# WC vs. JH



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Ummmm, generally, no!

Yes, a JH is singles only, but those singles can be much more complicated marks, with more factors and obstacles, as well as hidden gunners as opposed to someone wearing a white shirt and standing in the open. the only part of the WC that is harder is the double--but once you have the mechanics down and your dog can reliably count to two, it isn't that tough.

In JH marks both land and water can be up to 100 yards long. (In Canada it is 75 yards for the water marks on JH.) I have been to tests where the water marks were only 50 yards long, but the dogs had to run through all sorts of mud or lily pads and past decoys to get to the birds.

We regularly train marks in excess of 100 yards so that the dogs have the confidence to go further if they hit a max length mark in a test.

Remember that at their inception there was a fundamental difference between the two tests--WC is to test instinct, basic marking and memory, while even a JH is supposed to test to see if the dog has at least the fundamental ability to mark and pick up a single you might encounter in hunting. While not steady, a JH is still a dog that should be able to pick up as singles most of the birds one might shoot. I have birds drop into some pretty gnarly holes every year when hunting, and the dog had better be willing to go in there and get them--that's what the dog is for!

Here you can see how obvious the gunner is in a WC.











In a hunt test they will be behind a blind, in a hedgerow or long grass and/or wearing camo.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The WC includes a double however the JH is tougher. The marks in a Junior can be much longer and the terrain far more difficult. Trainabilty is also tested at Junior so OB skills matter and the dog must deliver gently to hand. 


Here's the land marks from a 2008 Junior test in Minnesota.










The first bird was a dead bird launched from a winger (angled in) located in a blind about 95 yards from the line. The dogs would hear a call, then a shot, then see the bird in a high arc before it dropped into the decoys. There were ample snow goose decoys of varying size and design to provide another factor for the dogs to contend with enroute to the bird. 
Once sent, the dogs had to contend with a long curving side hill and tough undulating terrain if they chose to run through the dry creek bottom. The wind was a factor on this mark, blowing from left to right as indicated by the decoys. 
















The second bird was a flyer thrown from a hidden gun station located at the base of the hill, concealed by tall cattails. The dog would hear a loud duck call then see the bird emerge in a high arc. Once shot the bird would drop onto the side hill in thin sparce cover (the bird could be clearly seen lying on the ground from the running line.) Once sent, the dog had to angle down the hillside enter the cover, angle across the dry creek bed, push its' way through about 50 yards of deep grass and cattails, then break out and push up the hillside to recover the bird.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Great pictures Swampcollie. Sure helps to illustrate the difference well. 

At one test last year, my co-judge and I used a re-entry mark on water due to the water we had (a flooded creek in timber--so we did a "wood duck hunt"). It was only 25 yards to the spit and then they just had to show enough perserverance to cross the spit and pick up the bird from the cove in behind--maybe 50 yards. Their other mark involved running water and scrambling over some logs in it. Not long either, but one Lab just would not go over the big log. So with all those factors, like in the test you showed us above, perserverance is an important element in hunt as well. Generally, not a lot of factors to perservere through in a WC!


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Let's see, may as well add the water marks from the same test too.











The first water mark was a dead bird originating from a hidden winger located behind the cattails on the opposite shore. The dog had to angle down the mound, scoot across some sparse dry sage brush, dive into the water navigate through the decoys, exit the water on the opposite shore and push up the hill to recover the bird laying in open in light cover. 

















The second water mark was a flyer originating from a hidden gun station located on the opposite shore behind the cattails. The dogs had to angle down the mound, confront some rather large decoys (taller than a retriever) to enter the water, swim to the opposite shore, slog through some gut sucking mud, push through some moderate cover, then push up the hill, hunt up and recover their flyer. 

.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

sterregold said:


> Great pictures Swampcollie. Sure helps to illustrate the difference well.
> 
> At one test last year, my co-judge and I used a re-entry mark on water due to the water we had (a flooded creek in timber--so we did a "wood duck hunt"). It was only 25 yards to the spit and then they just had to show enough perserverance to cross the spit and pick up the bird from the cove in behind--maybe 50 yards. Their other mark involved running water and scrambling over some logs in it. Not long either, but one Lab just would not go over the big log. So with all those factors, like in the test you showed us above, perserverance is an important element in hunt as well. Generally, not a lot of factors to perservere through in a WC!


Agreed -- at a HT this fall, Junior dogs were required to go over a sunken log, the mark was only maybe 35-40 yards but MANY dogs refused to climb over the log.
Junior test judges have a lot of leeway in what they can set up -- more allowance for distance, cover, visibility of gunners, they can use flyers, decoys/silhouettes, etc. WC, not so much.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Very cool! That would have been a fun test to run. Love that the dogs got to have a flyer in both the land and water series. The flyers are the reason I go for the AKC titles! The dogs would have had to have a shown a commitment to those marks to leave the pond and drive up the hill. Takes some of the wind out of people who try to say the JH is too much of a gimme.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

On the flip side I have seen some very easy Junior tests. It's all in the grounds and what the judges decide to do. 
Handlers at Junior are also the biggest bunch of complainers you will ever encounter! ha ha ha Every test their dog doesn't pass is somehow illegal or unfair


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

K9-Design said:


> On the flip side I have seen some very easy Junior tests. It's all in the grounds and what the judges decide to do.
> Handlers at Junior are also the biggest bunch of complainers you will ever encounter! ha ha ha Every test their dog doesn't pass is somehow illegal or unfair


Absolutely!!! That said, judges are human, and sometimes they do stupid things too.... I know there are a couple of people with whom I just won't waste my money.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

K9-Design said:


> On the flip side I have seen some very easy Junior tests. It's all in the grounds and what the judges decide to do.
> Handlers at Junior are also the biggest bunch of complainers you will ever encounter! ha ha ha Every test their dog doesn't pass is somehow illegal or unfair


 
We see very few gimmie tests here up north. We are very fortunate to have many well established clubs with outstanding grounds. Other than Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend, there is a hunt test EVERY weekend from April 1 through September 18th, and the furthest is 160 miles away. 

