perfection by careful and selective breeding of*_​ _*Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance,*_​ _*structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability*_​ _*and personality that are characterized in the standard*_​ _*of the breed*, and *to do all possible* to advance and_​_promote the perfection of these qualities._

Breed standard - just as an example is a bit specific on color (eyes, coat, pigment). It's specific on height. It's specific on weight. It's specific on what heads look like. It's specific about things like mismarks (white or black patches). Oh and it is specific on temperament.

A conformation breeder would remove a dog from their breeding program if they have various faults.... field breeders will not. And you talk to people within the breed who are involved more on the conformation and even obedience end, and there is discussion of field dogs looking more like other breeds than golden retrievers. 

I would really hate to go down that road because there are a lot of field breeders who are above the board legit and reputable and I'd hate for somebody to use the COE as a tool against them. 



lhowemt said:


> Is there a f8nancial reason for breeders to shortchange clearances and do only prelims? Is the ofa fee less for prelims?


It's all about cutting corners. You also get faster results with prelims (generally within a week). 

If somebody is concerned about the OFA fee schedule - then they probably don't have enough money to afford breeding considering all the vet bills I've heard of in relation to breeding.....


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Many of you are missing the point. You can't focus on a portion of the COE and ignore other portions of the COE. To understand the COE you need to look at it in its entirety to understand the proper context. If you don't you can easily make mistakes in its application. 

An easy example to examine would be heart clearances. 

How many times a day do you read that the exam must ONLY be performed by a Cardiologist or it is not a valid clearance? It's more complicated than that and
people who make such statements have not read nor do they understand the COE. 

From the first portion of the COE.

_ Recommendations that have changed from prior versions of this Code of Ethics are intended to apply in a forward-looking manner. For example, screening examinations that were in accordance with the Code of Ethics in effect at the time such screening examinations were performed will remain acceptable._

If you missed that, it means that there are a whole lot of dogs that were not examined by a Cardiologist whose clearances are in fact correct in accordance with the COE. There are still numerous dogs of breeding age that are not required to be cleared by a Cardiologist. There are even more dogs with Frozen semen in storage who are also not required to have a Cardiologist Clearance.

Interpreting the COE is not easy. In fact it can be very complicated and easy to misapply If you're not considering the entire document to keep the proper perspective. There is a whole lot of gray area and not as much black and white as many would like to believe.


Dealing with the public fairly is one of the most abused areas covered by the COE. It is frequently abused on this forum, almost on a daily basis.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Decided to think more before writing


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Another thing to think on in the clearance piece (I know, sorry) is a breeder who has a dog that fails every test could still be in compliance with the COE if they made it publically available. Heck, this dog could even have a CHIC number. If they are honest with the buyers and it is online they would fulfill the clearance section. But, do they meet this section? 
"GRCA members who breed Golden Retrievers are encouraged to maintain the purpose of the breed, and select breeding stock with the objectives of GRCA in mind; that is: 
Recognizing that the Golden Retriever breed was developed as a useful gun dog, to *encourage improvement by careful and selective breeding* of Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance, structure, *soundness*, temperament, natural ability, and personality that are characterized in the standard of the breed, and to do all possible to advance and promote these qualities."


----------



## fourlakes (Feb 16, 2013)

I have been thinking about this today. I think the Code of Ethics as I reread it earlier today breaks down into two areas. One is just basic rules like required health clearances, basic honesty and fairness ...the bottom line. If you're not doing that as a breeder then sorry, you're not an ethical breeder. And then there are the loftier goals of improving the breed with works like "perfection" used. As someone who has been a teacher for... well just about forever  - or maybe it just feels like it some days... I am familiar with and have even been required to work on educational goals and standards with wording like that. It's great to have idealistic goals to shoot for to know which direction you are heading. But it's different from basic rule type standards. I've been trying to think if I've ever had a "perfect" student in my many years of teaching.... some pretty close and some who excel in one area and not in others. And it's probably the same with breeders and their dogs.... excelling in some areas, not so much in others. But I think bottom line ethics are about following the basic rules, being honest and fair, and doing your best for your dogs and buyers.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

Swampcollie said:


> Dealing with the public fairly is one of the most abused areas covered by the COE. It is frequently abused on this forum, almost on a daily basis.


 Would you clarify or restate this? I am not sure what you are saying and can come up with more than a few potential interpretations.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Megora said:


> Swampy - I don't disagree. But the other areas of the COE are very loose/general and open to interpretation depending on where you are coming from. They aren't necessarily spelling out that these dogs need to be master hunters - natural ability could simply be dogs having a keen interest in retrieving and desire to please and ability to be trained without too much trouble. It does not necessarily spell out that these dogs need to run X amount of yards across field and into water AWAY from their owner to retrieve something that might be flapping, clawing, and biting (or be rotten and disgusting) and bring it directly back to their owners.
> 
> From a conformation perspective (and I admittedly am more dug into conformation than field simply based on exposure and active participation) - I have a different perspective on the following lines....
> 
> ...


 
Please don't lump "field breeders" vs "show breeders" as though one is good and one is bad. There are good breeders and there are less than good breeders on both side of this one. 

The second sentence of the AKC breed standard states that this is "primarily a hunting dog". As swampcollie says - you can't just take part of the standard and ignore the part that you don't like. If you are show breeder and you are breeding dogs that look like a golden but are incapable of leaving their owners side or are afraid of a duck then that dog SHOULD be pulled from the breeding program. That is NOT a gun dog. A show breeder that includes a dog like this in their breeding program is just as at fault as the field breeder who includes a dog that is undersized or oversized or lacks bone. You cannot just decide that you don't care about natural ability since you did not underline it above - just as field breeders should not ignore the structure of coat of the dog. 

As for what the show goldens of today look like I suggest that you go back and look at pictures of show goldens of 50+ years ago. Guess what - they look a lot like the field goldens of today. 

Here is a couple of links that have pictures of the dogs. The first two are show dogs and the last one is Barty - the most common dog in field pedigrees today.

Pedigree: CH Little Joe Of Tigathoe *** OS
Pedigree: Am./Can. CH. Speedwell Pluto SDHF OS
Pedigree: AFC Holway Barty OS FDHF


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Leslie B said:


> Please don't lump "field breeders" vs "show breeders" as though one is good and one is bad.


 That is why I phrased my comment the way I had. You can't pick up one word in a paragraph and ignore the others - which could mean totally different things to other people. 

I did not highlight ability as you covered that in your own post and I addressed that in my response to Swampy, in that the COE doesn't expressly state what ability is or by whose definition. 

Even "primarily a hunting dog" is a vague phrase which could mean something different to a lot of people. 

I'll tell you this much - I've talked to my show dog's breeder about field work and ability. And they take the dogs hunting. Their dogs know what birds are like and are used on birds. And I know she's spoken about getting a JH at least with my guy's littermate because he is "busy" and needs a job. These are dogs bred to DO STUFF. And there are a lot of conformation breeders I've been around this year who have birdy dogs that they are showing. And dogs who go hunting. 

Going hunting with the owners... is not the same as doing WC's. 

WC's are not the same as JH. 

And heck - you have people out there who brush off JH's like they are nothing. 

And each time you have somebody more dedicated in X level of hunting with their dogs, they are changing that definition of what a "primarily a hunting dog" is.

Will respond to the field looks thingy privately..... only because I really don't want another public spat with people drawing sides like they do....


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

So this has predictably devolved into a "show vs field" argument once again. It's like the freakin' Israel v Palestine argument, it will never be solved until both sides decide to be reasonable (and, of course, both sides think they are already being reasonable and the other side isn't). Sheesh. So much for what might have been an interesting thread.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Where I am in my dog life relating to the COE is trying to wrap my head around what is really means to breed a male dog on good prelims at 18 months, bc so many, many of the breeders I respect do it and not just in do or die situations, yet it is against the COE. These are what we think of as excellent responsible breeders and many of us do business with them in different ways. I am genuinely perplexed. I used to see this as a black and white issue, until years ago one of our most stand up forum breeders did it then discussed why on a thread. As I look up dogs who caught my eye at the National or in researching stud dogs for Lush, I see how very often young dogs are used as opposed to young females. It is just something I am working through and pondering as I weigh the arguments that the COE is a guideline of suggestions rather than hard and fast rules against the notion that clearances are not final until the dog passes two. Many of the breeders using their dogs younfer than two have the GRCA 2014 logo on their websites saying they uphold the GRCA COE. I do believe many are, in general, some of the best breeders but do break this rule. It leaves me kind of at sea in terms of what to think, and I am having an inner struggle with the topic at the moment( though I have not broken this rule myself personally).


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Well I can say a lot of "show" dogs that ran at the National from what I hear did pretty awful.... One particular HUGE breeder brought a dog to the line and the duck was thrown up and shot and the dog looked and when the person released him, he walked about 5 yards and lifted his leg to pee on some grass and turned back around to the owner. This wasn't the only instance that I heard of.

To me, that is not living to the Primary a hunting dog status... Of course this "dog" will be used for breeding because he did quite well at the national... 

Just very disappointing.

The COE is a guideline, it is not a rule book. In my opinion though (for what it is worth), once you break the COE, you will be more likely to bend it more and more in the future.

Though, the COE states that cardiologist reports can come from a practitioner, I think that needs to change. There are many general practitioners that do not pick up on murmurs. So, having a GP doing a clearance is not enough for me personally.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Where I am in my dog life relating to the COE is trying to wrap my head around what is really means to breed a male dog on good prelims at 18 months, bc so many, many of the breeders I respect do it and not just in do or die situations, yet it is against the COE. These are what we think of as excellent responsible breeders and many of us do business with them in different ways. I am genuinely perplexed. I used to see this as a black and white issue, until years ago one of our most stand up forum breeders did it then discussed why on a thread. As I look up dogs who caught my eye at the National or in researching stud dogs for Lush, I see how very often young dogs are used as opposed to young females. It is just something I am working through and pondering as I weigh the arguments that the COE is a guideline of suggestions rather than hard and fast rules against the notion that clearances are not final until the dog passes two. Many of the breeders using their dogs younfer than two have the GRCA 2014 logo on their websites saying they uphold the GRCA COE. I do believe many are, in general, some of the best breeders but do break this rule. It leaves me kind of at sea in terms of what to think, and I am having an inner struggle with the topic at the moment( though I have not broken this rule myself personally).


It's the "do as I say, not as I do" dilemma. We all have to make decisions that we can live with. Sometimes the decisions people make don't actually impact them directly. For example, breed Studly underage to an outside bitch, Studly could go on to fail final hips/elbows. Who loses? The pet puppy owners first and foremost. Those puppies don't impact Studly or Studly's owner directly. And if Studly does pass, phew! The breeder is reinforced and continues the practice. I think it's a slippery slope as Kelli mentioned, it is probably easier to bend the rules the second or third... or fourth time.

I also agree that the "other" part of the COE is often overlooked. I have seen GRCA members be sour losers after a show, it is a sad display of sportsmenship. I have also seen pet puppy buyers inquire with breeders to be belittled, blackballed, or ignored. We need to be stewards of this breed and show the general public and one another a better side to ourselves and why choosing a reputable breeder is the way to go.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kfayard said:


> Well I can say a lot of "show" dogs that ran at the National from what I hear did pretty awful.... One particular HUGE breeder brought a dog to the line and the duck was thrown up and shot and the dog looked and when the person released him, he walked about 5 yards and lifted his leg to pee on some grass and turned back around to the owner. This wasn't the only instance that I heard of..


But can you go specifically off that to estimate the dog's ability? 

I'm not that familiar with field, but like for example... obedience may have a high fail rate or low scoring rate because of people randomly entering dogs who are not ready? 

The reason why I ask is there are people who have dogs from a fairly big performance breeder. Somebody who last I checked charges about $2000-2500 for her goldens. And these dogs are bred for obedience, for agility, and for field. 

I know people with these dogs who are 3 year olds who because of training and probably other things.... they are not quite excelling at the things they were bred for. One dog especially is cringe-worthy to watch in obedience. And that is even with him being bred FOR obedience. The owner is a mix of things as far as methods she uses, and that may have some effect. I think the dog is harder headed and needed a stronger hand for training and that has had another effect. Another golden from this breeder doesn't even have any obedience titles and I don't think even has a JH. The owner especially has huge issues entering him in tests because he was all over the place and out of control. 

Those things - I don't think is breeding, because it seems like other dogs who come from these breeders are able to excel in other homes that are more experienced or equipped to train these dogs.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Megora said:


> But can you go specifically off that to estimate the dog's ability?
> 
> I'm not that familiar with field, but like for example... obedience may have a high fail rate or low scoring rate because of people randomly entering dogs who are not ready?
> 
> ...


 In field and as far as a JH...YES! For me, if I were to see a dog that looks and clearly sees the duck go down and is more worried about urinating on grass then going after the duck that is a huge deal breaker for me. Maybe there were females in heat, so yes that can come into play. I would have to watch the dog another time to see for sure. But, to not attempt after the 2nd try...it is a little different than obedience.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

I know a dog that I love and another did quite well at the national, I watched him run a JH test. Was it great? No, but he retrieved the ducks and brought them back even though he was slower than I would have liked.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

So where so we draw the line as to what is acceptable and what is not? Are health clearances the starting point and everything else just gravy? 
It is human nature to justify what we do when it comes to breeding choices. Where it falls apart, in my way of thinking, is when breeders that are deemed to be 'not so reputable' are trashed on this forum. This usually happens when all clearances are not in order or the dog is bred on prelims. 
Is this a bigger sin than breeding the dog described in kfayard's post that won't pick up a bird? 
Or breeding dogs with incorrect temperaments because they win at a certain venue, either show or field? 
I see a disturbing (to me) trend to award the status of 'reputable breeder' to anyone who wins shows and gets clearances.
That seems to be as far as the COE goes for some breeders.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

kfayard said:


> The COE is a guideline, it is not a rule book. In my opinion though (for what it is worth), once you break the COE, you will be more likely to bend it more and more in the future.
> 
> Though, the COE states that cardiologist reports can come from a practitioner, I think that needs to change. There are many general practitioners that do not pick up on murmurs. So, having a GP doing a clearance is not enough for me personally.



If the COE is just a guideline. Why do we get upset when a breeder doesn't follow it for clearances? And why do we get upset over practitioner hearts instead of cardiologist hearts? 

I was under the impression that clearances were a hard and fast rule. Does that makes the rest hard and fast?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kfayard said:


> In field and as far as a JH...YES! For me, if I were to see a dog that looks and clearly sees the duck go down and is more worried about urinating on grass then going after the duck that is a huge deal breaker for me. Maybe there were females in heat, so yes that can come into play. I would have to watch the dog another time to see for sure. But, to not attempt after the 2nd try...it is a little different than obedience.


OK.... but even that second dog I referred to... I've heard about him going on zoomies and running around rather than going after the ducks. And this is a dog who in training (at home or at training spots) is very birdy and has IT. It just doesn't show at tests. 

The breeder of this dog has a pretty sizable reputation... as do her partner breeders (people who have their own kennels and kennel names but follow her disciplines and cobreed with her quite a bit). I would not for a second imagine that this breeder is not following the COE as far as producing dogs who are what they should be. 

I'm pretty sure beyond a doubt that this dog is what it is because he needs different handling and should have had different handling right from the start. He's had a lot of bad habits creeping in because of what has been allowed.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I would have to say, even if a dog had no previous field training, I would expect a golden that sees a thrown bird to at least run out to check it out. Not necessarily pick it up, I could forgive that in an untrained dog, but to see it fall and show no interest whatsoever would be a huge red flag to me.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Brave said:


> If the COE is just a guideline. Why do we get upset when a breeder doesn't follow it for clearances? And why do we get upset over practitioner hearts instead of cardiologist hearts?
> 
> I was under the impression that clearances were a hard and fast rule. Does that makes the rest hard and fast?


 Because, it is the right thing to do! That is my opinion. Why wouldn't I want to stack the deck in my favor? Why wouldn't I get upset if a breeder is not doing clearances? To me, it is laziness and not truly loving the breed to attempt to improve it.

If you wanted to have your heart check, would you rather see a General Doctor or a Cardiologist? 

