# Is the breed splitting?



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Great question. I will be watching for the answer from some of the more experienced. I have wondered about this as well.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't think it's that the standard is the problem. A golden can meet the standard just fine but not be what is considered the style of what's being shown in the breed ring. That's why I value the CCA very much, just because a dog can't win in the breed ring does not mean it doesn't meet the objective of the standard. 

The other issue that comes into play is breeding to win in a specific area. Goldens are an extremely competitive breed so those looking to get an edge in the areas that are judged in the breed ring might let slip some of the areas that aren't judged there.

The same holds true to breeding to win in the field. Field trials are also extremely competitive, and can cause one to focus less on the physical traits of conformation when looking for the best field trial traits.

I don't think an expemplory example of a golden retriever needs to be able to be a conformation champion. I also don't think they need to be able to win field trials. I think both of those are two very competitive areas that will continue to get even more competitive as time goes along. A golden that can do Senior Hunter/Master Hunter work and pass a CCA is what a golden is supposed to be.

That's all my opinion of course.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I'm always most impressed at those who have success in both the conformation and performance venues. We have several members here who have done exactly that. I suspect a large number of well bred conformation Goldens are capable of excelling in other areas.


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> I don't think it's that the standard is the problem. A golden can meet the standard just fine but not be what is considered the style of what's being shown in the breed ring. That's why I value the CCA very much, just because a dog can't win in the breed ring does not mean it doesn't meet the objective of the standard.
> 
> The other issue that comes into play is breeding to win in a specific area. Goldens are an extremely competitive breed so those looking to get an edge in the areas that are judged in the breed ring might let slip some of the areas that aren't judged there.
> 
> ...


What is a CCA 

also, so a Golden Retriever who does succeed in field trials and excels in conformation showing - would kinda be considered a super golden? I guess it would be like an athlete who competes in multiple events? would striving for this be unrealistic?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

CCA is a Certificate of Conformation Assessment. A panel of judges goes over your dog and scores them on several different areas of the standard, and if you meet a minimum score then your dog is awarded a certificate saying he meets the golden retriever standard.

The last time we had a golden here in the US get a champion title in both conformation and field the dog was born in the early 70's.


----------



## drloripalooza (Jan 7, 2012)

This is a question I have, too. A friend is looking for a Golden for OB, but wants a very "typey" (as she puts it) conformation-looking Golden. There don't seem to be many Goldens with a conformation CH and a UD. Maybe she just isn't looking at the right breeders.

I know that some breeders of performance Goldens do breed back every few generations to conformation Goldens. Is the reverse true?


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

I've thought about this too, in particular, I've wondered whether the breed *should* split.

It seems like conformation breeders sometimes have different goals than breeders who breed for hunting. Is what we're asking of the breed too lofty or wide for what a breed can reasonably do, while still being coherent?

Does it hurt Goldens in the show ring when they have to conform to such a wide standard? Other breeds seem to have a much narrower standard they must meet (at least, that's my opinion) - the affenpinscher, the pekingese, etc. 

I once read an article by a conformation judge (I'm sure by the advice of someone on this forum) that says they factor their judging of goldens based on, among other things, whether they look like they're built functionally to serve their original purpose: hunting; yet, my assumption is that many conformation dogs would not do terribly well if they were trained and attempted to get their JH, SH, etc, because of the personality component required for that kind of dog.

Personally, of course, I think goldens are perfect they way they are, and often wonder whether a person's prescription needs to be tweaked when they aren't golden-lovers...but, these are just armchair questions I've wondered as I look at threads like "Why no love for goldens at Westminster", etc.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The breed is split. It has been for a very long time.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> The breed is split. It has been for a very long time.


I think this is the case.... 

@Lori - I think you are more likely to find goldens with both conformation and advanced obedience titles who are typey vs finding goldens who are both MH and CH's. And I think all of that is based on the owners as much as the dogs.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> The breed is split. It has been for a very long time.


 I think he is correct. Just my thought.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

There are not only bench (conformation) CH and UD goldens, there are also bench CH and UDX goldens! Some of them even have a SH and might just be training for MH!

Just to correct your friend's semantics..."type" refers to that which makes a golden retriever a golden retriever (versus a labrador retriever, springer spaniel, etc.).
"Style" is the word which refers to the difference within the breed itself. So your friend, I believe, wants a conformation style golden rather than a field style golden.

I think Jodie hit it spot on, people breed to win in their particular venue and you generally lose the versatility of the golden retriever. No where in the breed standard does it say, "primarily a field trial dog". Field trials are an EXTREME sport, for EXTREME athletes (at least, if you win them!). That's like saying all people should be bred to win the olympics. 
By the same token, a certain "style" can be in favor in the show ring, and some of what we are seeing isn't necessarily what would be the best in a hunting retriever. For example, short upper arms, longer backs, poor forefronts, and dripping coats. It goes back to, "Primarily a HUNTING DOG". 
The big International Kennel Club show was in Chicago last weekend, and from the photos I have seen, there were a lot of nice, moderate goldens in the ring. So good to see!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> I think this is the case....
> 
> @Lori - I think you are more likely to find goldens with both conformation and advanced obedience titles who are typey vs finding goldens who are both MH and CH's. And I think all of that is based on the owners as much as the dogs.