The handlers at Junior can be somewhat trying at times, though most will understand when you gently explain why hearing things like "Crunching" when the dog is on the way back with a bird is not a good thing.


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> *We see very few gimmie tests here up north.* We are very fortunate to have many well established clubs with outstanding grounds. Other than Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend, there is a hunt test EVERY weekend from April 1 through September 18th, and the furthest is 160 miles away.


It's good to know that somewhere, someone still thinks titles are something _earned_, rather than merely _bought_ with entry fees. By far, most Junior's I've witnessed have been slighly glorified puppy tests. Still more meaningful than any of the WC tests, however.

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

thanks so much for the replies! The photos were AWESOME! This is exactly what I need to see what the tests involve. 
Really, I can't thank you guys enough. Fantastic!


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

EvanG said:


> It's good to know that somewhere, someone still thinks titles are something _earned_, rather than merely _bought_ with entry fees. By far, most Junior's I've witnessed have been slighly glorified puppy tests. Still more meaningful than any of the WC tests, however.
> 
> EvanG


There are always a few handlers who are looking for a Junior test run on something similar to a golf course fairway. They're shocked when there is actually cover to contend with.

Over all I've found that handlers would much rather run a test with some meat to it rather than a gimmie. That ribbon means a whole lot more to them when they succeed against a challenge. You remember the tough tests much longer than the easy ones particularly if you did well.

This particular Junior test included elements that many gimmie tests don't. Long angle entries, multiple cover and terrain changes through thick cover, totally hidden guns, and decoys of sufficient quantity to be a factor in themselves. Whenever possible we give Junior dogs one flyer on land and one on water. Shooting a flyer in front of a dog will bring out a demeanor in the dog that will not be seen though any other means of testing. 

If you're going to enter a WC/WCX or a hunt test, make certain your dog has seen and retrieved fresh shot birds beforehand.


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> There are always a few handlers who are looking for a Junior test run on something similar to a golf course fairway. They're shocked when there is actually cover to contend with.
> 
> Over all I've found that handlers would much rather run a test with some meat to it rather than a gimmie. That ribbon means a whole lot more to them when they succeed against a challenge. You remember the tough tests much longer than the easy ones particularly if you did well.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on all points, except "angle entries", regardless of distance. As an entry level test the Junior is where a great many people get their (and their dog's) feet wet in hunt tests. I know you realize this, but I think water work with diagonals is too much to ask of entry level dogs. On nearly any grounds you can adequately water test entry level dogs without setting them up to cheat.

Just my opinion. I love the cover and decoys, and I sure don't mind a bit more distance on marks. Even a Junior Hunter is supposed to be a "hunter".

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Hmm, I'm going to assume you didn't mean the WC was meaningless, which is how it sounded.
I have a "conformation" dog, who *might* at some point be bred. I think the fact that he retains the hunting instincts to the point that he can pass at the very least a WC is not meaningless from a breeding point of view. I think it's one more thing that, in addition to his obedience titles, indicates that he is a specimen of what the breed ought to be.
Which I do believe was, historically, the point of the WC/WCX.




EvanG said:


> It's good to know that somewhere, someone still thinks titles are something _earned_, rather than merely _bought_ with entry fees. By far, most Junior's I've witnessed have been slighly glorified puppy tests. Still more meaningful than any of the WC tests, however.
> 
> EvanG


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Hmm, I'm going to assume you didn't mean the WC was meaningless, which is how it sounded.


Before I reply, let me say that I appreciate any and all efforts to keep the word "Retriever" in the name of our Golden Retriever breed an adverb, rather than a noun. I'm not a WC participant, although I've volunteered as a gunner at them. 

I require of myself and my dogs the highest standards of field performance to which we can aspire, so I train to levels competitive in the highest stakes of both the hunt test _and_ field trial venues. You have stated something I believe is an honest apraisal of WC competition. I believe WC defines itself as a minimum. But a minimum is far better than surrendering what makes a dog a retriever.


hotel4dogs said:


> I have a "conformation" dog, who *might* at some point be bred.


May I ask why? I'm not passing judgment here. I'm asking an honest question. I get tons of inquiries from people desiring my opinion on whether thier dogs should be bred to 'this or that line'. Often my reply is designed to discourage most of them from breeding - especially once we determine that the dog in question has little to add to the gene pool that is exceptional. The dog pounds are perpetually full, and I haven't noticed any shortage of puppies for sale.


hotel4dogs said:


> I think the fact that he retains the hunting instincts to the point that he can pass *at the very least a WC* is not meaningless from a breeding point of view. I think it's one more thing that, in addition to his obedience titles, indicates that he is a specimen of what the breed ought to be.
> Which I do believe was, historically, the point of the WC/WCX.


I agree with your assessment of a WC. But do you not agree that we should aspire not to the lowest common denominator, but rather the highest if we're to uphold or improve upon the higher traits in our breed? Might it not, then, be better to regard WC in an accurate perspective, and make plans to follow the WC title with subsequent titles that reflect a degree of talent that is ever higher? Build his record; one title leading the next - revealing the ways this future stud may improve the breed, rather than uphold its minimums?