I would never tell someone that a breeder is "bad" because they did a practitioner heart clearance, but I will state that it is not from a cardiologist.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I would have to say, even if a dog had no previous field training, I would expect a golden that sees a thrown bird to at least run out to check it out. Not necessarily pick it up, I could forgive that in an untrained dog, but to see it fall and show no interest whatsoever would be a huge red flag to me.


Very much agree. It is supposed to be instinct for Golden "retrievers" to retrieve. It is not instinctive for them to do obedience or agility.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

TrailDogs said:


> .
> Is this a bigger sin than breeding the dog described in kfayard's post that won't pick up a bird?
> Or breeding dogs with incorrect temperaments because they win at a certain venue, either show or field?
> I see a disturbing (to me) trend to award the status of 'reputable breeder' to anyone who wins shows and gets clearances.
> That seems to be as far as the COE goes for some breeders.


Based on how people on this forum say "Good Breeder / Bad Breeder" ? 

*1. Reason why conformation breeders are frequently suggested is based on what people seem to be looking for. 
*
From my perspective, I don't have a lot of inside knowledge about breeders in other states. I doubt very many people personally know the dogs owned by breeders on the other side of the country and have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. 

*2. Rather than going off the glossy websites these breeders have, all people have to go off of is what the breeders have accomplished with their dogs*. 

And obedience titles, conformation titles, field titles.... these indicate to you that these dogs are trainable and there had been some level of selective breeding with these dogs. And those are important based on what people are looking for in a future dog.

*3. The other thing we can validate without knowing a breeder is clearances.* 

In an ideal world - K9Data would have health information (DOD and COD) as well for us to go off. But these are incomplete because understandably with today's level of inexperienced people studying pedigrees and basing judgments on breeders and kennels and lines based on the info freely given on K9Data... 

You can probably get hints of that stuff here on GRF with people privately sending RED ALERT messages to people steering them away from breeders or lines.... but even that's not always helpful because people aren't clear and/or make broad statements which could probably freak buyers out.

One conformation breeder I know of has been going on and on about how her lines are cancer free and she would never breed a dog with X or Y kennels behind them, saying they are cancer lines, etc. Not going to say the kennel names, but they are big in the breed. 

I was talking to her privately and when she asked about my dog's pedigree, I tentatively told her - acknowledging that he has quite a lot of the one kennel behind him. And expected her to go on and on. But was surprised when she told me she actually liked his pedigree and said something to the effect that the kennel influence behind him is old enough for her to be comfortable with.... and she primarily won't touch the more recent stuff. I basically fell over in shock because I truly expected a negative reaction based on what she has gone off on.

*4. The rest of the stuff that puppy buyers need to go off of is what they learn from the breeders themselves, as well as personal impressions when they interview the breeders. 
*
The thing that I commented on when I found out that one of Bertie's breeders had started out in obedience before getting into conformation.... and had put an OTCH on a dog as well as low level (certificates and JH's) field titles even on some of her conformation dogs.... my comment at the time was "Good, she knows what trainability actually should be". So knowing the breeder's past history... was helpful. Same thing knowing that they've had dogs from their program go into obedience homes and excel. But I only learned these things when interviewing the breeders.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

TrailDogs said:


> So where so we draw the line as to what is acceptable and what is not? Are health clearances the starting point and everything else just gravy?
> It is human nature to justify what we do when it comes to breeding choices. Where it falls apart, in my way of thinking, is when breeders that are deemed to be 'not so reputable' are trashed on this forum. This usually happens when all clearances are not in order or the dog is bred on prelims.
> Is this a bigger sin than breeding the dog described in kfayard's post that won't pick up a bird?
> Or breeding dogs with incorrect temperaments because they win at a certain venue, either show or field?
> ...


 To me:
1)a dog that structurally complements my bitch
2) pedigree of the dog and study the health in the line. Is the pedigree something that has longevity and good clearances behind him?
3) Temperament
4) Drive and other titles would be next

Sometimes, I can find a dog I like, but I feel I am always sacrificing something. I know I will never breed to a dog just because they did well in a certain venue.

I certainly agree with you that some people here think reputable is winning and clearances. Maybe my health requirements are different from others. We all try our best, but I think can be blinded by certain aspects.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Ahh but I could argue that is strongly desired that a golden retriever be biddable (ie takes to training) and athletic .. both exemplified by obedience & agility. 



kfayard said:


> Very much agree. It is supposed to be instinct for Golden "retrievers" to retriever. It is not instinctive for them to do obedience or agility.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Sunrise said:


> Ahh but I could argue that is strongly desired that a golden retriever be biddable (ie takes to training) and athletic .. both exemplified by obedience & agility.


 And I absolutely agree with that, but training is a huge part of it. What if the trainer is new? If the trainer is not a great trainer? Who is at fault, the dog or the trainer?

Same thing I would say about watching a dog in SH or MH.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Brave;5192154
I was under the impression that clearances were a hard and fast rule. Does that makes the rest hard and fast?[/QUOTE said:


> I definitey used to think that too, but less and less do I. For one thing, there is too much grey area. Maybe the amazing field dog fails one elbow and passes everything else plus has splendid conformation and never takes a lame step- does he get kicked out of the gene pool? Then there is the dog that is himself a high achiever, beautiful great temperament and all clearances, but he sires some drastic problem a high percentage of the time- can he stay in the gene pool? Where is the line between being the breeder police/gossiper v watching out for BYBs and HVBs? It is interesting bc many good longstanding breeders DO break the COE at times and make no apologies- their dogs, their choices. Sometimes breeders believe they bred into a healthy pedigree but crucial information was withheld- so they become part of a problem without even knowing it. There is so much to learn. For myself so far I have treated the COE as hard & fast rules, but my willingness to judge others or to put anyone either on a pedestal or under the bus has greatly changed just bc of the sheer volume of grey area situations that crop up and must be coped with.
> 
> If there is a show golden who pees at the thought of retrieving a duck in the field events and a golden with a straight front, a generic head, narrow chest ,roman nose and cow hocks in the CCA who has a MH. . . well, we are either going to say it is okay to excel at each polarity and use the vast middleground to produce a well rounded dog, or we are going to be the breeder police and condemn both? I dont see any field v show argument as being interesting anymore. There are always the extremes on both ends of high achievement. I personally know one of the ugliest long-in-the-leg goldens who has the biggest heart and highest drive with great field titles and I personally know one of the laziest goldens born on earth with beautiful structure and a CH title. . . Love both dogs on his own merits and would buy a puppy sired by neither. Maybe absolute die-hards on both sides will seek these dogs but most breeders will make another choice to more balance.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

kfayard said:


> Because, it is the right thing to do! That is my opinion. Why wouldn't I want to stack the deck in my favor? Why wouldn't I get upset if a breeder is not doing clearances? To me, it is laziness and not truly loving the breed to attempt to improve it.
> 
> If you wanted to have your heart check, would you rather see a General Doctor or a Cardiologist?
> 
> I would never tell someone that a breeder is "bad" because they did a practitioner heart clearance, but I will state that it is not from a cardiologist.



I'm not defending breeders who don't do clearances. I'm just trying to understand why parts of the COE are hard and fast but the rest is more of a guideline. 

The forum has taught me that if there aren't clearances to run. Why doesn't that apply to rest of the COE. To be honest, I didn't know most of what the COE lists, because it seems to be glossed over in conversations when people ask about certain breeders. 

I can understand you have to pick the right stud for your dog. The only stand-alone in the guidelines then would be clearances. Right? Is that the logic?


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

But isn't a code of ethics to help guide people through the gray areas? It's always very tempting when it's your case to cite all the reasons why a COE shouldn't apply but if people feel that it doesn't apply in their case it gets undermined over time to not mean that much. In some professions there are sanctions for violations to prevent people from straying from the rules.


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

Reading this thread it makes my brain hurt. Strange why every time the COE comes up discussions of it fall apart so fast.

I am not GRCA member, hunter, compete in any venue with my Goldens nor a breeder. I have always adhered to what is mentioned first though.

*"RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOG OWNER

Members must ensure that their dogs are kept safe and under control at all times. Members should properly train their dogs so that they are an asset to their community and not a nuisance. Dogs must be maintained with their safety and good health in mind at all times, including adequate and appropriate attention, socialization, grooming, feeding, veterinary care, housing, and exercise."

*That should apply to every dog owner. Odd it is hardly ever mentioned in the COE discussions here.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

TheZ's said:


> But isn't a code of ethics to help guide people through the gray areas? It's always very tempting when it's your case to cite all the reasons why a COE shouldn't apply but if people feel that it doesn't apply in their case it gets undermined over time to not mean that much. In some professions there are sanctions for violations to prevent people from straying from the rules.


I agree with you, and that is the main problem with the COE is that there are no sanctions. It becomes a case as said well above of "do what I say not what I do" bc some people believe these are rules for everyone else, but their specific dog or bitch is somehow more special than the rules. What you have is a sum-total of many, many people who are visible as role models chosing not to follow the COE so it undermines the authority of the COE. In the gray areas, many respected breeders opt not to follow the COE to the letter for their own reasons. I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that they are not professionals rules with sanctions for violations by any means, like patient-client confidentiality for doctors or mandatory reporter laws for teachers, but something else entirely for which compliance is entirely voluntary and there isnt much if any consequence for some who break them though for others there is social consequence. Ultimately the breeder's own conscience about his own choices is more powerful than the COE.

Saying that I know that if there are multiple egregious high level violations there can be sanctions ie getting kicked out of the club or not renewed if membership lapses etc.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

GoldenCamper said:


> Reading this thread it makes my brain hurt. Strange why every time the COE comes up discussions of it fall apart so fast.
> 
> I am not GRCA member, hunter, compete in any venue with my Goldens nor a breeder. I have always adhered to what is mentioned first though.
> 
> ...



I agree with the responsibility as pet owners. But even those guidelines/rules are vague. What is appropriate and adequate? I've seen many threads over the well being of a dog but the city/county deems their situation adequate. 

I know people who claim to be responsible owners, but they don't met my definition of adequate and appropriate care. Whose wrong? Their definition or mine?

Perhaps that's why it's so gray, to allow for interpretation?


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Brave said:


> I agree with the responsibility as pet owners. But even those guidelines/rules are vague. What is appropriate and adequate? I've seen many threads over the well being of a dog but the city/county deems their situation adequate.
> 
> I know people who claim to be responsible owners, but they don't met my definition of adequate and appropriate care. Whose wrong? Their definition or mine?
> 
> Perhaps that's why it's so gray, to allow for interpretation?


 That is the thing though, people have all different interpretations and goals set for themselves or breeding program. 

I may not have people that agree with my breeding program, etc, but it is what I like and what I am comfortable with. Is my breeding program (which honestly is not a program yet) any better than anybody else's? I don't think so.

It is what you are comfortable with. If a practitioner heart clearance is as good to one as a cardiologist, then so be it. It is not wrong according with the GRCA COE.


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Brave said:


> .
> 
> The forum has taught me that if there aren't clearances to run. Why doesn't that apply to rest of the COE. To be honest, I didn't know most of what the COE lists, because it seems to be glossed over in conversations when people ask about certain breeders.
> 
> I can understand you have to pick the right stud for your dog. The only stand-alone in the guidelines then would be clearances. Right? Is that the logic?


I posted first to this thread, and it was a quick and easy touching on what think are the key points- of course each has many aspects to it...but the reason I think that you find 'no clearances, run' and don't find 'she's a crazy run' or 'he cheats other breeders or puppy people, run' posts is because there are so many volatile breeders in Goldens for whatever reason and those calls on behaviors that are against the COE such as cheating or going nutso or whatever- they are too difficult to quantify. The clearances are easy to say yay or nay to- they either have them or don't- but the relationships we have with others and whether we treat others fairly or even sanely, those things are too ambiguous to apply across the board. Though I do think there are known people who are well-known to be less than honorable in their dealings, you'd be more likely to get that info in a PM.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Prism Goldens said:


> I posted first to this thread, and it was a quick and easy touching on what think are the key points- of course each has many aspects to it...but the reason I think that you find 'no clearances, run' and don't find 'she's a crazy run' or 'he cheats other breeders or puppy people, run' posts is because there are so many volatile breeders in Goldens for whatever reason and those calls on behaviors that are against the COE such as cheating or going nutso or whatever- they are too difficult to quantify. The clearances are easy to say yay or nay to- they either have them or don't- but the relationships we have with others and whether we treat others fairly or even sanely, those things are too ambiguous to apply across the board. Though I do think there are known people who are well-known to be less than honorable in their dealings, you'd be more likely to get that info in a PM.


I couldnt agree with this post more. The only solution I can really think of is to learn a whole lot over time, and keep true to conscience. That is going to be more about the individual's internal character though than the external COE. 

There has to be a wide degree of live and let live even within people of good character who breed because people sincerely, genuinely differ in what they believe is best, how the read the breed standard, and if they choose to follow the COE in every case. 

That doesnt mean there isnt a concrete difference between good breeders who make a plausible effort to do the right thing consistently over time, and breeders who never even do a clearance and rarely if ever do the right thing by the breed or other humans.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Brave said:


> I'm not defending breeders who don't do clearances. I'm just trying to understand why parts of the COE are hard and fast but the rest is more of a guideline.
> 
> The forum has taught me that if there aren't clearances to run. Why doesn't that apply to rest of the COE. To be honest, I didn't know most of what the COE lists, because it seems to be glossed over in conversations when people ask about certain breeders.
> 
> I can understand you have to pick the right stud for your dog. The only stand-alone in the guidelines then would be clearances. Right? Is that the logic?


Sorry for a long post, here, but most of it is just quoting the ENTIRE Code of Ethics regarding breeders so anyone interested can read the whole thing. As an attorney who is versed in interpreting contracts, organizational documents, and understanding and interpreting laws and regulations, here's my take on how to read the CoE. Let's begin! 

So, is the CoE a set of "rules" or merely "guidelines?"

My answer: I see the CoE for breeders as a mix of principles, minimum standards and considerations. They are not "rules," as the GRCA has no enforcement mechanism. However, while phrased as "guidelines" and "considerations," I believe the CoE contains within them the following:

*1. A set of guiding principles and objectives*;

These are characterized by words and phrases that are broad in scope, with indications of principle rather than statements of fact. These areas use words and phrases like "encouraged to maintain," "encourage improvement," "satisfactory evidence," "GRCA members’ highest motivation," "encouraged to use," and "with the objectives of GRCA in mind." This kind of writing requires a breeder to keep an eye toward broad objectives, and does not mandate particular behavior or actions, but states the end goals and core principles that breeders should use in designing and implementing their breeding programs.​
*2. A set of minimum standards*;

These are characterized by words or phrases indicating specificity and compulsion, such as "breeders should," "are expected to," "should be," "requirements," "the following reports are acceptable," "acceptable records," and "in compliance." While these entries are not "rules" because the GRCA has no enforcement mechanism, they are to be read as minimum standards and are compulsory, not mere recommendations. The four core clearances are part of this set of minimum standards.​
*3. A set of considerations for developing areas of science and medicine*.

These are predominantly geared toward DNA tests, at present, and are characterized by words or phrases that indicate uncertainty in the face of changing science, such as, "advisory statements," "in a general sense," "considerations such as," "the ideal use," "consideration should also be given," "including but not limited to," and "it is suggested." Such provisions are neither compulsory nor are they merely restatements of goals and principles, but instead are an attempt to provide targeted guidance in an areas where exactness is not at present possible, and the state of the science, and thus GRCA policy, is in flux.​
Although the CoE is divided into sections, the divisions between principles, minimum standards and areas of consideration are not so neatly divided, but are sprinkled throughout the entire CoE, sometimes in coherent sections and sometimes varying within a single paragraph or even a single sentence. I think that is why it seems to be confusing. One must look to the context and the language used in assigning significance to a sentence or phrase. One cannot simply point at a guiding principle and accurately claim that therefore the CoE is merely a set of principles or guidelines; nor can one point at a minimum standard and accurately conclude that the CoE is a set of rules. It is both, and more, and which is which depends on the particularities of language usage. 

And while we must read the CoE as a whole and hold each part in fidelity to the whole, we must also recognize that not all sentences, phrases and sections are equal, but must be given their own independent significance and weight.