There are quite a few CH UD dog's out there, but if you up it to CH UDX then there are actually more CH MH


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

and only one CH UDX MH ...... so far  .



Loisiana said:


> There are quite a few CH UD dog's out there, but if you up it to CH UDX then there are actually more CH MH


----------



## DogsRule1234567 (Sep 5, 2012)

This is such a good and interesting question. I feel like in many cases, you can see a difference, but I am really interested to see what some more people say!


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I disagree with the assumption that conformation bred Goldens would not do well training for JH or SH. To me it is more about the owner having the time, desire and ability (in terms of places to train) to do the work. It's easy to lump all conformation Goldens into one barrel and say "they all" do any one thing, I just don't think it is fair or accurate. Most of my conformation friends have the desire to get their dogs out in the field. My local club does training days and the most common attendees are conformation Goldens, including my own. Will all the dogs end up with a title? Probably not, but the owners are out there working with their dogs to show the natural ability. Many will likely run in the WC when they can though, they are just few and far between in our area.

I do worry about dogs being bred in any one direction that is extreme though, with too much coat, incorrect coat ( I have seen that on both conformation and performance Goldens), no "off" button, not enough drive, not enough substance, too much substance, losing breed type (in both directions, not a dig at performance dogs at all, overdone is just as incorrect), intentionally breeding oversized or undersized Goldens, etc. That is why I like a moderate dog in every sense of the word, moderate in size, substance, coat, energy...To me that is a golden.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## fourlakes (Feb 16, 2013)

I truly believe you can have the best of both worlds - field and conformation. That's what goldens are meant to be.


----------



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

I think of the Colabaugh and Golly G dogs as beautiful dogs with performance ethics... These are the ones I have personally seen in the Northeast...


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

The breed has been splitting since the 40s. 

mlopez posted this article in the hunt and field thread - quite interesting!

http://www.grca.org/pdf/thegrca/featured-article.pdf


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

The notion that a conformation dog wouldn't do well for training a hunting title was really only a theoretical notion, from my perspective.

As a layman, I have no doubts there are dogs that do both, but I think I would look at the pedigree to get good insight into how successful a dog would be at covering both sides of the titling.

A dog that has a pedigree full of SH titles is probably going to have a different temperament than a dog full of CHs. I don't mean to overgeneralize, because a breeder could certainly target the "best of both worlds," but I'm not sure whether that is actually happening or not.

My main point was really that field dogs tend to have a different "look" than conformation dogs, and as the two diverge more, it gets harder for a golden to cover all aspects of breed conformation.



goldenjackpuppy said:


> I disagree with the assumption that conformation bred Goldens would not do well training for JH or SH. To me it is more about the owner having the time, desire and ability (in terms of places to train) to do the work. It's easy to lump all conformation Goldens into one barrel and say "they all" do any one thing, I just don't think it is fair or accurate. Most of my conformation friends have the desire to get their dogs out in the field. My local club does training days and the most common attendees are conformation Goldens, including my own. Will all the dogs end up with a title? Probably not, but the owners are out there working with their dogs to show the natural ability. Many will likely run in the WC when they can though, they are just few and far between in our area.
> 
> I do worry about dogs being bred in any one direction that is extreme though, with too much coat, incorrect coat ( I have seen that on both conformation and performance Goldens), no "off" button, not enough drive, not enough substance, too much substance, losing breed type (in both directions, not a dig at performance dogs at all, overdone is just as incorrect), intentionally breeding oversized or undersized Goldens, etc. That is why I like a moderate dog in every sense of the word, moderate in size, substance, coat, energy...To me that is a golden.
> 
> ...


----------



## UplandHntr (Feb 24, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> The breed is split. It has been for a very long time.


bingo
and theres no sign of it coming back together


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

Claudia M said:


> The breed has been splitting since the 40s.
> 
> mlopez posted this article in the hunt and field thread - quite interesting!
> 
> http://www.grca.org/pdf/thegrca/featured-article.pdf


this is actually what caused me to post this thread


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The split happened back in the 70's. Prior to that time you would see both Conformation and Field Titled dogs in both competitive arenas. The 70's saw an end to that. 