Now, in direct response to your question about my saying "By far, most Junior's I've witnessed have been slighly glorified puppy tests. Still more meaningful than any of the WC tests, however." It isn't the JH or WC stakes themselves that I refer to as being more or less meaningful. It's the tests in so many of them that reveal little as to superior retrieving qualities in the animals. The content of the tests themselves is so minimal that it often appears that the judges are more concerned with promoting the number of entries than in upholding the higher traits of the breed - at least at these types of events.

I hope to see JH & WC tests that actually test the dogs, and therefore reveal what kind of animal we're perpetuating by way of what, in _my_ opinion, is currently an excess of breeding for the sake of breeding.

I am fully aware that when I'm this brutally honest that someone will be offended. To them, I'm sorry if you're offended. But I do no service, either to you, or to our breed by hiding from important issues like this. And, after all, I was _asked_ and honestly replied.

Judgmentally yours,
EvanG


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

In furtherance to Evan's post, as a conformation person who is also a hunter (and a hunt test & WC judge in Canada), I would not take a WC dog hunting with me. If that is as far as the dog's training has gone or can go, it would not be sharing a blind with me. It is a test of instinct insofar as the dog at least likes birds and can count to two (and then with a visible gunner as a reminder). I have judged too many dogs at the WC level whom I have seen attempt the test multiple times before success.

To be an effective hunting companion there had better be much more inborn drive and perseverance than the WC can demonstrate. Not to say the the dog with a WC might not possess those traits, I just don't think that the length of marks and factors present in most WC marks really demonstrate that. The WC is just a _starting_ point, and when dogs are then advertised as having _working ability_, with only a WC to show for it, I find it frustrating! That's why the gundog class at specialties requires at least a SH for eligibility--earning that title demonstrates functional gundog skills for a working retriever. My big JH/WCX boy is a great pheasant dog, but for waterfowling I'd rather have my little SH girl with me.


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

sterregold said:


> In furtherance to Evan's post, as a conformation person who is also a hunter (and a hunt test & WC judge in Canada), I would not take a WC dog hunting with me. If that is as far as the dog's training has gone or can go, it would not be sharing a blind with me. It is a test of instinct insofar as the dog at least likes birds and can count to two (and then with a visible gunner as a reminder). I have judged too many dogs at the WC level whom I have seen attempt the test multiple times before success.
> 
> To be an effective hunting companion there had better be much more inborn drive and perseverance than the WC can demonstrate. Not to say the the dog with a WC might not possess those traits, I just don't think that the length of marks and factors present in most WC marks really demonstrate that. The WC is just a _starting_ point, and when dogs are then advertised as having _working ability_, with only a WC to show for it, I find it frustrating! That's why the gundog class at specialties requires at least a SH for eligibility--earning that title demonstrates functional gundog skills for a working retriever. My big JH/WCX boy is a great pheasant dog, but for waterfowling I'd rather have my little *SH* girl with me.


Excellent post. Your reasoning shows clarity of thought and practical field experience.

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Perhaps I have misled you into thinking the WC is my highest aspiration; it's not. But it's probably my highest aspiration for 2010. After 2010, we move on to the JH. After that, I'd love to keep going. Tito is a young dog, he'll be 3 in March. We have plenty of time. 
The problem is, which is true for so many people, there are only so many hours in a day, and only so much money in the coffer. We can't compete aggressively in all sports at once. 
I've opted to chase the CH aggressively for the next several months (to the tune of almost $1000 a weekend, between hotels/handlers/travel expenses/etc. which should explain in and of itself why we can't also pursue field work aggressively). 
I'm also actively pursuing his UDX at this time. That adds more time and money. Don't know if you're familiar with the UDX, it's a very high level obedience title that very few dogs ever attain. To get a UDX leg, you have to qualify in both Open B and Utility B in the same show. It takes 10 legs to get a UDX. I'd like to have at least 5 UDX legs by the end of 2010. Only have 1 right now. Think...double entry fees...more hotels, more travel....
And, we are training actively in agility, just because it's a lot of fun, but I do hope to have him ready to trial in agility by the end of 2010. It's on my goal list.
And if you've seen any of my other threads, you know we also do dock diving. He's got a junior jumper title (UKC), we're hoping for a senior jumper title by the end of 2010. Again, just because it's so darned much fun. But then, goldens SHOULD willingly want to jump into the water over and over to retrieve something.

As far as breeding him, I haven't made any decisions, although most of the time I'm inclined against it. 
But to answer your question, I firmly believe that Tito personifies the very best of the golden breed. But I don't just want my own, biased opinion, I want other, unbiased ones. So I show him in the breed ring, where the judges seem to agree he's among the good goldens out there in terms of breed standard. 
I train/show him in obedience, to prove that he's trainable, smart, and willing. He got his UD at 30 months old, which is very, very rare, especially considering I've never trained a dog anywhere near that level before.
He will do anything you ask of him, willingly and happily. 
He's got a temperament made of gold. Never met a person, child, or other dog, including intact males, that he doesn't get along with. He's calm and quiet. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times he's barked in his life. 
He has passed all his health clearances. He is free of allergies, chronic ear infections, or other health issues. 
Tito is the true multi-purpose dog, which IMHO is what the golden should be. That's why I would even consider breeding him. I'm still undecided as to whether or not I will, but if I do decide to, it will be with enough titles on BOTH ends of his name to say that others besides me think he's got a lot of what it takes to be an excellent golden retriever.
FWIW, I've turned down 6 requests to stud him so far. People do notice dogs who are "double ring dogs", because there are so few of them who seem able to compete and excel in multiple venues. 
I'm sorry if this sounds like a huge brag on Tito, but I couldn't answer your question any other way.