MHO.

Here is the CoE for breeders, in its entirety:



> RESPONSIBILITIES AS A BREEDER
> 
> General Guidelines
> I. Overview
> ...


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Prism Goldens said:


> I posted first to this thread, and it was a quick and easy touching on what think are the key points- of course each has many aspects to it...but the reason I think that you find 'no clearances, run' and don't find 'she's a crazy run' or 'he cheats other breeders or puppy people, run' posts is because there are so many volatile breeders in Goldens for whatever reason and those calls on behaviors that are against the COE such as cheating or going nutso or whatever- they are too difficult to quantify.


This brings about a very important point regarding the GRCA COE.

Who does the GRCA COE apply to?

It applies to members of the GRCA and/or people who state that they follow or intend to follow the GRCA COE. 

If people don't belong to the GRCA and make no claim to follow the GRCA COE, you really can't hold them accountable to that standard. They are accountable to the law of the land, but that does not include the GRCA's COE. 

If someone looking for a puppy is asking for information on a breeder who obviously doesn't follow and has no intention to follow the GRCA COE it is not fair to assassinate that breeder personally, their dogs and their breeding program on an open forum. That particular breeder is part of "The Public" that GRCA members are supposed to treat fairly according to the GRCA COE.

It would be fair to say that they don't follow the GRCA's COE and as such you can't in good faith recommend them and leave it at that. If you think it would help you can try to teach the prospective puppy buyer why it's important to seek out a breeder that strives to follow the GRCA COE.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> If people don't belong to the GRCA and make no claim to follow the GRCA COE, you really can't hold them accountable to that standard. They are accountable to the law of the land, but that does not include the GRCA's COE.
> 
> If someone looking for a puppy is asking for information on a breeder who obviously doesn't follow and has no intention to follow the GRCA COE it is not fair to assassinate that breeder personally, their dogs and their breeding program on an open forum. That particular breeder is part of "The Public" that GRCA members are supposed to treat fairly according to the GRCA COE.
> 
> It would be fair to say that they don't follow the GRCA's COE and as such you can't in good faith recommend them and leave it at that. If you think it would help you can try to teach the prospective puppy buyer why it's important to seek out a breeder that strives to follow the GRCA COE.


Well, I don't know about the loaded statement "assassinate that breeder personally," so I'll ignore that, but will say that I disagree with the general tone of your post, which is to say that we cannot hold non-GRCA member breeders of Golden Retrievers to the standards of the GRCA CoE, and to judge it by that standard.

I think the GRCA sets forth in the CoE a set of principles, minimum standards and considerations that applies to the responsible breeding of Golden Retrievers, regardless of to what the breeder owes an allegiance. The CoE isn't merely a secret club handshake or arcane set of procedures intended only for members of the fraternity. As the entity responsible for defining, preserving and maintaining the Golden Retriever breed in the USA, the CoE is an attempt to define responsible breeding practices for the breed, not merely for the club member. Thus, I think it's perfectly acceptable to hold any American Golden Retriever breeder's breeding practices up to the light of the GRCA CoE.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

DanaRuns said:


> Sorry for a long post, here, but most of it is just quoting the ENTIRE Code of Ethics regarding breeders so anyone interested can read the whole thing. As an attorney who is versed in interpreting contracts, organizational documents, and understanding and interpreting laws and regulations, here's my take on how to read the CoE. Let's begin!


Danaruns, thank you for that post. It was very helpful to me, and made lots of sense.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> I think it's perfectly acceptable to hold any American Golden Retriever breeder's breeding practices up to the light of the GRCA CoE.



Is it mandatory to be a part of the GRCA to breed Goldens in America?


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> If someone looking for a puppy is asking for information on a breeder who obviously doesn't follow and has no intention to follow the GRCA COE it is not fair to assassinate that breeder personally, their dogs and their breeding program on an open forum. That particular breeder is part of "The Public" that GRCA members are supposed to treat fairly according to the GRCA COE.
> 
> It would be fair to say that they don't follow the GRCA's COE and as such you can't in good faith recommend them and leave it at that. If you think it would help you can try to teach the prospective puppy buyer why it's important to seek out a breeder that strives to follow the GRCA COE.






DanaRuns said:


> As the entity responsible for defining, preserving and maintaining the Golden Retriever breed in the USA, the CoE is an attempt to define responsible breeding practices for the breed, not merely for the club member. Thus, I think it's perfectly acceptable to hold any American Golden Retriever breeder's breeding practices up to the light of the GRCA CoE.



I think adopting SwampCollie's suggestion might be a good prospect. I don't think he's saying we cannot hold their practices up against the COE. I think he's saying we can comment on that they don't seem to follow the COE nor do they indicate they are members of the GRCA; educate the buyer on why its important to follow the GRCA COE and point them toward a more reputable breeder. 

This is essentially what we do now, only we spend 5 pages and two lawsuit threats pointing out exactly what parts of the COE these breeders don't follow and then arguing with said breeder over the slander (libel?). 

If we stopped at what SwampCollie said, maybe we can keep those fights to the minimum and still help a puppy buyer to make an informed decision.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Chritty said:


> Is it mandatory to be a part of the GRCA to breed Goldens in America?


Nope. Anyone with two intact and fertile Goldens can breed them. But both have to be registered with the AKC if you want to sell the puppies as pure bred dogs with "papers." And you should follow the GRCA CoE if you want to do what is right for the puppies and the puppy buyers (and not get disapproval from other Golden breeders).


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Brave said:


> If we stopped at what SwampCollie said, maybe we can keep those fights to the minimum and still help a puppy buyer to make an informed decision.


Hope springs eternal. 

And btw, I think that's what was done in the most recent situation.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

Chritty said:


> Is it mandatory to be a part of the GRCA to breed Goldens in America?



No it is not. The GRCA has no way of enforcing membership. Nor do any of the breed clubs that I know of. Which is why it's a HUGE RED FLAG when someone advertises that their puppies come from licensed and inspected breeders. Because that means the business falls under a high-volume breeder and is under the USDA jurisdiction. You don't want a puppy from those types of breeders, IMO.


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

DanaRuns said:


> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, I think that's what was done in the most recent situation.



I am evermore the optimist. 

Albeit socially awkward, with a tendency of shoving both my feet in my mouth on accident.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Some of the posts here imply that certain areas of the COE are grey areas and some may hold more weight than others. In addition, the COE are guidelines so breeders have flexibility in how they use the information. 
I am not sure how anyone can feel justified calling out breeders that don't happen to adhere to the parts of of the COE that they feel are important, when they may have chosen to ignore other portions of it. 
The public animosity towards breeders that don't measure up on this forum is sad. 
It is always an option to privately redirect people to other breeders if you feel someones program isn't up to your standards.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I am not sure how anyone can feel justified calling out breeders that don't happen to adhere to the parts of of the COE that they feel are important, when they may have chosen to ignore other portions of it.
> 
> The public animosity towards breeders that don't measure up on this forum is sad.


 I put the health of the breed, the health of individual dogs, the care and well-being of individual dogs, and also the perception of reputable breeders as it may be twisted by AR people given any type of opportunity.... I put this well ahead of what someone else's interpretation of one single word in the COE. 

And I feel justified as somebody who may not breed my dogs (certainly will not breed my older boy) - but I still got all those clearances without thinking twice about it. Note that when local golden retriever clubs put on eye/heart clinics - there is an overwhelming amount of turnout for these clinics, to the extent it astonishes people of other breeds where they don't do these things unless dogs will be bred. 

I feel justified. 

Might add, there are 2 breeders that I know of here in MI who basically decided to breed dogs who failed elbows. One of those breeders was somebody I was on a waiting list with. I "assumed" the dogs had all clearances when I first contacted her because she's one of the good ones as far as very active in the breed in a good way. It was just random I was looking over clearances before putting any money down and realized elbows were missing. I backed out so fast I nearly gave myself whiplash. I know it's impossible to gauge what you have with some litters where you have dogs bred to dogs who lived and died before elbows became a regular clearance, but with living breathing and currently active dogs being bred now.... I won't touch a puppy from those litters. The other breeder, I learned about through the grapevine as again it was very hushed up. I don't know about the second dog that I heard about through the grapevine, but the first dog who failed elbows.... had preliminaries done, passed those, and continued his showing career. When they checked elbows again for finals, there was no maybe's about it, this dog had elbow dysplasia. You had one breeder dropping him like a hot pan and another breeder taking him in for her program because she didn't believe in throwing a good dog away over elbows. And I'm going off memory here (don't remember the dog's registration name to check, but this is something I vaguely noticed after seeing elbow issue) - the dog has been bred on preliminaries. There was at least 2 litters out of him before this first litter with that breeder I was on a waiting list with. 

^ I guess that tells you that it's done and sometimes nothing bad comes out of it. But my perspective as a prospective puppy owner was I needed to have that knowledge up front and it was too much a gamble for me since my dogs do more than just hang around the house. <- That's where I really wish breeders would follow that portion of the COE which asks them to be honest and upfront even with negative information. It would alleviate anyone's need to call breeders out or warn puppy buyers. 


W/regards to Swampy's post - I think people generally are very reserved and private with the more harmful or critical observations or knowledge of certain breeders people query about on this forum. I know when certain names I knew of came up on this forum, I sent private messages rather than air those breeders' dirty laundry on this forum. And I believe other people are more likely to do the same. Note that the thread that caused the creation of this thread and others.... had very few people posting on it. But I bet a lot of private messages were flying.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I just want to note that no one volunteers opinions about breeders. Puppy buyers come here looking for opinions on certain breeders that _they_ identify, and IMHO it would be a disservice to them, and to all the other buyers who find those threads on a separate search, not to provide candid and honest opinions.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Totally, totally agree and maybe even would take it a step farther. A WELL BRED Golden should at least show an interest in birds, even if he has never seen them before. We are talking instinct, not training. 
A lot of the well bred boys I personally know would have a very, very hard time deciding between a bitch in heat and a live bird. We've often joked that they would probably get the bird, then mount the female with the bird in mouth. Instinct is that strong. 
I've seen any number of puppies or older dogs who, on seeing a bird for the first time, went CRAZY for birds. Like doggie crack. 
That's what I, personally, am looking for. Not a dog who would rather pee on the grass than pay attention to a bird in the field.



kfayard said:


> In field and as far as a JH...YES! For me, if I were to see a dog that looks and clearly sees the duck go down and is more worried about urinating on grass then going after the duck that is a huge deal breaker for me. Maybe there were females in heat, so yes that can come into play. I would have to watch the dog another time to see for sure. But, to not attempt after the 2nd try...it is a little different than obedience.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl:



TrailDogs said:


> So where so we draw the line as to what is acceptable and what is not? Are health clearances the starting point and everything else just gravy?
> It is human nature to justify what we do when it comes to breeding choices. Where it falls apart, in my way of thinking, is when breeders that are deemed to be 'not so reputable' are trashed on this forum. This usually happens when all clearances are not in order or the dog is bred on prelims.
> Is this a bigger sin than breeding the dog described in kfayard's post that won't pick up a bird?
> Or breeding dogs with incorrect temperaments because they win at a certain venue, either show or field?
> ...


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> Nope. Anyone with two intact and fertile Goldens can breed them. But both have to be registered with the AKC if you want to sell the puppies as pure bred dogs with "papers." And you should follow the GRCA CoE if you want to do what is right for the puppies and the puppy buyers (and not get disapproval from other Golden breeders).



Does the AKC have the power to prosecute breeders who do the wrong thing?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

DanaRuns said:


> But both have to be registered with the AKC if you want to sell the puppies as pure bred dogs with "papers."


not really, I have a coworker currently selling her golden retriever purebred puppies that are CKC registered (and I don't mean Canadian Kennel Club). 

Both parents have to be registered with AKC to register the puppy with AKC, but there are plenty of registries out there willing to take money if AKC won't, and the general public often doesn't know the difference.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

DanaRuns said:


> I just want to note that no one volunteers opinions about breeders. Puppy buyers come here looking for opinions on certain breeders that _they_ identify, and IMHO it would be a disservice to them, and to all the other buyers who find those threads on a separate search, not to provide candid and honest opinions.


Agreed. And some of us are just regular old pet owners trying to pass on well intentioned advice, sometimes as well as we can from our tiny phone keyboards. We may not be quite as thorough or thoughtful as we could be, but it is what it is. 

I have seen both types of non clearance breeders. Prestigious ones and byb's. As far as prestigous, without inside knowledge of the nuances, as a simple pet owner not in the know, any deviation from perfect clearances is unacceptable to me. There are so many other problems that lurk in this breed, why oh why not follow the book on these? Maybe the breeder is good enough, knows enough, but maybe they have gotten too grandiose in their view of their own program. I have no way to know. And neither do the newbies who come here. Just get the clearances!

As far as byb's go I have seen one that will repeatedly breed known and thrown health problems. Their mix of finals (few), prelims (most), and expired eyes make me want to scream to anyone considering them - run away! Even while they talk the talk and make health claims on their website (please click pay pal and put down your deposit!) The clearances are not the only problems there, but misleading claims are a good indicator of them.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't believe the COE requires us to police what other breeders do or don't do. You can be a good steward of the breed by upholding a high standard in your own breeding program without tearing down others.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> not really, I have a coworker currently selling her golden retriever purebred puppies that are CKC registered (and I don't mean Canadian Kennel Club).
> 
> Both parents have to be registered with AKC to register the puppy with AKC, but there are plenty of registries out there willing to take money if AKC won't, and the general public often doesn't know the difference.


I have run into this with several people who have purchased CKC Registered dogs, they have no idea there is a difference let alone what the difference is. I find this to be extremely disturbing.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

TrailDogs said:


> I don't believe the COE requires us to police what other breeders do or don't do. You can be a good steward of the breed by upholding a high standard in your own breeding program without tearing down others.


This may be true, but, as has been pointed out, in regards to some of the threads that have popped up recently, people have responded to puppy buyers asking about specific breeders. I can't think of any instance where a forum member created a thread just for fun saying, "Buyer Beware of Fields of Gold Kennel in Little Town, USA." (Lord, I hope there is no such thing as Fields of Gold Kennel, I made that up, but if there is please let me know before someone threatens to sure me).


----------



## fourlakes (Feb 16, 2013)

_Sorry for a long post, here, but most of it is just quoting the ENTIRE Code of Ethics regarding breeders so anyone interested can read the whole thing. As an attorney who is versed in interpreting contracts, organizational documents, and understanding and interpreting laws and regulations, here's my take on how to read the CoE. Let's begin! 
_
DanaRuns: Thanks for this post: thorough, thoughtful, informative.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

TrailDogs said:


> I don't believe the COE requires us to police what other breeders do or don't do. You can be a good steward of the breed by upholding a high standard in your own breeding program without tearing down others.


That is true and for the most part how I feel in my every day life which, is different that the small chunk that I spend here. In my physical, active dog life I am generally surrounded by other 'Dog' people. They just know more in general, than the single thread or new posters who are looking for a puppy. If 'dog person' friend/acquaintance brings home a new puppy from a litter without full clearances or known issue (take your pick health, Cancer, temperment, bidability, drive, brpirdined), I assume they did their research, know about it and made a decision based on full facts that was the best for them, their family, their goals, and their breeding program (if they have one). Wether that would have been my choice does not matter because it was not mine to make. 

On the other hand, I have a deep belief myself that is echoed in the COE and yes I feel this is more important than full clearances:
"II. Dealing with Others 
*GRCA members are expected to demonstrate fairness and honesty – including full disclosure – in dealing with other owners and breeders, purchasers of dogs, and the general public. * Owners of dogs involved in a breeding or sale should ensure that appropriate documentation is readily available to those concerned regarding results of screening examinations as recommended below. If any such examinations have not been done, this should be stated; and any major past or present health or temperament concerns should be disclosed."

Is to me the most important part of the GRCA COE. I beleive that the part I bolded should apply to everyone regardless of club affiliation. I believe Fairness, Honesty, and Full Disclusure is a ethical and moral compass issue that transcends the GRCA, Goldens, and Dogs. It is a whole life issue. Because to compromise those values I feel robs others of their ability to make their best decision. 