There were a number of conformation breeders that undertook some rather intensive linebreeding and inbreeding during that period. The breeds stated purpose (primarily a hunting dog) was not paramount in their decision making process. Producing a dog whose component parts would give superior results in the ring was their goal. They achieved their goal but in the process created a division within the breed. They created a big friendly fluffy gold dog that was beautiful to look at and performed well in the conformation ring. Unfortunately along the way they greatly diminished the traits and qualities required in a good hunting dog, in some cases losing them all together. 

The field style dogs conformationally still resemble their ancestors of the 30's, 40's and 50's. They didn't undergo the so called "Improvements" made in the conformation dogs during the 70's. Some of the older conformation folks from that era still refer to a field dog as a "Throwback" or an "Old" style golden. But the real differences between the two styles are in things you can't see in the conformation ring, but are immediately apparent in the field. Desire, marking, memory, perseverance and working style are very very different between field and conformation goldens. 

Most conformation dogs in north america can trace there roots back through a small handful of dogs most notably Cummins Gold Rush Charlie. 

Most field dogs will have a total absence of Cummins Gold Rush Charlie in their family tree. The Charlie era is the point in time when the split really took hold and nobody has looked back. 

If it makes anybody feel any better this same type of split exists throughout the entire AKC Sporting Group. Retrievers, Spaniels, Pointers and Setters are all split. 

They shouldn't be, but they are.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swamp - I am pretty much going by James Free Lamb's book written back in the 40s where he actually talks about the split. I believe the first edition of his Training your Retriever book was issued in 1949.


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> The split happened back in the 70's. Prior to that time you would see both Conformation and Field Titled dogs in both competitive arenas. The 70's saw an end to that.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


And its not possible to go back? Would it take a movement of dedicated breeders to recombine the two - or would that not even make it happen since the style preferred for conformation dogs is so unrealistic when it comes to having a well performing hunting dog? I guess its somewhat disheartening and confusing for me as i'd like to breed one day to see that there are so many paths breeders go down - and to know which path is the right one to go down, if there even is a right one? i guess my goal will be to do the best i can to capture both worlds in my goldens but it defintiely seems like a daunting task that will take a lot of time, dedication, money and hard work.

sidenot: is there a difference health wise with the "old" goldens and the new conformation goldens? I know someone mentioned shorter legs and longer backs and poorer fronts. does this have any effect on hips/joints? do leggier field goldens have more joint issues?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Swampcollie - one thing that concerns me when I see these discussions - and please keep in mind I don't fall under either faction (conformation or field) with my dogs, as I don't do either. 

You have the 70's when breeders began breeding towards today's goldens. Ok. 

But what about the field and performance end as well? Didn't they start drifting away from the breed standard in the opposite direction? With faulty coats, mismarks, odd sizes, pointy setter like heads.... and hyperactive temperament as well? 

And pointers (germans) and setters (irish, gordons, and english) - I have friends who show in conformation and obedience and field - and their dogs are champions in every facet. That's despite the fact that their dogs could step into today's conformation rings just as easily as they stepped out into the field. It's with the goldens you have people making excuses about the coats and temperament - both directions. 

 

This is an example of a golden from the 50's.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Swamp - I am pretty much going by James Free Lamb's book written back in the 40s where he actually talks about the split. I believe the first edition of his Training your Retriever book was issued in 1949.


A split doesn't happen overnight. There is a difference between when the division starts and when you reach a definative split. The 70's was the culmination and it it evident in the pedigree of dogs from both styles.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swamp - I did not say it happened overnight, but obviously the splitting was before the 70s. 
It really doesn't matter though when it happened. The sad part is that it did happen. 
I will not post excerpts from Lamb's book or it will cause havoc on the GRF.


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

Megora said:


> And pointers (germans) and setters (irish, gordons, and english) - I have friends who show in conformation and obedience and field - and their dogs are champions in every facet. That's despite the fact that their dogs could step into today's conformation rings just as easily as they stepped out into the field. It's with the goldens you have people making excuses about the coats and temperament - both directions.


So is this something that actually is feasable - champions in every facet? Or because the division is getting more and more severe it actually would be really difficult. Why don't most breeders try to do this with Goldens, but do with other breeds? What was the purpose of the division/split? To me it just seems the more versatile dog would be more preferable. Does it have to do with the fact that the stereotypical Golden is a popular pet and these individuals don't have any desire to compete with their dogs so it opened up a sector of breeding specifically for this kind of golden?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Field trials are TOUGH. There are very few goldens who can obtain a champion title in field work period, regardless of what they look like.

The retriever breeds that still have dual champions are the less popular breeds. There isn't as much competition in the breed ring, and therefore less need to change in order to win.