EvanG said:


> Before I reply, let me say that I appreciate any and all efforts to keep the word "Retriever" in the name of our Golden Retriever breed an adverb, rather than a noun. I'm not a WC participant, although I've volunteered as a gunner at them.
> 
> I require of myself and my dogs the highest standards of field performance to which we can aspire, so I train to levels competitive in the highest stakes of both the hunt test _and_ field trial venues. You have stated something I believe is an honest apraisal of WC competition. I believe WC defines itself as a minimum. But a minimum is far better than surrendering what makes a dog a retriever.May I ask why? I'm not passing judgment here. I'm asking an honest question. I get tons of inquiries from people desiring my opinion on whether thier dogs should be bred to 'this or that line'. Often my reply is designed to discourage most of them from breeding - especially once we determine that the dog in question has little to add to the gene pool that is exceptional. The dog pounds are perpetually full, and I haven't noticed any shortage of puppies for sale.I agree with your assessment of a WC. But do you not agree that we should aspire not to the lowest common denominator, but rather the highest if we're to uphold or improve upon the higher traits in our breed? Might it not, then, be better to regard WC in an accurate perspective, and make plans to follow the WC title with subsequent titles that reflect a degree of talent that is ever higher? Build his record; one title leading the next - revealing the ways this future stud may improve the breed, rather than uphold its minimums?
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Perhaps I have misled you into thinking the WC is my highest aspiration; it's not. But it's probably my highest aspiration for 2010. After 2010, we move on to the JH. After that, I'd love to keep going. Tito is a young dog, he'll be 3 in March. We have plenty of time.


It did sound that way, but I’m glad your goals are loftier. Upward and onward at your own pace…and _his_, of course.



hotel4dogs said:


> The problem is, which is true for so many people, there are only so many hours in a day, and only so much money in the coffer. We can't compete aggressively in all sports at once.


Most people are fortunate to be competitive at one.


hotel4dogs said:


> I've opted to chase the CH aggressively for the next several months (to the tune of almost *$1000 a weekend*, between hotels/handlers/travel expenses/etc. which should explain in and of itself why we can't also pursue field work aggressively).


That is one of several very good reasons why, even though I train my dogs to a winning level, I no longer run dogs in trials or tests, but for rare exceptions.


hotel4dogs said:


> I'm also actively pursuing his UDX at this time. That adds more time and money. Don't know if you're familiar with the *UDX*, it's a very high-level obedience title that very few dogs ever attain. To get a UDX leg, you have to qualify in both Open B and Utility B in the same show. It takes 10 legs to get a UDX. I'd like to have at least 5 UDX legs by the end of 2010. Only have 1 right now. Think...double entry fees...more hotels, more travel....


I see a familiar pattern here.



hotel4dogs said:


> And, we are training actively in agility, just because it's a lot of fun, but I do hope to have him ready to trial in agility by the end of 2010. It's on my goal list.





hotel4dogs said:


> And if you've seen any of my other threads, you know we also do dock diving. He's got a junior jumper title (UKC), we're hoping for a senior jumper title by the end of 2010. Again, just because it's so darned much fun. But then, Goldens SHOULD willingly want to jump into the water over and over to retrieve something.


You keep you plate pretty full!



hotel4dogs said:


> As far as breeding him, I haven't made any decisions, although most of the time I'm inclined against it.


As you’ve noted, he’s young. There’s plenty of time for that decision. I respect your caution.


hotel4dogs said:


> But to answer your question, I firmly believe that Tito personifies the very best of the golden breed. But I don't just want my own, biased opinion, I want other, unbiased ones.


You have a biased opinion? Dog people don’t have those, do they?


hotel4dogs said:


> He has passed all his health clearances. He is free of allergies, chronic ear infections, or other health issues.


Ahhhh! It feels good just to read that statement!



hotel4dogs said:


> FWIW, I've turned down 6 requests to stud him so far. People do notice dogs who are "double ring dogs", because there are so few of them who seem able to compete and excel in multiple venues.





hotel4dogs said:


> I'm sorry if this sounds like a huge brag on Tito, but I couldn't answer your question any other way.


*Shameless!* :--appalled:

And probably anyone else who had him would likely do the same. Your self control is exceptional, and will serve you, Tito, and the breed well. But if indeed you end up leaning toward breeding him, hold your field standards high.

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And we have to do the field training more or less last because I *know* deep in my heart that once he and I start it, that's going to be the end of pretty much everything else! ! ! 



EvanG said:


> It did sound that way, but I’m glad your goals are loftier. Upward and onward at your own pace…and _his_, of course.
> And probably anyone else who had him would likely do the same. Your self control is exceptional, and will serve you, Tito, and the breed well. But if indeed you end up leaning toward breeding him, hold your field standards high.
> 
> EvanG


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Just to clarify, what Evan and I were both responding to was the idea of evaluating what the WC can really tell us about _what the dog* is*_. Kudos to you for pursuing advanced obedience titles with Tito. Since you are already engaged in pursuit of that Ch, I would encourage you to pursue those more advanced field skills and titles once you get the frustration that is conformation done! I understand how hard it is to do everything, and so, sometimes you have to make choices about what to pursue.