When I am faced with the ethical delima of competing rights, (It is right to not talk about other breeders and It is right to help and uneducated buyer understand what they are buying) I will almost always champion the ethical right that protects the person is in a position to be taken advantage of through lack of knowledge.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

LJack said:


> On the other hand, I have a deep belief myself that is echoed in the COE and yes I feel this is more important than full clearances:
> "II. Dealing with Others
> *GRCA members are expected to demonstrate fairness and honesty – including full disclosure – in dealing with other owners and breeders, purchasers of dogs, and the general public. *
> Is to me the most important part of the GRCA COE. I beleive that the part I bolded should apply to everyone regardless of club affiliation. I believe Fairness, Honesty, and Full Disclusure is a ethical and moral compass issue that transcends the GRCA, Goldens, and Dogs. It is a whole life issue. Because to compromise those values I feel robs others of their ability to make their best decision.
> ...


Do breeders disclose that this breed has a higher than average rate of cancer when they sell puppies? Do they disclose that they have multiple generations of dogs that have never seen a bird when somebody comes looking for a hunting companion? 
If you are going to lay it all on the table due to high morals/ethics, where do you draw the line?


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

TrailDogs said:


> Do breeders disclose that this breed has a higher than average rate of cancer when they sell puppies? Do they disclose that they have multiple generations of dogs that have never seen a bird when somebody comes looking for a hunting companion?
> If you are going to lay it all on the table due to high morals/ethics, where do you draw the line?


Well a start is the clearcut clearances, and rarely do people comment beyond that when someone is asking about a breeder or a litter. Personally my pet peeve, and I will share it sometimes, is breeders just breeding the dogs they have and making grandiose claims about their program. I think this is a huge reason for breedings before 2 yo to take place with studs. He may be the only unrelated dog they have and they don't want to miss a bitch's season or pay a stud fee to someone else.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

TrailDogs said:


> Do breeders disclose that this breed has a higher than average rate of cancer when they sell puppies? Do they disclose that they have multiple generations of dogs that have never seen a bird when somebody comes looking for a hunting companion?
> If you are going to lay it all on the table due to high morals/ethics, where do you draw the line?


 Well... yes. I've purchased a few dogs from breeders and can definitely answer this one clearly. 

1. Yes. An honest breeder should have a fairly reasonable conversation with puppy buyers about cancer. When asked. And generally that is one of the first things that people ask about.

A sign that a breeder is less than honest or full of it is if they tell you they have no cancer in their lines or they breed cancer free dogs.

The best the breeders may say (positively) is they have not seen cancer in the direct dogs they've owned. And this may be true. Particularly in reference to early cancer. 

2. Yes, if asked. I don't see why they would not be honest about whether they've trained dogs for field. You must go a step further though in that if somebody is looking for a hunting dog vs a companion dog, they are seeking out breeders who breed to type. And you can see this on this forum when people come looking for breeders. Now if they say they want a hunting companion - see who is recommended for their area. 

**** I agree with Laura, fwiw. On this forum you see a lot of people discouraging others from purchasing from certain breeders based on lack of clearances, etc. But there is also a "it is your choice and we won't hold it against you and tell you I told you so" sense of it.... at least that I've noticed? I know personally speaking in "real life" - I don't really talk about breeders to average people unless they ask me who to purchase a puppy from and why. Unless a dog looks he comes from somebody I know, I do not ask where they got a puppy from. Because I don't want to know! Majority of dogs don't come from good breeders.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

TrailDogs said:


> Do breeders disclose that this breed has a higher than average rate of cancer when they sell puppies? Do they disclose that they have multiple generations of dogs that have never seen a bird when somebody comes looking for a hunting companion?
> If you are going to lay it all on the table due to high morals/ethics, where do you draw the line?


 Well I know I sure do. What line do you mean? How much is too much? What is not enough to tell puppy buyers?


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

kfayard said:


> In field and as far as a JH...YES! For me, if I were to see a dog that looks and clearly sees the duck go down and is more worried about urinating on grass then going after the duck that is a huge deal breaker for me. Maybe there were females in heat, so yes that can come into play. I would have to watch the dog another time to see for sure. But, to not attempt after the 2nd try...it is a little different than obedience.


I am not sure how it is at Nationals, which I am assuming this is where the incident took place but regularly at a hunt test you are not allowed to have bitches in heat on the premises. 

I have seen this quite often with people who think that the instinct is just there and assume the dogs will perform without training only to find themselves and the dogs embarrassed at a test. And not just with goldens but also with other retriever breeds (flatties, labs, etc). Also many people underestimate the field testing atmosphere, it is different than in the show. Darcy behaves entirely different in the show ring than in the field and especially at a field test. 

I hope that is the case with this dog and owner (no clue who it is) and hopefully the owner will pursue some sort of training before breeding him.

Of course I speak from a "field" point of view; maybe I am closed minded to some but I can only speak from a field point of view when I talk about retrievers because that is what their breeding purpose was and should be with or without the COE.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

The CoE of the GRC from my region states that breeding can take place from 18 months and states nothing about gun dogs. 

Does this make my region's GRC unethical?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Chritty said:


> The CoE of the GRC from my region states that breeding can take place from 18 months and states nothing about gun dogs.
> 
> Does this make my region's GRC unethical?


Different countries have different rules. If people are following the rules for the countries they LIVE IN, I hardly would say they are unethical.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Chritty said:


> The CoE of the GRC from my region states that breeding can take place from 18 months and states nothing about gun dogs.
> 
> Does this make my region's GRC unethical?


IMHO not really. Each country is more or less rigorous in their approach to health clearances. Just because it does not adhere to the GRCA COE does not mean automatically unethical! From GRCA COE:

"For dogs residing outside of the U.S.:
A. Reports that satisfy the Code of Ethics of the parent Golden Retriever club of
the country in which they reside are acceptable.
B. Every reasonable effort should be made to parallel as closely as possible the
spirit of the Code of Ethics as it applies to dogs residing in the U.S. (section II
above), including recording reports in approved online databases."

The growth plates close between 12 and 16 months at which time you should be OK to get the X-rays. Are they OK for breeding purposes? That is the buyers choice but of course that breeder could not be a member of the GRCA. To me they are more important as far as the level of activity I am going to subject my pup to. 

As far as unethical, to me personally it is more unethical to breed an ITCH carrier to a dog that has not been tested who has relatives who are carriers. However that seems to be pushed to the side by many including the ones who espouse strict adherence to the GRCA COE while invoking "different interpretation". 

From GRCA COE: 

"DNA tests are available for several diseases that affect Golden Retrievers (such as for
prcd‐PRA, GR‐PRA1, and ichthyosis), and more will certainly be added over time.**The
GRCA Health & Genetics Committee anticipates releasing advisory statements as new
DNA tests become available.**However, in a general sense, the decision to test or not
should include considerations such as:**the seriousness of the disease, the reliability of
the test, *the prevalence of the disease in the breed, and the presence of affected or
carrier dogs in the vertical pedigree.**The ideal use of DNA tests is to prevent producing
affected puppies, while at the same time maintaining genetic diversity and gradually
decreasing the prevalence of the disease gene(s) in the breed.*" 

With that said, there is nothing wrong with any COE in any country. It is instructional for both the breeders and the owners.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

TrailDogs said:


> Do breeders disclose that this breed has a higher than average rate of cancer when they sell puppies? Do they disclose that they have multiple generations of dogs that have never seen a bird when somebody comes looking for a hunting companion?
> If you are going to lay it all on the table due to high morals/ethics, where do you draw the line?


Well, I don't know where this line you would draw is. But, personally YES without hesitation to all you typed above. And I would answer any buyer question to the best of my ability and knowledge as completely and accurately as I can. I have not bred a litter yet but just place my first washout and I probably overwhelmed them with information before they came to visit (including all test results and links to the appropriate site to verify what I was saying) but to me, that is how full disclosure works.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Chritty said:


> The CoE of the GRC from my region states that breeding can take place from 18 months and states nothing about gun dogs.
> 
> Does this make my region's GRC unethical?


No, just different and any breeder meeting the stated requirements would by ethical. 

Just as if Grade 1 elbows where added as a breedable by OFA or GRCA or the breeding age reduced to 18 months and Prelims added as accepalble to the GRCA COE, I would consider those breeders compliant/ethical although persoanlly I would still wait for OFA numbers and 2 years. If grade 1 elbows were changed to breedable, I would have to think on that personally so I can't say what I would do.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> Do breeders disclose that this breed has a higher than average rate of cancer when they sell puppies? Do they disclose that they have multiple generations of dogs that have never seen a bird when somebody comes looking for a hunting companion?
> If you are going to lay it all on the table due to high morals/ethics, where do you draw the line?



I definitely tell everyone about goldens and the cancer problem, and further ask that our pups enroll in the lifetime study. We had more than a hundred applications for 6 puppies, and most often refer on to other breeders no matter who is asking for what style of golden.

If someone asks for a hunting dog, I send them to Sunfire or to a local field trainer pro who knows goldens well. However, my show dog has a sibling running SH and one who hunts in rugged conditions with his owner, so I dont buy the idea that bc the dog doesn't have a hunt tile the dog can't hunt with the right trainer or owner whatsoever. I do agree it is beyond unlikely that will be a field trial competitor though. 


The same need for disclosure goes for hunting dogs who have gone many many generations in a kennel without being house dogs, or evaluated for structure, temperament and breed type who are long legged or 45 lbs or have collie heads with no stop etc or who have temperaments that are poor so others do not like to train with them, or who are hardheaded/hyper and require aggressive means to train.

Hopefully too, breeders are not labeling dogs as "dual" prospects for the show ring and hunt tests who will never be close to competitive in conformation as well. I see my fair share of those, and once bought one before I knew more about the show ring.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> The same goes for hunting dogs who have gone many many generations in a kennel without being house dogs, or evaluated for structure, temperament and breed type who are long legged or 45 lbs or have collie heads with no stop etc or who have temperaments that are poor so others do not like to train with them, or who are hardheaded/hyper and require aggressive means to train.
> .


I have seen dogs like that from the puppy mills of Lancaster county but they are not generally considered reputable breeders so the COE is a non issue.
I am glad to hear you are getting your pups enrolled in the Morris cancer study. Awareness of health issues can only help the breed.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> .......
> Hopefully too, breeders are not labeling dogs as "dual" prospects for the show ring and hunt tests who will never be close to competitive in conformation as well. I see my fair share of those, and once bought one before I knew more about the show ring.


The more I read and re-read the GRCA COE the more I find that actually that should not be "interpreted" as "dual" prospects. Actually IF the breeders would rigorously adopt the GRCA COE then we would not have the hunt vs show split in any dogs from the GRCA breeder members. Their dogs should be able to compete in both hunt, field and show.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Claudia M said:


> The more I read and re-read the GRCA COE the more I find that actually that should not be "interpreted" as "dual" prospects. Actually IF the breeders would rigorously adopt the GRCA COE then we would not have the hunt vs show split in any dogs from the GRCA breeder members. Their dogs should be able to compete in both hunt, field and show.



That's where to me a CoE is about ideals. They're not a law that can be enforced rather a map for an ideal scenario

ETA: My opinions are as an outsider looking in. Please don't take them as inflammatory as that is not the intention behind them. I really enjoy this forum and I enjoy these discussions


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

TrailDogs said:


> So where so we draw the line as to what is acceptable and what is not? Are health clearances the starting point and everything else just gravy?


So, let's start with the notion that we all agree that some line should be drawn. So we are all line-drawers. Now all we have to discuss is where to draw it. I think people of good will can have differing opinions on this.

I believe very strongly that the CoE is not an all or nothing document. As I posted earlier, I think the CoE has different content, requiring different approaches. Among those are guiding principles (lofty concepts to keep in mind, but not marching orders for particular behavior, and therefore difficult to use in discerning a "good" from a "bad" breeder), minimum standards (compulsory actions, the failure of which to do makes automatically for a "bad breeder") and considerations based on emerging medical and scientific knowledge.



> It is human nature to justify what we do when it comes to breeding choices. Where it falls apart, in my way of thinking, is when breeders that are deemed to be 'not so reputable' are trashed on this forum. This usually happens when all clearances are not in order or the dog is bred on prelims.
> Is this a bigger sin than breeding the dog described in kfayard's post that won't pick up a bird?


Perhaps not a "bigger" sin, but one that is certainly (1) more easily discerned, and (2) necessarily the result of willful omission and disregard of standards, whereas the other could be the result of genetic chance when considering a single dog. So yeah, I think it's a "bigger" sin because it is necessarily a willful one, and not possibly the result of chance or miscalculation.



> I see a disturbing (to me) trend to award the status of 'reputable breeder' to anyone who wins shows and gets clearances.
> That seems to be as far as the COE goes for some breeders.


I think that it's less an endorsement in most cases, and more a pronouncement of the absence of evidence of disrepute, which may seem indistinguishable to the ignorant or careless ear, but are not the same.

Delving deeper, there is of course room for difference of opinion when one gets to analyzing perceived compliance with the "principles and goals" rather than focusing on the more easily determined "minimum standards." There are differences in interpretation, predominance and emphasis as to one principle over another, and even one situation over another. And the CoE provides room for such differences, by making broad statements of principle and goal, rather than defining narrow and specific standards and requirements.

Separately but related, as an individual I may have a broader acceptance about what breeder to recommend for someone wanting a pet, but a much narrower one for a more sophisticated buyer with a purpose in mind. For the casual pet buyer, I think my judgment extends only so far as it takes to get that person a good pet; i.e., healthy, long-lived with an affable temperament. Whereas, for a performance or hunting buyer, my judgment extends to such concepts as birdiness, biddability and structure. I might even be less inclined to issue judgment on longevity if I know a buyer's overriding concern is, for example, attaining a particularly difficult title. This is not a judgment or lack thereof on a particular breeder in those instances, but more a pragmatic approach to providing the buyer with guidance to what they are looking for.

So, in essence, yes I think it's perfectly fine to condemn a breeder who fails to adhere to the few minimum standards actually set forth in the CoE, while withholding judgment on a particular breeder's expression of adherence to guiding principles and goals. That's fine, I believe, and to hold all clauses in the CoE to equal analysis is an incorrect reading of its intent, IMHO.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> The more I read and re-read the GRCA COE the more I find that actually that should not be "interpreted" as "dual" prospects. Actually IF the breeders would rigorously adopt the GRCA COE then we would not have the hunt vs show split in any dogs from the GRCA breeder members. Their dogs should be able to compete in both hunt, field and show.


It will never happen.

Because in order for it to happen - you would need a good deal of sacrifice on both sides. People on the field side (particularly those breeding field trial dogs) would have to throw away champion dogs and champion lines on the basis that these dogs could not compete for show and are very far from being able to breed back to show because of so many faults they carry.

On the conformation side, you already have more moderate conformation dogs out there who would not have to sacrifice too much by way of "look" to compete in field. And you already have many breeders ALREADY producing dogs who have MH titles in addition to CH's. So you could conceivably have less sacrifice on the conformation side as far as breeding back to these dogs have instinct and brains. But you would definitely be asking people to throw away Top Twenty dogs on the basis that they are dumb as a stump and can't retrieve. 

See both sides of it....

And nope. Not gonna happen on a grand scale. I think it's better to encourage and applaud breeders who are putting an effort in entering their dogs in field and obedience in addition to conformation. Even if they fail ten million times. At least it shows they gave it a go and showed up. 

And my goodness - go to 2014 National's website. You can look up the results for the MH, SH, and JH tests to see who passed and who failed. The majority of dogs entered were primarily performance dogs with very few conformation dogs. Those conformation dogs are already sticking out like a sore thumb and you already have a lot of field people watching and READY to poke fun and highlight mistakes those dogs and handlers make. That in itself is not encouraging for the other side of things. It's already pretty intimidating for non-field people to get into a sport that is basically conducted far out in the middle of nowhere and not readily available to watch to get into. Conformation and obedience and agility are easier - primarily because these are done right where we live and are easy to get to and attend.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Chritty said:


> That's where to me a CoE is about ideals. They're not a law that can be enforced rather a map for an ideal


If the ideal is to keep the Golden Retriever's purpose, structure and temperament, natural ability and so on then I am not sure where you could leave one out and still accomplish the same ideal.... 

But should definitely apply to all members of the GRCA which to my knowledge no one is forced into becoming one. 

I chose to be a member of the FCRSA because the breed is not split (yet). If it does then I will personally cancel my membership. 
When I signed up I have pledged to the clearances requirements by their standards which coincide pretty much with the GRCA. Do I agree with every clearance, no. Do I believe they have the best for the breed in mind, yes. But it is a pledge nonetheless and therefore not something I can pick and choose from but something to add to for the betterment of the breed.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Megora said:


> It will never happen.
> 
> Because in order for it to happen - you would need a good deal of sacrifice on both sides. People on the field side (particularly those breeding field trial dogs) would have to throw away champion dogs and champion lines on the basis that these dogs could not compete for show and are very far from being able to breed back to show because of so many faults they carry.
> 
> ...


WOW, not sure how to respond to this. So the field goldens have faults and should be eliminated because they somehow *no longer* look like the goldens fancied in the show ring???

And the conformation dogs cannot perform in the field because the field people are snickering and awaiting them to make a mistake?

Kate, I hope I read all that wrong!!!!

I speak from the perspective of a show/field British golden who is out of standard, ITCH carrier and therefore will never be bred (it breaks my heart - but had to). She is by far the best Golden Retriever I have owned. When I entered the field circles last November I was asked what kind of dog was she and all the other questions. I have never had ONE field person snicker or await my dog to fail. Au Contraire, I have had nothing by support and encouragement even in the months post OSS op when I literately thought I have lost my field golden and was about to quit. At the very first hunt test, they stayed behind me in support, encouraged me to breathe and after each girl passed they were there to give me a high five.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I might add to that Kate as I am looking to add our #3 and that will be a field bred golden retriever; I am very very curious if I will have the same experience in the show ring as I had in the field. I hope that would be the case but something tells me not to expect it.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

To me a big winning dog in the show ring really means nothing. There have been very incorrect, unsound dogs that win big.... So throwing away the (theoretical, not directed at any dog specifically) Top Twenty Dog from the gene pool doesn't mean much to me. I also am not sure I agree that field dogs have more ground to cover to meet in the middle. Sure there may be faults within those lines, but if we are talking meeting in the middle to more closely resemble the breed standard.... well there are faults perpetuated in the show ring as well. (There are lots 'o' conversations about correct proportions on many discussion groups, for one.) I also disagree that there are "many breeders" producing CH/MH dogs. Perhaps someone can chime in here, but my recollection is that there are very few dogs in the breed holding both of those titles. 

As for the COE issue, this thread has devolved away from the original question, but my take is that for me, the COE are guidelines. There is no breeder police and, like it or not, people can do what they want with their dogs. It does not mean I will recommend puppy buyers to them, breed to their dogs, or consider puppies from their pedigrees... but they can do what they want. Admittedly, I am very new to breeding, with our second litter only 2.5 weeks old, but I am far more focused on what I am doing and making the best decisions for my dogs to worry about what someone across the country is doing. However, if someone asks me about a potential breeding, I will give my opinion. As for the question of why the clearances are the focus, I would argue that it's because they are the only thing that is objectively measurable. There is no certificate saying that you are a good sport in the ring, etc. So people focus on the health clearances. Like it or not, it makes sense when it's the only measurable thing in the COE.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> WOW, not sure how to respond to this. So the field goldens have faults and should be eliminated because they somehow *no longer* look like the goldens fancied in the show ring???
> 
> And the conformation dogs cannot perform in the field because the field people are snickering and awaiting them to make a mistake?


1. I'm saying that people are very eager to draw a line and point at the other side and do a "We don't have to change anything to go over there, THEY have to change everything to get over here". It is both sides of the equation. And you have people on both sides refusing to recognize what they do wrong and refusing to compromise. 

While there are some highly successful conformation goldens who are very far from being able to get WC's! 

There are also some field goldens out there who have all kinds of stuff wrong with them. Looks and temperament. Except they are dynamos at what they've been bred to do. 

There is a middle ground - but in order to reach that middle ground, you need to have people on both sides make sacrifices to get there. This includes throwing away dogs and breeding away from what had previously made them exceptional. I'm saying - it's NOT going to happen for people to give up certain extremes that they are breeding to to go back to a middle ground.

2. I basically said that there are a lot of people who feel discouraged about trying out in field with their dogs because they are going to get their failures highlighted over all the other failures that may have happened that day. And because you have a lot of people who have a "us vs them" attitude and are only too eager to tell conformation dog owners all about how their dogs have no drive and so on. I've heard it myself. 

My golden freaked out about a field person grabbing him around the scruff (her idea of playing and loosening up a dog).... he peed on her feet and wouldn't let her touch him again. That person came to me and told me my dog was too soft and lacked drive and she wasn't surprised because he is a conformation dog. <- I'm still planning to take more field lessons in spring and see what I can do, but it's a fact that my dog is already expected to fail by our teacher because she doesn't believe in him because mentally he is very different than the golden retrievers she is used to. I told her that he does not need nor should have a rough hand to get him to do something. And well see. I'm stubborn and will stick to it, but I have to admit - it crossed my mind reading this thread that this could be me. I'll get up the guts to enter my dog in a test and I'll have people ignoring the failures of field dogs to crow over my dog's failure if he fails. There may be 20 other dogs that fail in a test, but the one conformation dog that fails is the one that people pay attention to. That's a very discouraging aspect.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

DanaRuns said:


> So, let's start with the notion that we all agree that some line should be drawn. So we are all line-drawers. Now all we have to discuss is where to draw it. I think people of good will can have differing opinions on this.


Thank you for a well thought out response. I may not agree with all of it but appreciate your input.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Megora said:


> It will never happen.
> 
> Because in order for it to happen - you would need a good deal of sacrifice on both sides. People on the field side (particularly those breeding field trial dogs) would have to throw away champion dogs and champion lines on the basis that these dogs could not compete for show and are very far from being able to breed back to show because of so many faults they carry.
> 
> ...


I love this post and agree with it wholesale. It brings the thread back full circle to what it means to treat the public and others with courtesy.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I also disagree that there are "many breeders" producing CH/MH dogs. Perhaps someone can chime in here, but my recollection is that there are very few dogs in the breed holding both of those titles.


 Nope, there are not many as in a TON. #wordfail 

There are very few dogs in breed who have both MH titles and CH titles. But minimally speaking - yep there are some. 

Claudia's post made me assume she was talking about the breed entirely sticking to a COE that requires minimal field test titles in addition to CH's. As this has been something she's stated before. 

And my comment is that you have a wide range of field dogs out there. And some are closer to the middle than others. There's some major extremes on the field side - particularly those dogs bred for field trials (not just tests). 

It's not just extremes on the conformation side which is the problem.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Megora said:


> .......
> My golden freaked out about a field person grabbing him around the scruff (her idea of playing and loosening up a dog).... he peed on her feet and wouldn't let her touch him again. That person came to me and told me my dog was too soft and lacked drive and she wasn't surprised because he is a conformation dog. <- I'm still planning to take more field lessons in spring and see what I can do, but it's a fact that my dog is already expected to fail by our teacher because she doesn't believe in him because mentally he is very different than the golden retrievers she is used to. I told her that he does not need nor should have a rough hand to get him to do something. And well see. I'm stubborn and will stick to it, but I have to admit - it crossed my mind reading this thread that this could be me. I'll get up the guts to enter my dog in a test and I'll have people ignoring the failures of field dogs to crow over my dog's failure if he fails. There may be 20 other dogs that fail in a test, but the one conformation dog that fails is the one that people pay attention to. That's a very discouraging aspect.


Sorry about your experience; first of all I would never allow nor has anyone taken my dogs by the scruff like that especially if my dogs have never been around that person. Do I rough play with my dogs, yes but that is me playing with them and not someone I do not personally know and has met my dogs for a lengthy period of time. 

I would suggest finding another person to train with in the field and then enter in a test. But would certainly train before entering a test; it is not like going to try a conformation show.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

In all honesty, I do not think either side is more correct than the other. I agree with Michelle, Top 20 dogs mean nothing to me. I was very disappointed with the Top 20 dogs this year. Just because a dog is a Big show dog, does not make the dog more Correct than even a "Field" dog. Just my 2 cents and I come from the Conformation side, but love to do it all.

I do applaud the breeders and owners that go to Hunt Test and try it! But, if your dog takes 100 times to get a JH title, sorry I would give up on the dog for breeding purposes. I want to see some kind of drive whether it be a JH or out in the field doing some actually hunting. This preserves the breed. The dog would have to be really great in all aspects in order for me to still breed a dog that took a long time to pass a JH.

It all comes down to how the Standard is read. Some think "show" goldens have too much coat and are just too big and have too much bone. Do they all? No? Do a good majority? I think so. Some people will think no. Same goes with field goldens being too small. It is all about finding that happy medium.

I don't like an overdone dog just as much as the next person, but if judges keep rewarding it...guess what breeders are going to breed for it.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Kate, I do have to agree with you on some field people and what their opinion is on "Show/Fluffy" Goldens. I wish we had nicer people in the field like you do Claudia. I have a friend that has one of my puppies that lives in Chicago and they were very rude to her.

The field trainers down here do not see a lot of Goldens (unfortunately), so when they see my goldens they are already have a view of how "slow" they will be. But so far I have proved them wrong that not all "show" goldens are slow.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Kate and Kelli come on to VA ladies!!! Welcome both of you with open arms!  
You will find that lab/flatcoat/golden/chessie and toller people encourage eachother and can work with eachother. Alas I cannot say that about all golden people but most!


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> Kate and Kelli come on to VA ladies!!! Welcome both of you with open arms!
> You will find that lab/flatcoat/golden/chessie and toller people encourage eachother and can work with eachother. Alas I cannot say that about all golden people but most!


I wish!! But I hate the cold and my husband has to be near Salt water!! Lol! There are rude people everywhere. I think the reason you find many conformation people that are mean is because it is a competitive sport. Lets face it Competition brings out the worst in people. IMO 

Of course, you have many nice people everywhere... It is the few bad that make it harder to like something.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Claudia - I'd love to just on the basis that I've seen pictures you've posted - gorgeous! 

There are some nice field people here. I would have ZERO interest in trying my hand if there weren't nice people. Lots of very involved golden people, including conformation people. I probably will check into somebody else in spring, but we'll see.

But when I test - hope people will be nice to me and don't pick on my dog!


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Megora said:


> Nope, there are not many as in a TON. #wordfail
> 
> There are very few dogs in breed who have both MH titles and CH titles. But minimally speaking - yep there are some.
> 
> ...


Kate, yes I would like to see a show golden complete a minimal of a JH or WC but that will doubtly happen because of the number of show goldens out there that would probably never pick a duck either live , freshly shot or rotten (my golden is very slow after a nasty duck and I know she does it not because she loves picking up that re-frozen, gut out, stinking duck but because I want her to). 
That was not my point in my comment though. If you do follow the GRCA COE and your first point in breeding is the purpose of the dog then we should not have had the split like we have today and anyone who purchased a puppy from a GRCA member should have a dog that would do both in the field and conformation very well equally. That is my main reason for never getting involved with this association. I am a golden person at heart but I cannot agree with what they condone out of their own members. 

To your last paragraph somehow there is this mentality that a field bred golden is this uncontrollable, off the wall hyper dog. That cannot be further from the truth. Just because a dog can run for hundreds of yards like a maniac it does not mean that dog will run in a straight line, straight to the duck and not need handling which would take you out of the field trial. My jaws dropped when I saw some of the videos posted of those labs this year in the National Retriever Championship. No one can achieve that with an uncontrollable dog (no matter the breed). Is this dog something that a person would get to with a dog that just lays around and sleep all day thru its entire life? NO WAY. But a golden retriever was never meant to be a dog like that. Somehow this image of the golden that it is a dog that can sleep all day, wake up and lick your baby and then go back to sleep has been imprinted on the general population and then the breeding turned them into it. The Golden retriever is part of the sporting group. It is not a Bichon Frise.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Megora said:


> And my goodness - go to 2014 National's website. You can look up the results for the MH, SH, and JH tests to see who passed and who failed. The majority of dogs entered were primarily performance dogs with very few conformation dogs. Those conformation dogs are already sticking out like a sore thumb and you already have a lot of field people watching and READY to poke fun and highlight mistakes those dogs and handlers make. That in itself is not encouraging for the other side of things. It's already pretty intimidating for non-field people to get into a sport that is basically conducted far out in the middle of nowhere and not readily available to watch to get into. Conformation and obedience and agility are easier - primarily because these are done right where we live and are easy to get to and attend.


If your interest only lies in getting a JH and WC, you don't have to worry about sticking out. I have only been to four JH tests but Molly did not stick out like a sore thumb at any of them. If anything, _*I*_ may have.  But not Molly. Maybe it is only typical in my area, but there was a good number of both show and field goldens and labs. Although, I'm sure a show golden would stick out at Master.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Megora said:


> And you already have many breeders ALREADY producing dogs who have MH titles in addition to CH's.


Many?
There have only been about 35 CH/MHs in BREED HISTORY. I bet only 3 or 4 breeders in history have produced more than one CH/MH. Jeanne von Barby, Dee & John Thibodeaux, Farm Fresh, Teri Poetker....um....that's IT.



> And my goodness - go to 2014 National's website. You can look up the results for the MH, SH, and JH tests to see who passed and who failed. The majority of dogs entered were primarily performance dogs with very few conformation dogs. Those conformation dogs are already sticking out like a sore thumb and you already have a lot of field people watching and READY to poke fun and highlight mistakes those dogs and handlers make.


Nope -- sorry -- that is NOT the culture ------ maybe from the outside looking in but certainly not in reality! We had a freakin great time at the National hunt test competing in Master with some "show dogs"!! No need for "field people" to poke fun or highlight mistakes because we train our dogs to the same standard and expect them to perform at the same level! 

I have no idea how you could extrapolate that outlook by looking at a running order........


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

1. Be of temperament typical of the breed, i.e., stable, friendly, trainable, and willing to work. Temperament is of utmost importance to the breed and must never be neglected or altered from the Standard.

Temperment is something overlooked too often. I have a friend that chose to neuter her GCh boy because she thought he was too stuborn and difficult to train. She did not want to pass that on. It was a difficult decision, but the right one. Could you make that choice if? I don't know if I could. By the way the boy I refer to was just shy of having enough points to be in the show dog hall of fame.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Anney -



Megora said:


> Nope, there are not many as in a TON. #wordfail
> 
> There are very few dogs in breed who have both MH titles and CH titles. But minimally speaking - yep there are some.


 ^^^ Covered that. 

There _are_ a bunch of conformation people putting field test titles of some kind on their dogs. And credit to those who have gone so far and achieved the GRCA dual champion titles on their dogs. 

Sent you a private ranty rant about the rest.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Just remember a true Dual Champion hasn't happened since Funky Farquar in the early 70s. (I just saw an ad for a dog that is a CH/CT -- while an amazing accomplishment -- not a Dual Champion -- which is what the ad incorrectly stated.) A CH/MH -- well there are a lot of people training/showing both show and hunt tests but it takes a very special combination for a CH/MH and that hasn't happened very often in our breed. 34 times to be exact. Sure, lots of people say they are breeding for that, but very few actually have.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

DDHF - that's the title I was trying to think of. :doh:


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

DanaRuns said:


> I just want to note that no one volunteers opinions about breeders. Puppy buyers come here looking for opinions on certain breeders that _they_ identify, and IMHO it would be a disservice to them, and to all the other buyers who find those threads on a separate search, not to provide candid and honest opinions.



Well, not always. There have been a number of threads over the last couple of years where some poor unsuspecting soul has been called out for not meeting somebody's personal expectations, and it wasn't somebody searching for a puppy. 

Topics that start out "Don't buy from so and so because they're running a puppy mill."


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Chritty said:


> The CoE of the GRC from my region states that breeding can take place from 18 months and states nothing about gun dogs.
> 
> Does this make my region's GRC unethical?


Not in the least. Every country has its own set of guidelines to follow.


It might help a few in this country to read about the ethical standards in other countries and learn what things are viewed as important elsewhere. (That 18 month age is very common in other countries around the world.)