Now some food for thought--what really is breed purpose? I would say that the purpose is to be a gentleman's hunting dog, equally adept on waterfowl and upland game. So how do we assess that? For me, part of what defines breed type is a physical structure which will enable the dog to function afield for years (that is of course the rationale behind the physical dog described in the standard and is what judges are _supposed_ to be looking for in the breed ring), but also hunting ability, which includes both instinct and trained elements, as well as a stable temperament as the dog must be able to get along with other dogs in the close quarters of a hunting blind. I think the standard emphasizes these elements, and below are the first 2 paragraphs from the CKC standard:
*General Appearance*: A symmetrical, powerful active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. Overall appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts.
*Temperament:* Friendly, reliable, and trustworthy. Hostility or aggressiveness towards other dogs or people, undue timidity or nervousness in normal situations is not in keeping with the character of Golden Retriever. Dogs displaying poor temperament should be excused from the ring.​So what is going to tell me most about the working qualities of a dog who is "primarily a hunting dog..."? Field and hunt titles. Other titles can tell me about _elements_ of the qualities that are needed in a good hunting dog, but ultimately not about performance in the field. 

Obedience gives an indication of trainability and tractability, so I see those titles as a plus. However, that dog's responsiveness at 20 yards is not the same as responsiveness at 100 yards in adverse conditions. I realize the work that goes into achieving the UD and higher--my boy's dam had her Cdn OTCH which is equivalent to the UD, but I seriously doubt that she would have been able to earn a SH as she simply did not have enough drive to generate the necessary perseverance. My obedience instructor has twice had the top obedience dog in Canada, and multiple dogs with the GMOTCH; her Golden had the potential by pedigree to do something in the field but it was never explored. A pity. I would argue that making a MH or QAA dog takes more because of the sheer variety of skills the dog must learn. An FC is something else again--a melding of raw talent and focused, balanced training that gets dogs to do the incredible. There is a reason Push was able to quickly get his utility--his field foundation primed him to learn, work in a partnership, and solve complex tasks.

Conformation _should_ tell me whether the dog has the structure to hold up to the rigors of the training and work, but as you are likely seeing, the qualities which are rewarded in the ring are not necessarily qualities that contribute to functionality in the field or correspond well to the written standard. I've certainly seen handlers sculpt structure into a dog which did not actually exist! Flashy, heads up movement created by upright shoulders and short upper arms, and excessive coat are not good for a working dog. I show in conformation and it drives me crazy to see dogs with faults that would cause them to break down by 6 or 7 if subjected to heavy use in the field rewarded because of their flash, or who is on the end of the lead. 

Equally, selection of breeding stock solely based on performance can be problematic as well. Sound temperament is vital, and I have met an unfortunate number of trial bred dogs who are flat out dog aggressive. No thanks. Again, it is counter to their functioning well in a hunting situation.

I look back to the days of the dual champions with some wistfulness. There was more balance then, not that there were not problems then as well. Thankfully more people are endeavouring to achieve that balance of physical type married with character and ability, but I don't think that balance is properly struck if working ability (hunting ability in this sense as it is the work the breed was intended to do) is not at the forefront of importance. Just something we should be thinking about as a community if we want to maintain the integrity of the breed as a Golden *Retriever*.


----------



## DNL2448 (Feb 13, 2009)

Barb, 

You are one of my heros!


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> And we have to do the field training more or less last because I *know* deep in my heart that once he and I start it, that's going to be the end of pretty much everything else! ! !


Good!!! And once the bug bites, I would hope with your next dog (because for us Golden addicts there is always the dream of that next great one...) field will be at the top of that list because of what it represents. Go for it!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I'll jump into this conversation (what did I do with my time before I found this forum?). My problem with using the WC for determining breeding potential is that the skills needed for a WC can be pretty easily trained into a dog, even when they don't come to the dog naturally. 

Two dogs could come out to a WC and be able to work at the same level. One of the dogs, first time it was taken out to a field, was eagerly running out and picking up ducks. The second dog first time out could care less about the ducks, might trot out there to see what had fallen, but then looses interest after a sniff. After a thorough force fetch program though that dog will go out and and do what he needs to do. Both pass the WC, but which one should be bred, the one who had the desire to do it already, or the one that had to be forced to do it? (By the way, I am not saying anything against force fetch, I strongly believe in it, I am just saying it's not the only reason a dog should retrieve). 

This is why breeders need to be honest with themselves about their dogs. Titles don't tell the whole story of ability.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I really wish I could get more involved in field work. I'd had trouble getting into a steady group to work with. That has been my biggest set back. I'm even thinking about talking to my neighbor and seeing if I can hire her kids to throw for me.

We should set up a GRF training camp!


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> I really wish I could get more involved in field work. I'd had trouble getting into a steady group to work with. That has been my biggest set back. I'm even thinking about talking to my neighbor and seeing if I can hire her kids to throw for me.
> 
> We should set up a GRF training camp!


 Great idea! Do kids need volunteer hours to graduate in Louisiana? If they like dogs and hunting, it could be a great way for them to log some time. I've had students throw at our club's test to get hours. That or invest in some ZingerWingers and remotes! There have also been some great articles on training alone in Retrievers Online. Apparently there will be a dvd soon, too.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Shelly, thank you for that excellent, well thought out post. I read it several times. 
I do think, however, that hunting ability would be brought more to the forefront if training and test opportunities were more available to owners/breeders. Like Loisiana said also, in my area I can't find anyone to train with or learn under except for trainers who want to take my dog for 3 months. 
It's very easy to find training clubs, facilities, and trials for obedience, agility, conformation, and even tracking. It's almost impossible to find them for field training in this area. The training groups that do exist here are people who have known each other and trained together for a long time, and are not real open to taking in people who don't know which end of the gun to hold. I can understand that.
Our golden retriever club is a fledgling club, so no help there yet.
But by the time the next puppy comes along, hopefully that will have changed!




sterregold said:


> Just to clarify, what Evan and I were both responding to was the idea of evaluating what the WC can really tell us about _what the dog* is*_. Kudos to you for pursuing advanced obedience titles with Tito. Since you are already engaged in pursuit of that Ch, I would encourage you to pursue those more advanced field skills and titles once you get the frustration that is conformation done! I understand how hard it is to do everything, and so, sometimes you have to make choices about what to pursue.
> 
> Now some food for thought--what really is breed purpose? I would say that the purpose is to be a gentleman's hunting dog, equally adept on waterfowl and upland game. So how do we assess that? For me, part of what defines breed type is a physical structure which will enable the dog to function afield for years (that is of course the rationale behind the physical dog described in the standard and is what judges are _supposed_ to be looking for in the breed ring), but also hunting ability, which includes both instinct and trained elements, as well as a stable temperament as the dog must be able to get along with other dogs in the close quarters of a hunting blind. I think the standard emphasizes these elements, and below are the first 2 paragraphs from the CKC standard:
> *General Appearance*: A symmetrical, powerful active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. Overall appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts.
> ...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Ok, with my limited understanding of the JH, isn't the same thing true? A dog can be taught the skills required for a JH as well? Or maybe they can't be taught perserverance? But my understanding of a well done force fetch program is that it will teach perserverance as well. 

The first time my dog saw a duck he about vibrated out of his skin, ran out into the corn field 40 yards away, over a hill no less, where I had stupidly had my husband toss it (thinking that the idea was to make it so he couldn't see where it had landed and that he had to use his nose to find it, but that's in another thread), picked it right up, and brought it back to me. He was never trained with bumpers, or bumpers with feathers, or anything else. Just happens to like birds. 
The first time he heard a gun go off just a few feet away from him, he didn't even raise his ears. He was too busy looking at the bird.
The first time he heard a duck call and saw the duck hit the water (we were watching a lab hunt test) I had to put him in the car because I could hardly hold him.
The first time my dog saw a toy tossed off the end of a dock over water he jumped right in after it, even though he's had very few opportunities to swim in his life. 
He has never been force broken nor has he ever worn an e-collar (although I'm not necessarily opposed to either). 
But he doesn't have any hunt titles. Not a single one.
So I see exactly what you're saying, and I agree totally. I sincerely believe my dog shows a lot of instinct and desire, and I think that's ultimately more important than being forced to do it.
But on the flip side, how can we *prove* that our dogs have ability, unless we get independent judgements? I can say all I want about my dog's ability in any venue, but unless I have independent opinions to back it up, usually in the form of titles, it's worthless.
Sorry, it's late and it's been a long day and I'm rambling.





Loisiana said:


> I'll jump into this conversation (what did I do with my time before I found this forum?). My problem with using the WC for determining breeding potential is that the skills needed for a WC can be pretty easily trained into a dog, even when they don't come to the dog naturally.
> 
> Two dogs could come out to a WC and be able to work at the same level. One of the dogs, first time it was taken out to a field, was eagerly running out and picking up ducks. The second dog first time out could care less about the ducks, might trot out there to see what had fallen, but then looses interest after a sniff. After a thorough force fetch program though that dog will go out and and do what he needs to do. Both pass the WC, but which one should be bred, the one who had the desire to do it already, or the one that had to be forced to do it? (By the way, I am not saying anything against force fetch, I strongly believe in it, I am just saying it's not the only reason a dog should retrieve).
> 
> This is why breeders need to be honest with themselves about their dogs. Titles don't tell the whole story of ability.


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> ...Like Loisiana said also, in my area I can't find anyone to train with or learn under except for trainers who want to take my dog for 3 months...Our golden retriever club is a fledgling club, so no help there yet...


If you are ever over near Des Moines, we have an informal group that meets most Thursdays. We are nearly all golden people (we have one token lab and a couple of poodles that sometimes play with us) and are always open for new people. Obviously you won't come every week, but you're welcome any time. We wouldn't even make fun of Tito for being a fluffy!

There is a lot you can do on your own, even if you don't know anything. There are lots of DVDs and books available to help teach you. It might not be as efficient as a real hands-on, one-on-one, but you will learn lots in the process anyway. Ruby had never trained with a group and had had less than a dozen real birds (and never a live flyer) when we entered (and passed) our first JH test. Yes, I'm doing things a bit differently with Piper, but Ruby still has the JH title.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Thanks for the offer, and that's EXACTLY what I'm looking for. Unfortunately, the 6 hour drive would get tedious on a weekly basis : (I'm pretty much at the far east side of IL, about 15 miles from the IN state line).
I have bought and read, and re-read, and re-read, 3 books so far. One was good, one was okay, and one was probably a good book but not what I'm looking for. I've borrowed a couple of others, and read them as well. So I really am making an effort (hey, it's a great thing to do in hotel rooms when you're just hanging out after you're done in the breed ring!). When the weather gets back above 0, I do hope to get outside a bit more get crackin' on this.




IowaGold said:


> If you are ever over near Des Moines, we have an informal group that meets most Thursdays. We are nearly all golden people (we have one token lab and a couple of poodles that sometimes play with us) and are always open for new people. Obviously you won't come every week, but you're welcome any time. We wouldn't even make fun of Tito for being a fluffy!
> 
> There is a lot you can do on your own, even if you don't know anything. There are lots of DVDs and books available to help teach you. It might not be as efficient as a real hands-on, one-on-one, but you will learn lots in the process anyway. Ruby had never trained with a group and had had less than a dozen real birds (and never a live flyer) when we entered (and passed) our first JH test. Yes, I'm doing things a bit differently with Piper, but Ruby still has the JH title.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Ok, with my limited understanding of the JH, isn't the same thing true? A dog can be taught the skills required for a JH as well?


I think it's true of pretty much any title in any dog sport. But the lower the level, the easier it is to "get by." I've actually heard a few OTCH trainers say that that they think the majority of utility dogs could earn an OTCH if the dogs was shown often and long enough. I think almost any dog (void of health or serious mental problems) can earn a CD. But obviously some dogs have more natural abilities that make them more suited for that sport.To some extent the same can be said about field work, although the farther up the levels you go, the more natural instict and desire is required. I think it's safe to say that if you've got a FC dog, it did have a lot of natural ability.


I think that trials and tests are great for getting an opinion on the final product. But only the trainer knows what it took to get that final product. Did the dog have the natural ability desired, or is that final product only the result of a lot of hard work on the part of the trainer? No matter what titles are on a dog's name, only the person that has been working with that dog truly knows if those titles prove the dog has desired genetic qualities that should be bred.

I'll use Conner as an example. On paper, his obedience titles look pretty nice. He's in the GRCA Obedience Hall of Fame, has his UDX, his Obedience Masters, and is about a fourth of the way to his OTCH. He usually looks pretty good in the ring too. But I know that the only thing that has gotten him so far is his desire to please me. He does not have much natural drive. He has no instinct whatsoever to retrieve anything except ducks. He is not naturally a great obedience dog, I have put in a lot of work into making him see all this crazy stuff as being "fun." So, with the hope that he does finish his OTCH, I would still not dream of breeding him (even if he didn't have health issues and was already neutered)because there's really no beneficial qualities there that could be carried down.

I do still think putting titles on dogs is important. I took a risk in getting Flip, because neither of his parents are titled (other than a CCA on dad). But I put my trust in the breeder. I know she has been breeding for decades, I know what she has produced in the past, and I trusted her to know her dogs. There are very few breeders that I would have taken that risk with; I think most people don't have the experience to be totally objective about their own dogs. But those breeders can't depend totally on outside input either, they have to be able to make honest assessments of their dogs.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm just thinking out loud here....
Do you think that most people "give up" on the more advanced titles, in any dog sport, unless the dog has natural ability? Not all people, but most? So maybe for a lot of dogs, the advanced titles are an indication that there was some natural ability there in the first place?
Just a thought.




Loisiana said:


> I think it's true of pretty much any title in any dog sport. But the lower the level, the easier it is to "get by." I've actually heard a few OTCH trainers say that that they think the majority of utility dogs could earn an OTCH if the dogs was shown often and long enough. I think almost any dog (void of health or serious mental problems) can earn a CD. But obviously some dogs have more natural abilities that make them more suited for that sport.To some extent the same can be said about field work, although the farther up the levels you go, the more natural instict and desire is required. I think it's safe to say that if you've got a FC dog, it did have a lot of natural ability.
> 
> 
> I think that trials and tests are great for getting an opinion on the final product. But only the trainer knows what it took to get that final product. Did the dog have the natural ability desired, or is that final product only the result of a lot of hard work on the part of the trainer? No matter what titles are on a dog's name, only the person that has been working with that dog truly knows if those titles prove the dog has desired genetic qualities that should be bred.
> ...


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm just thinking out loud here....
> Do you think that most people "give up" on the more advanced titles, in any dog sport, unless the dog has natural ability? Not all people, but most? So maybe for a lot of dogs, the advanced titles are an indication that there was some natural ability there in the first place?
> Just a thought.


Advanced Field titles, I would think probably so, but other sports not really. I've seen plenty of people struggling for years to earn upper obedience and agility titles. For them it's a lot more about hard work and perserverance than any natural ability on the dog's part.As far as proving retrieve instinct in conformation dogs, if I were looking for a breed dog that had retrieve instincts, I would be speaking to experience field people that have seen conformation dogs working in the fields. When a field person says they've seen such and such a dog working and like what they've seen, that means a lot more to me than a WC on the dog.Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the WC, I personally wish the GRCA would make it a standard for all dogs to get the WC before breeding (just like all the health clearances). But not so much because of what having a WC proves, more because of what it says if a dog can't pass a WC. IMO a retriever that can't pass a WC doesn't need to be bred.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

By the same token, the Labrador Retriever parent club originally only issued (not sure if this is still true) a formal WC to labs who are CH. 
Interesting.




Loisiana said:


> Advanced Field titles, I would think probably so, but other sports not really. I've seen plenty of people struggling for years to earn upper obedience and agility titles. For them it's a lot more about hard work and perserverance than any natural ability on the dog's part.As far as proving retrieve instinct in conformation dogs, if I were looking for a breed dog that had retrieve instincts, I would be speaking to experience field people that have seen conformation dogs working in the fields. When a field person says they've seen such and such a dog working and like what they've seen, that means a lot more to me than a WC on the dog.Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the WC, I personally wish the GRCA would make it a standard for all dogs to get the WC before breeding (just like all the health clearances). But not so much because of what having a WC proves, more because of what it says if a dog can't pass a WC. IMO a retriever that can't pass a WC doesn't need to be bred.


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> By the same token, the Labrador Retriever parent club originally only issued (not sure if this is still true) a formal WC to labs who are CH.
> Interesting.