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

TrailDogs said:


> I don't believe the COE requires us to police what other breeders do or don't do. You can be a good steward of the breed by upholding a high standard in your own breeding program without tearing down others.


I agree.

Tearing down or attacking other breeders is contrary to the intent of the COE. Our job is to educate those that are seeking information so they don't fall prey to the unsavory characters.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> I agree.
> 
> Tearing down or attacking other breeders is contrary to the intent of the COE. Our job is to educate those that are seeking information so they don't fall prey to the unsavory characters.



I agree with this with one qualification. Pointing out facts is not tearing someone down. So if someone asks about a potential litter and the response is something to the effect of "well it doesn't look like this breeder is active in competing with their dogs in any venue. Mr Studly is 19 months old meaning he cannot have final hip and elbow clearances, and Ms Dam is also underage and without clearances. Furthermore, neither the sire or dam have depth of clearances in the pedigree, which is a concern.... So I would pass." That is not tearing someone down. 

I will say, I don't particularly like the term puppy mill to describe someone who is just breeding dogs. To me that is simply someone who is not producing carefully bred puppies. However, if someone is not being thoughtful and careful in what they breed I question their motivation. It seems breeders sometimes go off the deep end when money becomes the primary motivator.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I agree with this with one qualification. Pointing out facts is not tearing someone down. So if someone asks about a potential litter and the response is something to the effect of "well it doesn't look like this breeder is active in competing with their dogs in any venue. Mr Studly is 19 months old meaning he cannot have final hip and elbow clearances, and Ms Dam is also underage and without clearances. Furthermore, neither the sire or dam have depth of clearances in the pedigree, which is a concern.... So I would pass." That is not tearing someone down.
> 
> I will say, I don't particularly like the term puppy mill to describe someone who is just breeding dogs. To me that is simply someone who is not producing carefully bred puppies. However, if someone is not being thoughtful and careful in what they breed I question their motivation. It seems breeders sometimes go off the deep end when money becomes the primary motivator.


In theory I agree with you. However it can be very difficult to point out those "Facts" without being condescending or sounding as if you're picking on somebody while expressing your point. (I know I can't.)


I too have a great dislike for the term "Puppymill" as well. Mostly because years ago I was accused of "running a puppymill" by members of the local rescue organization. At the time I owned ONE intact female and had produced a single litter with her. In their book quality didn't matter, if you produced one single puppy, you were running a puppymill. 

For all practical purposes there is no such thing as a puppymill. It is an undefined term generally used to demean dog breeders. In reality breeders either strive to do all they can to produce good dogs or they don't.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

On the subject of breeding underage boys. (No, I don't own boys so I'm not out to advocate for rampant breeding of underage Sires.)

Let's say for discussion that you're the owner of a nice boy, with Titles (or only minor points needed to finish), OFA Prelims Good or better, eyes and heart are done, DNA tests are done, he has a pleasing temperament, is very trainable and has a deep desire for feathered things. You have several owners of very nice girls with impressive credentials seeking him out for stud service. But, your boy is only 19 1/2 months old. 

What do you do? What is fair for you, your boy, the breeders who want him, and the breed in general.

Well, it depends. Situations such as this are why the COE is written as Guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

In most cases I would tell them to wait until their girls cycle the next time around. By then your boy will be over 24 months and things will be final. 

However there is an exception that I would consider, an aging female who is having her last litter. For her there is no next time. It's do the pairing now or the pairing between them will NEVER happen. Look closely at such opportunities. If the pairing is of such caliber that it could produce outstanding representatives of the breed and future influential dogs for the breed, you really have to consider it. Such opportunities don't come along very often and they need to be taken advantage of when they occur.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> On the subject of breeding underage boys. (No, I don't own boys so I'm not out to advocate for rampant breeding of underage Sires.)
> 
> Let's say for discussion that you're the owner of a nice boy, with Titles (or only minor points needed to finish), OFA Prelims Good or better, eyes and heart are done, DNA tests are done, he has a pleasing temperament, is very trainable and has a deep desire for feathered things. You have several owners of very nice girls with impressive credentials seeking him out for stud service. But, your boy is only 19 1/2 months old.
> 
> ...



I agree with that specific circumstance. I would not do it but I understand the rationale. However most of the time I hear of underaged dogs being bred it is not because the bitch is older and this is her last litter. It is a younger bitch and people are impatient.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

The types of circumstances I have heard with breeding underage bitches is because the female came into season earlier than planned and the breeder had the access to the stud NOW and did not want to wait. 

Or they had everything lined up and wanted puppies by a certain time. 

My Jacks came from such a breeding. The female only turned 2 about a week before Jacks was born. She had all prelims done before the breeding and fairly close to her 2nd birthday - and finals were done a few months later before she was bred the next time.

Probably not as bad as somebody breeding much younger dogs, but still a gray area. And I do think it does lead to people taking advantage and going much younger with these dogs.


*** With boys, I've heard of people breeding young dogs to "prove" them. In fact, I remember somebody on this forum making this point as an explanation for why she breeds 12-15 month old boys. 


@Puppy Mill - the term applies to certain breeders. I've seen pictures of dogs kept in goat pens and showing various signs of neglect as far as grooming and care. These are the dogs who are bred every time they come in heat until they are retired.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> However most of the time I hear of underaged dogs being bred it is not because the bitch is older and this is her last litter. It is a younger bitch and people are impatient.


The reality is in such cases the breeder has usually taken other shortcuts as well. In other words they aren't making any attempt to follow the intent of the COE. 

That is a very different situation than one where the breeder has all their ducks in a row with the exception of one facet of the recommendations and they have clearly shown they have made the effort to comply with the intent of the COE.

The roll of females aging/timing out of a breeding program and how that timing interplays with a breeders overall program plan, comes into play more often than many would like to believe. 

The point to take away from this thread is the COE is not, and never has been, a set of hard and fast rules. There are legitimate situations where it may be necessary or beneficial to deviate from the letter of the COE (but still honor the intent).


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> ...Pointing out facts is not tearing someone down...


Absolutely. I grew up with AKC registered dogs, but I wasn't aware that didn't mean anything. As an adult I read enough to get my first Golden from a breeder I found through the Atlanta GRC but I had no idea why health clearances and temperament and instinct were so important. I didn't have a mentor, the internet was new and I learned with books. It was just happy luck that the breeder was a field trainer who bred my puppy's litter from a field bitch with a conformation sire - that puppy was a joy. With my second Golden, I learned the hard way why those pesky COE issues matter and that it wasn't really a fluke that my first Golden was so wonderful. My third Golden has shown me that the "right way"/Code of Ethics breeder is worth ever month spent on their waiting list, really does move the odds in your favor of having a terrific Golden Retriever. I would love to save a new owner the heartache of what I experienced with my second Golden, that is why I post on those threads. That is why I am often blunt.

When a new person comes here looking for information on finding a breeder, it is important to me that I treat them the way I would want to be treated. Give me the information, explain why it's important, then give me the advice that you would want to be given. Tell me, "yes, I would spend money on that puppy." or "No, that may not be your best choice, you can probably do better." This forum, some of the most outspoken members really, are who truly educated me about why the code of ethics and everything it entails is so important to the breed's future. We have a responsibility to help people who come here looking for help. If they care enough to search and ask for help, how can we not be honest, even if it's a point of view that not everyone finds comfortable?

I will risk sounding condescending to explain why I think a breeder isn't doing everything they ought to be, or why I think there are better choices out there for the money. Helping people become informed consumers for their benefit and that of the dogs is more important to me than worrying that a breeder might feel singled out. If a breeder is a member of the GRCA, they won't have to worry about being picked on if they follow their club's recommended practices. And if they raise the bar a little higher than the bare minimum, people here would cheer.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

nolefan said:


> If they care enough to search and ask for help, how can we not be honest, even if it's a point of view that not everyone finds comfortable?



Can you have the same effect by stating something along the lines of, 
"I believe that there are better options out there for you and I have PM'ed you as to why"?

That may help quash the feeling of being "named and shamed" for the breeders in question.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Kristy, there are bad experiences with both less recognized breeders and more recognized breeders. Unfortunately those less recognized breeders are being put down by people who are "blunt" while the more recognized ones are being coddled and not kept to the standards that they claim to represent.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Can I be blunt?

Other option.... of course.... is absolutely ignoring the newcomer threads asking about breeders or airing complaints about breeders.... or asking for direction... and letting them die. Letting people make whatever mistakes they are going to. Encouraging by silence backyard breeding and bad breeding practices. Because, if we don't really care - why bother stick your noses in to help anyone or lead people the right way? Every man for himself, eh? 

My request before... and still is... that people update the "searching for a breeder" threads with updated explanations and examples of clearances and dumbed down language so that anyone could read and understand the basics that they need to be looking for. 

And if this is done, people could simply refer buyers to these threads and have no further comment. 

As it is, you have a lot of people who try helping - as they were helped. And it's generally a thankless job, because offsite people here get referred to as the "breeder police" in a negative way - even by fairly good breeders. And you have a lot of good breeders out there who whether they have a negative view of other stuff that goes on here OR the "breeder police" - they want nothing to do with this forum. 

Which negates what Claudia just said about really good breeders getting a pass. Because if they did, I'm sure they'd be a lot more chummy. Just saying.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I remember a year or two ago, a thread "trashing" a breeder's practices. That breeder came here, got an earful and an education, and immediately proclaimed that she would do things better from that day forward.

I learned a lot about how to look at pedigrees, and how to tell a smooth talking breeder from a breeder who complies with the COE, by reading the kind of threads where people give candid opinions and analyses of specific breeders' practices.

I have seen many puppy buyers make better buying decisions -- that possibly avoid a decade of problems -- as a result of these threads.

And frankly, those breeders harshly judged are usually breeding some very poor dogs, and deserved to be publicly called out for it. But then I'm not one to "live and let live" when harm is being done. I'm not one of those who will sit by and privately disapprove when my neighbor is beating his wife. I'll get butt deep in it, and probably invite all sorts of problems upon myself. So there's that. 

But hey, I get that the consensus here is to not say anything publicly, and have a PM whisper campaign, instead. Well, I'm not one to do that; I've always felt that living an honest life means not saying anything you're not willing to say publicly. But I will stay out of those threads from now on, and leave it to you PM whisperers to make sure that justice is done and innocent puppy buyers are not sold a bill of goods.

Peace.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

Chritty said:


> Can you have the same effect by stating something along the lines of,
> "I believe that there are better options out there for you and I have PM'ed you as to why"?


I don't believe so. One of the wonderful things about forums is the ability to read and search without posting. I believe we condone the behaviors we see not complying with the COE by saying so secretly only. Heck, in a breeders defense, they won't be able to counter misinformation if it is a whisper campaign only.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> The reality is in such cases the breeder has usually taken other shortcuts as well. In other words they aren't making any attempt to follow the intent of the COE.
> 
> That is a very different situation than one where the breeder has all their ducks in a row with the exception of one facet of the recommendations and they have clearly shown they have made the effort to comply with the intent of the COE.
> 
> ...


Thank you - there are a number of reasons that a breeder might not follow the letter of there of the COE. For example:

An elderly stud might have old age cataracts and no longer has a valid cerf. However he passed easily for the first 8-10 years of his life. 

Frozen semen from a long dead dog might only have hips. But he has produced offspring of great talent with passing hips.

A heart clearance might be only from a practitioner but the dog has been hunted over for the last 8 years and is a running machine. That dog would have dropped dead of SAS if he had it.


There are also a number of reasons where the dogs HAVE the recommended health clearances but they certainly should not reproduce. For example:

The bitch has good hips but 3 of the 10 pups in her last litter had mild dysplasia. The breeder is planning to use the same stud.

The stud has all the clearances but he has produced a large number of puppies that have seizures of unknown origin.

The bitch has all her clearances but she has 3 adult full siblings that have moderate elbow dysplasia. 

These are the kind of things that require the experience of a breeder that has an understanding of the lines of her dogs and the dogs behind them.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> Can I be blunt?
> 
> Other option.... of course.... is absolutely ignoring the newcomer threads asking about breeders or airing complaints about breeders.... or asking for direction... and letting them die. Letting people make whatever mistakes they are going to.


I don't believe anybody is suggesting ignoring such threads. Such threads can be answered in a more generalized broad scope answer rather than jumping into trashing and tearing down a breeder in intricate detail. There is no need to get down in the mud and wallow with them. What that does is generate animosity, closed topics, threats of lawsuits for those participating in the discussion and the Owners of the Forum. 



Megora said:


> Encouraging by silence backyard breeding and bad breeding practices. Because, if we don't really care - why bother stick your noses in to help anyone or lead people the right way? Every man for himself, eh?


You can lead people the correct direction without trashing others or tearing them down and tossing them under the bus. HOW these issues are discussed matters.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

The most recent breeder related thread that was closed down and followed by lawsuit threats.... it seemed the breeder (whom you seem to be defending) was doing all the trash talk and ripping into people. All kinds of erratic posts. All damage was self-delivered. Majority of people involved with the conversation had gone to sleep for the night.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

Leslie B said:


> Thank you - there are a number of reasons that a breeder might not follow the letter of there of the COE. For example:
> 
> An elderly stud might have old age cataracts and no longer has a valid cerf. However he passed easily for the first 8-10 years of his life.
> 
> ...


I disagree with both of these statements. I have heard from MANY breeders how beneficial it is to breed dogs later because they can show that they were able to maintain eye clearances their whole life. What you say here about eyes is contrary to the latest information I have been reading. 

Knowing your lines and disregarding cardiac certs? Again this seems more of an "old school" technique that I think the COE seeks to end. Pearl's breeder bred goldens for 40 years and was shocked when she had a grade 1 heart murmur show up. But he had never had a pet home do clearances. There is no way to know what is lurking without checking.

Then there is this:

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/the-fiction-of-knowing-your-lines

Well I suppose I am repeating myself now and don't want to keep beating on the same point .


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Got to play the devils advocate with this one. 



DanaRuns said:


> *As the entity responsible for defining, preserving and maintaining the Golden Retriever breed in the USA, the CoE is an attempt to define responsible breeding practices for the breed, not merely for the club member. *


Really?? Says who??

Under what Local, State or Federal Law is that spelled out?


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Megora said:


> ............ you have a lot of people who try helping - as they were helped. And it's generally a thankless job, because offsite people here get referred to as the "breeder police" in a negative way - even by fairly good breeders. And you have a lot of good breeders out there who whether they have a negative view of other stuff that goes on here OR the "breeder police" - they want nothing to do with this forum.
> 
> Which negates what Claudia just said about really good breeders getting a pass. Because if they did, I'm sure they'd be a lot more chummy. Just saying.


To some degree you are correct Kate. It is a "thankless job"; I have personally learned to stay away from such breeders who seem to enjoy putting others down, some in some pretty nasty manners (contrary to the COE). There is no way I could ever have a relationship with that kind of a person. 
As swampcollie put it, who does the COE apply to? The breeders who are members of the GRCA ONLY. Not all breeders and not all good breeders are members or care about being members. 

And to be blunt, how many good breeders do not even post their litters because of the "breeder police" who nit pick about the practitioner heart, the eyes who are couple months over the one year etc.....

There are many stickies on this forum for people who are not aware of the clearances.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

lhowemt said:


> I disagree with both of these statements. I have heard from MANY breeders how beneficial it is to breed dogs later because they can show that they were able to maintain eye clearances their whole life. What you say here about eyes is contrary to the latest information I have been reading.
> 
> Knowing your lines and disregarding cardiac certs? Again this seems more of an "old school" technique that I think the COE seeks to end. Pearl's breeder bred goldens for 40 years and was shocked when she had a grade 1 heart murmur show up. But he had never had a pet home do clearances. There is no way to know what is lurking without checking.
> 
> ...



Sorry about Pearl. How old is she? Grade 1 heart murmur, especially if a puppy does not equate with heart disease. 

I will personally take a dog whose parents hunt and run outdoors in every type of weather over any cardiologist/practitioner certificate. I guess it would be nice (icing on top of the cake) to have it but it would definitely not be a deal breaker for me.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Megora said:


> The most recent breeder related thread that was closed down and followed by lawsuit threats.... it seemed the breeder *(whom you seem to be defending)* was doing all the trash talk and ripping into people. All kinds of erratic posts. All damage was self-delivered. Majority of people involved with the conversation had gone to sleep for the night.


sorry - have no clue what you are talking about.