I thought it was the other way around with labs? That they can't call themselves a Champion (for LRC purposes) unless they had the WC in addition to the CH.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Sarah, that's the way I understood it too.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

As I said, this may be old information.
"In the Labrador Retriever breed, the official WC certificate is available to any Labrador that has completed the AKC breed championship requirements. Local clubs who conduct WC events, however, can present their own certificates or ribbons to acknowledge the dogs that complete the requirements at that particular event. Those people whose dog is an AKC champion can receive their official certificate from the Labrador Retriever Club".
Retriever Working Certificate Training, Rutherford, Branstad and Whicker


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> I do think, however, that hunting ability would be brought more to the forefront if training and test opportunities were more available to owners/breeders. Like Loisiana said also, in my area I can't find anyone to train with or learn under except for trainers who want to take my dog for 3 months.
> It's very easy to find training clubs, facilities, and trials for obedience, agility, conformation, and even tracking. It's almost impossible to find them for field training in this area. The training groups that do exist here are people who have known each other and trained together for a long time, and are not real open to taking in people who don't know which end of the gun to hold. I can understand that.


It does take a while to gain credibility before people will welcome you into their training groups. I took classes from a successful local amateur, and put the basic titles on my boy, as well as joined a hunt test club before people started issuing those invitations. Six years down the road I am lucky to have a really excellent group of training friends who have GMH, NMH, MH, QAA, and All-Age pointed dogs. Many of them also train with different pros so we get a variety of perspectives and problem solving approaches to the table as well.

There are ways you can build those contacts. Many pros do offer day training or private/small group lessons. When I was doing Breeze's basics, I worked with a pro one day a week all summer. I would go and gun for her all day, and someone else would work my station while I ran my dog. I also took a vacation training trip to her winter grounds that coincided with our T work. She'd watch what I was doing, make suggestions, and basically mentored me through the process. Lots of people do this. Miner's Kennel is in Sheridan, about 1.5 hrs WSW of Chicago. They do offer private lessons, and along with daughter Bridget Carlsen are High Times Retrievers, so lots of experience with Goldens! They maybe south for the winter right now though--Texas I think. 

Also try contacting the hunt test clubs in your area to inquire if they know of anyone holding introductory classes.
Some you might try:
http://www.midirc.com/default.htm
http://www.foxrivervalleyhrc.com/faq/ (UKC HRC so it will be a lot more camo and guns...)


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> Advanced Field titles, I would think probably so, but other sports not really. I've seen plenty of people struggling for years to earn upper obedience and agility titles. For them it's a lot more about hard work and perserverance than any natural ability on the dog's part.As far as proving retrieve instinct in conformation dogs, *if I were looking for a breed dog that had retrieve instincts, I would be speaking to experience field people that have seen conformation dogs working in the fields. When a field person says they've seen such and such a dog working and like what they've seen, that means a lot more to me than a WC on the dog.*Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the WC, I personally wish the GRCA would make it a standard for all dogs to get the WC before breeding (just like all the health clearances). But not so much because of what having a WC proves, more because of what it says if a dog can't pass a WC. IMO a retriever that can't pass a WC doesn't need to be bred.



Jodie, this and your previous posts were excellent and I agree completely.

As for why people stop after JH/WC/WCX?
Well a JH, WC or WCX you can train by yourself without knowing very much about field work or training retrievers. If your dog has enough go, that will get you by. Anything beyond that you have to handle and that is a whole nuther ball of wax. Training for handling is not intuitive to the novice trainer. It's very abstract. To someone experienced the flowchart of teaching handling (by the Carr/Lardy/Graham/etc camp) makes sense but until you realize you have to pick a program and stick to it like glue, trying to get a dog to handle is not easy. It's not easy and doing it wrong will result in BIG BIG problems. And even if you go exactly by the book, and you have a really talented dog, unless you have an experienced trainer there to guide you and answer your questions, you're going to dig yourself into a hole pretty quick.
Most people don't even attempt it. Unless you have a training partner or group to help you it is very difficult.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Thanks for the links, I had in fact bookmarked Miner's for when they get back from Texas. Bridget is a very good friend of the person I take lessons (obed) from, and she and her family are very highly thought of.
The other 2 links are excellent as well, although each is at least 2 hours from me. 
I really REALLY want to work with a pro one day a week when the weather gets a bit nicer, and when we get the "pretty boy stuff" out of the way. I don't feel I can be successful without help and guidance.



sterregold said:


> It does take a while to gain credibility before people will welcome you into their training groups. I took classes from a successful local amateur, and put the basic titles on my boy, as well as joined a hunt test club before people started issuing those invitations. Six years down the road I am lucky to have a really excellent group of training friends who have GMH, NMH, MH, QAA, and All-Age pointed dogs. Many of them also train with different pros so we get a variety of perspectives and problem solving approaches to the table as well.
> 
> There are ways you can build those contacts. Many pros do offer day training or private/small group lessons. When I was doing Breeze's basics, I worked with a pro one day a week all summer. I would go and gun for her all day, and someone else would work my station while I ran my dog. I also took a vacation training trip to her winter grounds that coincided with our T work. She'd watch what I was doing, make suggestions, and basically mentored me through the process. Lots of people do this. Miner's Kennel is in Sheridan, about 1.5 hrs WSW of Chicago. They do offer private lessons, and along with daughter Bridget Carlsen are High Times Retrievers, so lots of experience with Goldens! They maybe south for the winter right now though--Texas I think.
> 
> ...


----------



## gabbys mom (Apr 23, 2008)

sterregold said:


> Miner's Kennel is in Sheridan, about 1.5 hrs WSW of Chicago. They do offer private lessons, and along with daughter Bridget Carlsen are High Times Retrievers, so lots of experience with Goldens! They maybe south for the winter right now though--Texas I think.
> 
> Also try contacting the hunt test clubs in your area to inquire if they know of anyone holding introductory classes.
> Some you might try:
> ...


Also, Paul Kartes is in Rockford- he does privates.


----------