ETA - hard to defend anyone who does any sort of trash talking even if the "breeder police" gangs up like they normally do. LOL I remember how I was put down at the mere mention of thinking about breeding Rose.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> The most recent breeder related thread that was closed down and followed by lawsuit threats.... it seemed the breeder (whom you seem to be defending) was doing all the trash talk and ripping into people. All kinds of erratic posts. All damage was self-delivered. Majority of people involved with the conversation had gone to sleep for the night.


I'm not defending them.

The point is not everybody is bound by the GRCA COE. 

If you are a member of your local breed club or the GRCA you have voluntarily made the choice to follow the bylaws and COE of those organizations. You have made a commitment to live up to a higher standard. 

Some others haven't done that.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

lhowemt said:


> I don't believe so. One of the wonderful things about forums is the ability to read and search without posting. I believe we condone the behaviors we see not complying with the COE by saying so secretly only. Heck, in a breeders defense, they won't be able to counter misinformation if it is a whisper campaign only.



IMO stating that you would not purchase a puppy without giving your reasons publicly would still give the breeder in question an opportunity to chime in. 

I think those who are really interested in purchasing a dog will join up to be able to post there question. 

Does anyone who is posting a "no vote" actually contact a breeder and ask them to join the discussion, to counter misinformation?


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> But hey, I get that the consensus here is to not say anything publicly, and have a PM whisper campaign, instead. Well, I'm not one to do that; I've always felt that living an honest life means not saying anything you're not willing to say publicly. But I will stay out of those threads from now on, and leave it to you PM whisperers to make sure that justice is done and innocent puppy buyers are not sold a bill of goods.
> 
> Peace.



I don't think it would be a whisper campaign if you disclose that you would personally look elsewhere on the open forums, even mentioning the GRCA CoE, and educate the OP in a PM exchange. 

It's not like there is a complete list of all the breeders you should not buy from for whatever reason.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Leslie B said:


> Swampcollie said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is in such cases the breeder has usually taken other shortcuts as well. In other words they aren't making any attempt to follow the intent of the COE.
> ...



I have to disagree with you on the SAS scenario. I know a dog with mild SAS and is running SH. Most of the time with mild SAS, the dog will not die from that! I know a few other dogs that the dog's general vet did not pick up on the murmur. So, yes an 8 year old running hunt test can have SAS. It is definitely possible and many instances.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

kfayard said:


> I have to disagree with you on the SAS scenario. I know a dog with mild SAS and is running SH. Most of the time with mild SAS, the dog will not die from that! I know a few other dogs that the dog's general vet did not pick up on the murmur. So, yes an 8 year old running hunt test can have SAS. It is definitely possible and many instances.


She didn't say Hunt Tested, she said hunted. 

There is quite a difference in running a few short marks for a Senior test vs. the prolonged running from sun up to sun down chasing pheasants through difficult cover day after day, month after month, year after year stopping only long enough to have a drink of water. For every ten yards the hunter walks, the dog runs about ninety quartering out in front. Hunting a dog under such conditions over time will expose a variety of health issues if they are present. Hip or elbow issues will be exposed very quickly. You can see them in the dogs movement and lameness will occur if you continue. Heart issues will be exposed due to a lack of stamina or death while working.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

Chritty said:


> Does anyone who is posting a "no vote" actually contact a breeder and ask them to join the discussion, to counter misinformation?


It's happened before, yes.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl:

Since Tito takes private lessons, he runs and/or swims the whole hour, and often hour and a half, that we are at training. But even that doesn't begin to compare with the physical demands and stamina required of the upland hunting. (As you well know!)



Swampcollie said:


> She didn't say Hunt Tested, she said hunted.
> 
> There is quite a difference in running a few short marks for a Senior test vs. the prolonged running from sun up to sun down chasing pheasants through difficult cover day after day, month after month, year after year stopping only long enough to have a drink of water. For every ten yards the hunter walks, the dog runs about ninety quartering out in front. Hunting a dog under such conditions over time will expose a variety of health issues if they are present. Hip or elbow issues will be exposed very quickly. You can see them in the dogs movement and lameness will occur if you continue. Heart issues will be exposed due to a lack of stamina or death while working.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

There are ethics involved in breeding dogs properly and with conscience regardless of membership in GRCA. There is also free speech in the USA, and permitted speech by rules of this forum etc. If slander& libel laws are not broken, and forum rules are not broken, then I do not believe the GRCA COE means accepting all breeding practices as equal. It is fine for people to express opinions and set standards and fine for others to disagree or ignore. The strict feedback of this forum certainly prevented me from breeding six or seven years before I did until I could live up to the high bar set by breeders I respected, and I dont think that is the worst thing. Those years were full of learning.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And the all too often ignored one.....rampant allergies. 
And yet another one, very serious in Goldens, a history of producing puppies with autoimmune disorders.


from the COE:

Other Considerations

Consideration should also be given to other conditions that may have a genetic component, including but not limited to: cancer, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, skin disorders, allergies, longevity, swallowing disorders, and orthopedic disorders such as osteochondritis dissecans (OCD). 



Leslie B said:


> There are also a number of reasons where the dogs HAVE the recommended health clearances but they certainly should not reproduce. For example:
> 
> The bitch has good hips but 3 of the 10 pups in her last litter had mild dysplasia. The breeder is planning to use the same stud.
> 
> ...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> I'm not defending them.
> 
> The point is not everybody is bound by the GRCA COE.


But the timing of this thread as well as things you have said seems to indicate you are taking their side. I don't know what else I can think. 

This isn't chit chat about how some breeders price their litters or whether they compete in conformation or not.... and even though there was an initially push to make sure dogs are able to hunt, I don't even think it's been primarily about that. <- And a lot of people can quibble about how much a litter is worth, what dogs lack for conformation, and what dogs lack by way of ability.

You can absolutely NOT quibble when it comes to health. 

This has progressed from a prior thread with a breeder who breeds whatever they can get their hands on, breeds underage dogs, and breeds without clearances. And might I add, apparently has 30+ breeding dogs. And who when people blandly pointed out the obvious, came rushing on here to threaten everyone with lawsuits. 

I'm not going to take part any further in this thread because I see a lot of stuff that I don't think is healthy for the breed being encouraged with a lot of excuses and attempted diversions. Even by people I respect. It's absolutely depressing and it's going to take a while for me to forget.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Megora said:


> a breeder who breeds whatever they can get their hands on, breeds underage dogs, and breeds without clearances.
> 
> I'm not going to take part any further in this thread because I see a lot of stuff that I don't think is healthy for the breed being encouraged with a lot of excuses and attempted diversions. Even by people I respect. It's absolutely depressing and it's going to take a while for me to forget.


I agree with this wholeheartedly. There has always been a high bar set here for breeders, and that is a good thing. Trying to make it a safe, comfortable space for people with fifty breeding females, breeding rare white cremes without clearances or titles or what-have-you in the name of the GRCA COE saying the public should be dealt with fairly I think misunderstands what that means. 

For years this forum has basically stood up for breeding dogs over two with all clearances and titled in some way to prove themselves against a peer group. That s not a bad norm to set- and not a bad thing to have those of us who are sincere second -guessing ourselves before violating this norm if we do so, or hopefully complying with it usually.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> Sorry about Pearl. How old is she? Grade 1 heart murmur, especially if a puppy does not equate with heart disease.


Thank you, she is 18 months and a normal pup. It is a slightly malformed valve and isn't expected to ever cause any symptoms nor do we need to adjust her lifestyle. Not SAS not heart disease. Neither of our regular vets can even hear it. So for us it will hopefully be a non issue.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

There is a lot of valuable information and discussion in this thread. That said, I remind all participants that the GRF rules prohibit personal attacks and/or character assassination (Rule 7), as well as rehashing conflicts from a thread that has been closed (Rule 13). Please avoid violations of these rules so the thread can remain open for continued discussion of ethical issues in breeding.

Thank you.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly. There has always been a high bar set here for breeders, and that is a good thing. Trying to make it a safe, comfortable space for people with fifty breeding females, breeding rare white cremes without clearances or titles or what-have-you in the name of the GRCA COE saying the public should be dealt with fairly I think misunderstands what that means.
> 
> For years this forum has basically stood up for breeding dogs over two with all clearances and titled in some way to prove themselves against a peer group. That s not a bad norm to set- and not a bad thing to have those of us who are sincere second -guessing ourselves before violating this norm if we do so, or hopefully complying with it usually.


I agree in part with what you are saying. I do not think anyone participating on this thread has ever condoned the people with fifty breeding females. 
I am personally not that upset about the clearances before breeding. But that is my personal preference. I agree they should be done regardless of breeding purposes. I rather know the breeder, know the dogs, especially the mother and know the level of activity of the parents. 
But I doubt (and do not know that for a fact) that the forum only approves breeders who are members of the GRCA and abide strictly by the GRCA COE. As a matter of fact I have seen breeders recommended who are member of the GRCA and bred before age of 2 or disregarded the perpetuation of ITCH in the breeding. 
I do not think is it a bad norm to set but I think it is also not OK to say to others, the eyes are 4 months past due or the heart is only done by practitioner and you should look elsewhere. 
No-one can guarantee a healthy puppy, they can only guarantee that they have done everything they know and could do to to achieve a healthy puppy. Not all puppies in a litter will be healthy. I have recently seen a flatcoat puppy whose back leg is not growing at the same rate as the other legs. All the clearances have been done; that could have been a birth issue or just the dog itself. 

In my own experience, two of the BYB dogs that we have had over the years have been the best, health-wise and aptitude-wise. But that does not mean that all the better bred dogs are not as good (hunt testers, field trial-ers out there prove that). Because I had bad luck with one well bred golden it does not mean that all will be the same. Unfortunately there is not as much statistics with the lesser than well bred dogs because owners of the puppies do not do the clearances or enter them in activities. I am not including the mutts we have rescued over the years even though they have been good companions and all lived a long healthy life. I am not including Darcy in here because she was abused and drugged for 4 years and she is a work in progress and she has progressed so much in the last year I could not be more happy. Maybe one can make the argument that because she was a well bred dog she had the genes to be able to progress this much in so little time. 

Back to the OP, I think it was more touching about the sportsmanship and cordiality of the members of the GRCA.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Megora said:


> This has progressed from a prior thread with a breeder who breeds whatever they can get their hands on, breeds underage dogs, and breeds without clearances. And might I add, apparently has 30+ breeding dogs. And who when people blandly pointed out the obvious, came rushing on here to threaten everyone with lawsuits.
> 
> I'm not going to take part any further in this thread because I see a lot of stuff that I don't think is healthy for the breed being encouraged with a lot of excuses and attempted diversions. Even by people I respect. It's absolutely depressing and it's going to take a while for me to forget.


Hear, hear! I also have been disillusioned by some of what I have seen in this thread, and now question some folks I never thought I would ever question. Very disappointing. But I have also seen others grow in my level of respect, which is nice. Peace, out.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Just because you have 50 breeding females, doesn't mean you aren't following the COE and aren't a member of the GRCA. Quantity is not mentioned anywhere in the COE that I recall. you don't suddenly leave COE behind when you go from 49 to 50 females.

I think large breeders have started really retiring due to all the additional requirements by the USDA and animal rights groups. I think many people would be surprised by the size breeders of old were. But today hiring a staff and following the government rules is way too time consuming and expensive for the average person to get into. Ever wonder how big Lord Tweedmouth's breeding operation was?


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Alaska7133 said:


> Just because you have 50 breeding females, doesn't mean you aren't following the COE and aren't a member of the GRCA. Quantity is not mentioned anywhere in the COE that I recall. you don't suddenly leave COE behind when you go from 49 to 50 females.
> 
> I think large breeders have started really retiring due to all the additional requirements by the USDA and animal rights groups. I think many people would be surprised by the size breeders of old were. But today hiring a staff and following the government rules is way too time consuming and expensive for the average person to get into. Ever wonder how big Lord Tweedmouth's breeding operation was?


Very good point Stacey! Unfortunately I assume Lord Tweedmouth would be viewed as a puppymill by the so called "breeder police".

ETA - except that in today's day and time for someone who works a full time job it is pretty hard without a prof trainer to train each dog to its potential. And that takes a lot of moneys, as you say not feasible for the average person. So I cannot fathom how anyone would give that individual attention to 50 dogs. I pretty much know what my dogs' potentials are and train towards it. Some slower, some faster than others. And currently I only have 2 - hopefully three in the very near future.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> kfayard said:
> 
> 
> > I have to disagree with you on the SAS scenario. I know a dog with mild SAS and is running SH. Most of the time with mild SAS, the dog will not die from that! I know a few other dogs that the dog's general vet did not pick up on the murmur. So, yes an 8 year old running hunt test can have SAS. It is definitely possible and many instances.
> ...


Yes, she said hunted over. I know that true hunting dogs require more stamina. But.. 8 years of it, the bitch or dog would have already been used for breeding. Instead of waiting the 8 years out to find out for sure if the dog has SAS, I would just rather go to a cardiologist at 1-2 before breeding to decide that.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> Unfortunately I assume Lord Tweedmouth would be viewed as a puppymill by the so called "breeder police".


I am not sure who qualifies as this breeder police. It seems to be thrown around disparagingly to a wide array of people who question breeding practices. Perhaps PETA or HSUS or rabid rescuers might apply, but I have not heard the breeder police term in reference to those types. Anyways I think that is doubtful since the hallmark of puppy mills are squalor without regard to the breed or health.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

lhowemt said:


> I am not sure who qualifies as this breeder police. It seems to be thrown around disparagingly to a wide array of people who question breeding practices. Perhaps PETA or HSUS or rabid rescuers might apply, but I have not heard the breeder police term in reference to those types. Anyways I think that is doubtful since the hallmark of puppy mills are squalor without regard to the breed or health.


Sorry - I stole the terminology of "breeder police" from an above poster. I personally found it cute. I assumed it was applied to anyone who mocks or gangs up on the breeders who do not follow GRCA COE but give a pass to the ones who are members of the GRCA and still do not follow the COE. 

As far as my statement, yup I believe he would be considered a puppy mill nowadays. Unless he kept all the out-cross offspring on his 1600 acre farm. I certainly need a refresher course in how many dogs he had, how many he bred, how many he gave away as family pets and how many have been given with the purpose of breeding. If I remember correctly they were still called Yellow Flatcoated Retrievers upon his death. 

Back to the intent of this thread, the way I understand it. GRCA has made guidelines for breeding under the COE. The breeders, including the members of the GRCA are not required to follow the COE and even if they astray from it they can still be members. And that also includes how breeders are to behave with one another. Of course once again not punitive by GRCA. 

Maybe that is the reason some breeders prefer to think they are above others and in the name of "saving the breed" feel free to gang up on unknown breeders. I guess the OP's intent to this thread was to try bring cordiality and eliminate the nastiness sometimes displayed. 
There are stickies the new puppy purchasers can be directed to. There are links to the GRCA COE people can be directed to. There are questions that people can be given to ask the potential breeder. People can be directed to read the contract carefully and thoroughly before putting a deposit on a pup and can be told which part of a contract "you" personally would not be at easy with. All that without accusing another breeder of not being ethical and advising the puppy purchaser that they can get a better bred puppy for their money.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Something I've noted is that I find it rare for breeders to "gang up" on anyone on this forum. It tends to be (well intentioned) forum members who take the GRCA COE as hard and fast rules, or laws, without totally understanding that it was not intended to be a punitive set of rules enforced by the aforementioned "breeder police." Breeders seem to understand that there will often be gray area.... I am learning this as well. A breeding complying with the COE, but where a pedigree is riddled with early cancer, skin problems, and/or temperament issues, is not always better than a breeding where the sire has a grade 1 elbow. The gist is that there is infinitely more to it than just comparing clearances. On a side note, I feel compelled to point out that the more I get into the breeding side of this the more I realize how very little I know - which is very unnerving. But also has put me in a much less judgmental place than I once was regarding this issue.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

It would be one thing if most of the breeders being asked about on this forum had stellar records (ex clearances, competition, meticulous records of pups produced & how they fared), but let's be honest, lately we've had a broker posing as a breeder selling pups from a USDA kennel in Pennsylvania at $2K+, a breeder selling "white" goldens for nearly $3K, claiming clearances but not willing to give papers on said pup until it was spayed/neutered at 18 mos (no way to verify any claims or even who the purported sire/dam is--flash forward, dam is a little over 1, neither sire or dam have clearances), another drive by member making claims about how great a breeder was when said breeder is listed as the #3 worst kennel in its respective state for the amount of non-compliance items, another seems to keep changing its name in order to stay in front of all of the health complaints lodged by its puppy purchasers, countless others claiming championship lines and clearances of which neither prove true and of course the white golden breeders claiming their eastern european bred dogs will not develop cancer and will live longer...and the list goes on. Breeders like these are predatory in my opinion and are darned good at the marketing. Sorry, but that's unacceptable in my book to just sit by and not offer up info when a potential puppy buyer asks a question. 

To me, it's not just looking out for the puppy buyer, but also looking out for the dogs caught up in the process (those produced & those doing the producing). I look at my own girl who is a puppy mill survivor (spend time in rescue in the midwest & you won't question whether such mills exist or not). If only the mill she was born into and the one she was sold to weren't run by such greeders, if only the puppy buyers had done their homework beforehand, perhaps there wouldn't have been a demand and my girl wouldn't continue to have the challenges she has. If only...


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

SheetsSM said:


> It would be one thing if most of the breeders being asked about on this forum had stellar records (ex clearances, competition, meticulous records of pups produced & how they fared), but let's be honest, lately we've had a broker posing as a breeder selling pups from a USDA kennel in Pennsylvania at $2K+, a breeder selling "white" goldens for nearly $3K, claiming clearances but not willing to give papers on said pup until it was spayed/neutered at 18 mos (no way to verify any claims or even who the purported sire/dam is--flash forward, dam is a little over 1, neither sire or dam have clearances), another drive by member making claims about how great a breeder was when said breeder is listed as the #3 worst kennel in its respective state for the amount of non-compliance items, another seems to keep changing its name in order to stay in front of all of the health complaints lodged by its puppy purchasers, countless others claiming championship lines and clearances of which neither prove true and of course the white golden breeders claiming their eastern european bred dogs will not develop cancer and will live longer...and the list goes on. Breeders like these are predatory in my opinion and are darned good at the marketing. Sorry, but that's unacceptable in my book to just sit by and not offer up info when a potential puppy buyer asks a question.
> 
> To me, it's not just looking out for the puppy buyer, but also looking out for the dogs caught up in the process (those produced & those doing the producing). I look at my own girl who is a puppy mill survivor (spend time in rescue in the midwest & you won't question whether such mills exist or not). If only the mill she was born into and the one she was sold to weren't run by such greeders, if only the puppy buyers had done their homework beforehand, perhaps there wouldn't have been a demand and my girl wouldn't continue to have the challenges she has. If only...



To me, the concerns with many of those situations above seem to be related to misrepresentation, dishonesty and potential fraud. The concerns have little to do with the COE except to the extent the breeder may have lied about complying with the GRCA's recommendations (i.e. claiming clearances but not providing them).


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> To me, the concerns with many of those situations above seem to be related to misrepresentation, dishonesty and potential fraud. The concerns have little to do with the COE except to the extent the breeder may have lied about complying with the GRCA's recommendations (i.e. claiming clearances but not providing them).


Yet all we have to do is compare them to the COE and they are shown for what they are, which is NOT reputable breeders. We don't even have to get into the debatable, gray, and qualitative analysis of all of the other things that make a "reputable" breeder. Compare them to the COE and they usually massively fail. So IMO it IS about the COE.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> Yet all we have to do is compare them to the COE and they are shown for what they are, which is NOT reputable breeders. We don't even have to get into the debatable, gray, and qualitative analysis of all of the other things that make a "reputable" breeder. Compare them to the COE and they usually massively fail. So IMO it IS about the COE.



What is about the COE? I seem to be in a disagreement that I didn't know I was a part of. I don't disagree that if you check see if these particular breeders are complying with the COE they are likely not. My point in my last post was that in those situations there are a lot of ways to easily tell someone is, for lack of a better term, totally sketchy. You don't even have to get into the COE to see why they are to be avoided. If someone is lying, making false representations, has numerous BBB complaints, etc. one should probably avoid them regardless of whether or not they are doing health clearances on their dogs.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I was going to stay out of this thread, but...



goldenjackpuppy said:


> Breeders seem to understand that there will often be gray area....


Okay, let me play devil's advocate. (Hazard of my profession.  )

So, is there ever a situation where breeding a dog with dysplastic hips is a "gray area"? Is that consistent with the COE sometimes? Like, gosh, I've got this absolutely beautiful bitch who has bilateral hip dysplasia, but when she was able to run she had amazing drive and she got a JAM at the National, so I'm going to breed her. Ethical under the COE? How about breeding affected dogs with a deadly single gene dominant condition, is that okay depending on the situation, too? I'm interested because I am learning about breeding, too, and I'm currently studying cynology, genetics, epigenetics, population genetics, line breeding techniques, breeding strategies for bottleneck recovery, and a bunch of other things, so I'm aware of the complexity and the trade-offs. It can be dizzying. Still, aren't there some black and white areas amid all the gray?

But I think you set up a false choice when you set up the alternative of breeding to a dog/line "riddled with early cancer" on the one hand or a "grade 1 elbow" on the other. Like the choice between driving blindfolded from the back seat and steering with your feet at 120 mph, or driving carefully home a few miles with a .08 BAC. Is one worse than the other? Sure. Does that mean the lesser one is okay? Well, I suppose that's the question. So after all that I guess my question is this:

Is breeding Goldens entirely an exercise in ethical relativism, and absolutely nothing is by definition unethical? Is absolutely everything okay, and it's entirely a matter of what a particular breeder wants to do, and it's wrong for any other person to label it unethical? Is there nothing that would, of itself, universally indicate an unethical breeder under the GRCA COE?

And one other side note:



> It tends to be (well intentioned) forum members who take the GRCA COE as hard and fast rules, or laws, without totally understanding that it was not intended to be a punitive set of rules enforced by the aforementioned "breeder police."


I think that's a straw man. I don't think there's a single regular forum member who posts in those threads who meets that definition. I don't think _anyone_ here believes the COE is a punitive set of rules that are enforced by the breeder police. I think most believe it to be entirely a matter of ... wait for it ... _ethics._


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

For me, no breeding a dysplastic dog would never be within grey area. But there are dogs with grade 1 elbows that have been bred, in many pedigrees. Most often when the grade 1 elbow is due to an injury. For some that is within grey area if it is an exceptional dog. I can think of two breeders recently who have made that decision. Would I do it myself, probably not. But would I take that over certain pedigrees that are riddled with young cancer? Probably but that's just theoretical. I still, at this point, would not take a puppy from a breeding without all four clearances nor would I breed a litter without them. 

And in that regard, yes, it is a code of ethics but you'll note that the code only requires reports in an online approved database. It actually doesn't require that the dog, for example, not have that grade 1 elbow. It requires that the dog be tested and reports available. So what the code really recommends is making informed breeding decisions. 

My point about the mistaken belief about COE being "rules" or "laws" versus recommendations so that breeders make informed breeding decisions is evident in many past threads on the forum. I have guilty of that interpretation as well and been one of those "well intentioned forum members." I realize now it may have sounded snarky but it was not my intention. The point was that "breeders" are not typically the ones who are involved in those threads, which is what I was responding to. 

For me, and maybe I'm not being clear, an "ethical" person needs do more than just health clearances. My inquiry doesn't end with asking whether they have the "core four" clearances. When asked about a potential breeding, I go farther than that, although admittedly, not in a public forum like this. There are breeders that do all the clearances recommended by the COE that I would never recommend to a puppy buyer. Pedigrees I see that give me a sinking feeling in my stomach. People making less than careful breeding decisions. That is ultimately my problem with relying solely on the that portion of the COE to determine who is "ethical" or not. But it doesn't mean it's not part of my analysis.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> What is about the COE? I seem to be in a disagreement that I didn't know I was a part of. I don't disagree that if you check see if these particular breeders are complying with the COE they are likely not. My point in my last post was that in those situations there are a lot of ways to easily tell someone is, for lack of a better term, totally sketchy. You don't even have to get into the COE to see why they are to be avoided. If someone is lying, making false representations, has numerous BBB complaints, etc. one should probably avoid them regardless of whether or not they are doing health clearances on their dogs.


Oh I have to chuckle. Isn't this the downside of forums- Misunderstanding? I don't disagree with your statements. My point is that when people come to the forum inquiring about a litter or breeder, the COE, at least the health clearances portion, is a pretty simple way for me to evaluate them for the posters. Much simpler than doing a bunch of research on the other issues, which personally I will leave to the poster to do additional due diligence.

And since I don't have the knowledge or experience to know any intricate or inside information about why a potential breeding didn't follow the COE health clearances 100%, that is what I use as my guide.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> Oh I have to chuckle. Isn't this the downside of forums- Misunderstanding? I don't disagree with your statements. My point is that when people come to the forum inquiring about a litter or breeder, the COE, at least the health clearances portion, is a pretty simple way for me to evaluate them for the posters. Much simpler than doing a bunch of research on the other issues, which personally I will leave to the poster to do additional due diligence.
> 
> And since I don't have the knowledge or experience to know any intricate or inside information about why a potential breeding didn't follow the COE health clearances 100%, that is what I use as my guide.




Lol, in a nutshell, yes. . And I agree it is a simple way to look at them initially. My point was only that there are other factors involved for me to determine if someone is ethical. So there is no disagreement.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> For me, no breeding a dysplastic dog would never be within grey area. But there are dogs with grade 1 elbows that have been bred, in many pedigrees. Most often when the grade 1 elbow is due to an injury. For some that is within grey area if it is an exceptional dog. I can think of two breeders recently who have made that decision. Would I do it myself, probably not. But would I take that over certain pedigrees that are riddled with young cancer? Probably but that's just theoretical. I still, at this point, would not take a puppy from a breeding without all four clearances nor would I breed a litter without them.
> 
> And in that regard, yes, it is a code of ethics but you'll note that the code only requires reports in an online approved database. It actually doesn't require that the dog, for example, not have that grade 1 elbow. It requires that the dog be tested and reports available. So what the code really recommends is making informed breeding decisions.
> 
> ...


Thanks for a good and thoughtful answer. 

On that last point, I hear you about the sinking feeling despite the clearances. Indeed, one direction I could go with Ziva would probably result in consistent, beautiful, winning puppies and set style very firmly, but I would have to breed to one of those lines riddled with cancer to do it. At first it looked like a good way to go, but as I dove into the pedigrees I got that sinking feeling -- disappointed, sad, and even a little angry. No thanks. Beautiful dogs aren't worth that. And the kicker: that line is from a very well-respected breeder, and all the dogs have all clearances, and all of them are solidly proved and broadly titled. Ethical under the COE? Hmmm...


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> For me, no breeding a dysplastic dog would never be within grey area. But there are dogs with grade 1 elbows that have been bred, in many pedigrees. Most often when the grade 1 elbow is due to an injury. For some that is within grey area if it is an exceptional dog. I can think of two breeders recently who have made that decision.


From the ofa website:
Examination of the OFA database reveals the following mating probability results for 13,151 breeding pairs of dogs with known elbow status:
Normal Elbows x Normal Elbows = 12.2% offspring affected with ED
Normal Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 26.1% - 31.3% offspring affected with ED
Dysplastic Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 41.5% offspring affected with ED​In this very large breeding study (primarily Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, and German Shepherd Dogs), the rate of ED more than doubled when one parent was affected, and more than tripled when both parents were affected. In any breed where the overall percentage of affected dogs is already lower than the percentage that can be expected when a dog affected with ED is bred to a normal dog (26.1% - 31.3%), one would find few circumstances in which progress can be made by breeding a dog affected with ED.

Not a grey area for me. And I am pretty sure that it would be rare for an injury to cause ED. I would hope those breeders did CT scans to confirm that. 
ED is often more crippling than HD in performance dogs.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

DanaRuns said:


> Thanks for a good and thoughtful answer.
> 
> On that last point, I hear you about the sinking feeling despite the clearances. Indeed, one direction I could go with Ziva would probably result in consistent, beautiful, winning puppies and set style very firmly, but I would have to breed to one of those lines riddled with cancer to do it. At first it looked like a good way to go, but as I dove into the pedigrees I got that sinking feeling -- disappointed, sad, and even a little angry. No thanks. Beautiful dogs aren't worth that. And the kicker: that line is from a very well-respected breeder, and all the dogs have all clearances, and all of them are solidly proved and broadly titled. Ethical under the COE? Hmmm...


Yep, yep and yep. The more you know the scarier it gets, IMO.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Yep, yep and yep. The more you know the scarier it gets, IMO.


Cripes, I find it rather scary as is and I'm just your average puppy enthusiast. I can't imagine you all of you with way more depth of knowledge must feel. :uhoh:


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Yep, yep and yep. The more you know the scarier it gets, IMO.


 
I agree!!

When I started breeding I looked at the health clearances as a check list. All there, good to go. Today, the I know a lot more and while I still diligently consider the clearances, I am more afraid of the many things we can't test for, the things that don't show up until the dogs are 8 years old, and the loss of genetic diversity that we will never get back. Then there is the concern about what is left in that gene pool as we continually shrink. What ugly trait, disease, or disorder is going to raise his head next? Is the dog I include in my breeding program going to really add to the breed or will he/she lessen it?

Somewhere along the line, at least for me, the code became my desire to use every tool that I could, and every mentor that would have me, to produce the best, healthiest, and most talented dogs that I possible could.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Yep, yep and yep. The more you know the scarier it gets, IMO.


True words. In my latest puppy search I got overwhelmed as I dug deeply into 6 potential pedigrees. Ultimately I made my decision based on the least known poison of ancestral health issues, fellow grf'ers with sons from the stud, and the manner in which the breeder raises the pups.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> The more you know the scarier it gets, IMO.



It ain't easy is it! Sometimes you just want to tear your hair out. 

What it really comes down to is weighing the potential rewards against the potential risks that each pairing may produce, and even then something that was completely unexpected may show up in the offspring.


----------



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

TrailDogs said:


> From the ofa website:
> Examination of the OFA database reveals the following mating probability results for 13,151 breeding pairs of dogs with known elbow status:
> Normal Elbows x Normal Elbows = 12.2% offspring affected with ED
> Normal Elbows x Dysplastic Elbows = 26.1% - 31.3% offspring affected with ED
> ...



I personally see a slight gray area with elbows. My boy Jersey is a prime example - note, he has never been bred. Per OFA he has a unilateral Grade 1 elbow. Per OVC (back when they did clearances) he was graded normal for both elbows. He just turned 9 years old and continues to compete in Master level agility (he got his MACH last month), runs junior hunt tests at random (we don't actually train in the field currently, unfortunately) and can run all day long with my younger dogs and generally puts them to shame with his energy level. At the national he ran a hunt test, 2 days of obedience, and 3 days of agility -- and never slowed down once. So is he truly dysplastic in one elbow? I don't know but he sure gives every indication that he is sound. I know they were supposed to be doing some research on these unilateral grade 1 dogs up in Michigan - I considered entering Jersey but I couldn't meet the time commitment that far from home. Going to have to see if they have come out with any results yet. I don't really have any larger point.... just pointing out one instance where elbows might be a gray area. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I've heard that dogs with unilateral elbow dysplasia are not as bad off as with bilateral elbow dysplasia. Meaning he might truly have elbow dysplasia but adapted to living with it? 

One thing too... obviously with him being 9 years old, it would not be helpful having his elbows rechecked now, because there will be natural aging going on.

But I'd say it would be worth it to have unilateral elbows rechecked at 5 or 6 to see if there have been any bone changes. If there are no changes or if the elbows actually clear, you probably have your answer as far as the dog not having true elbow dysplasia.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My Laney's dad had his elbows cleared for the first time at age, 11, I believe. He was clear (Ch Colabaugh's Daredevil).


----------