Competition is always a double edged sword. Some of our best innovations have come through trying to become better and better to beat the competition. So have some of our biggest failures.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> The split happened back in the 70's. Prior to that time you would see both Conformation and Field Titled dogs in both competitive arenas. The 70's saw an end to that.
> 
> There were a number of conformation breeders that undertook some rather intensive linebreeding and inbreeding during that period. The breeds stated purpose (primarily a hunting dog) was not paramount in their decision making process. Producing a dog whose component parts would give superior results in the ring was their goal. They achieved their goal but in the process created a division within the breed. They created a big friendly fluffy gold dog that was beautiful to look at and performed well in the conformation ring. Unfortunately along the way they greatly diminished the traits and qualities required in a good hunting dog, in some cases losing them all together.
> 
> ...


I was curious, so I checked Bella's pedigree. Cummins Gold Rush Charlie is 9 generations back. However, she has lots of English and performance lines mixed in with American conformation lines. I don't know what it all means, but it's interesting. She certainly doesn't have many of the recent popular sires that I see in so many lines appearing in her pedigree.


----------



## drloripalooza (Jan 7, 2012)

Aren't there certain breeders who breed their field dogs/bitches back to conformation dogs/bitches every few generations to retain a more moderate style?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm more aware of the opposite: field/performance breeders breeding to conformation dogs every few generations. That's what my breeder does.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I would think it would all boil down to the breeding. If you breed a show girl to a field boy, you could potentially have some beautiful bird dogs. Which personally I would want. But it's not that easy, just breed 2 dogs of different backgrounds and get an even mix. Not everyone wants the high drive of a field dog or the long fur of a show dog. But whenever you breed traits come and go in odd ways. I think it would be many generations to bring back that beautiful bird dog of old.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Keep in mind that there is a world of difference between a dog that an do a day's hunt and a dog that can earn an FC/AFC.

Both conformation and field trials began to choose the best representatives of the breed for breeding stock. I think that started out just fine, but each area became more and more competitive, I think it has started to lose it's purpose and is now really more of a hobby. Dogs can be fantastic representations of the breed even if they don't stand a chance of ever having a CH or FC


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

All conformation dogs do not have long fur, long bodies, etc. I have a conformation bred boy who is a CH and shows a lot of promise in field work (and for what it's worth is short in body, has a moderate correct coat, and has a lot of drive) The reason he hasnt earned a title is because of my time constraints, not his lack of ability. In my opinion a divide cannot happen with just one side diverging. I have seen many "older dogs" that resemble conformation dogs of today, albeit with different grooming and most were on the darker side. But structurally they were quite similar to the dogs I like today. They do not structurally resemble some (not all) of the performance dogs who have gone the opposite direction of the "big fluffy dog" toward a smaller, finer boned dog suited for speed.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

What an interesting topic..here's my take. I don't think it's sad what we have today "the split". It's just where the market has taken the breed. I think it's great that we have such lovely, beautiful goldens in the show ring. They're bred for health, character, stature, coat, temperament and personality. And what you end up with is wonderful family dog who will sleep with the kids, play with the kids, perform endless tricks, turn the eye of every passer-bye, bring a smile to everyone he meets, work with the elderly and make every member of the family absolutely fall in love with him. I just don't see a problem with that. And I think the conformation Golden goes well beyond the few things I've listed

The vast majority of people who own Golden's from quality breeders have no intention of ever hunting the dog. They just want that unconditional love and personality a Golden brings to the table.

On the other hand you've got the people who enjoy hunting and working over and with their dogs. And the smaller group that works their dogs in the field events. These are the people that are looking for desire, marking, memory, perseverance and working style. They truly appreciate these qualities in their dog. And I couldn't agree more that to hunt over one of these dogs brings a sense of pride that the other side will never experience.

But there is a place for each of these dogs and it's great IMHO that one can find the type of Golden which best fits your needs.

Pete & Woody


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> If it makes anybody feel any better this same type of split exists throughout the entire AKC Sporting Group. Retrievers, Spaniels, Pointers and Setters are all split.


I think the most heated debates in a breed that this also has happened to is the Border Collie. This statement is from a study that said that the two were almost as genetically different as if they were different breeds:

"We included a small number of kennel club registered show Border Collies (primarily of Australasian breeding) in our Border Collie sample for genotyping, the remainder of which was made up of ISDS and ABCA (working registries) registered dogs. *Our phylogenetic, clustering, and principal components analyses all suggest a genetic split within the breed between working and show Border Collies that is probably as large as the genetic distances between some breeds*."


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Bottom line is the GR was bred to be a hunting dog. That has been lost in the last half a century. There are very very few left.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

They were bred to be a gentleman's hunting dog, not just a hunting dog. They are not supposed to have the equal drive of some of the other sporting dogs. They are supposed to have the "off switch" that separates them from the higher drive breeds. And I think there are a number of breeders (or maybe it's just a lot that I know) who are concerned with maintaining working ability. Is that their top priority, maybe not, because they don't enjoy hunting and where we live it's not a super popular hobby. But just because a dog isn't hunted over regularly does not mean that they are incapable of doing the job with some training. 

As a general matter, and this isn't directed toward anyone in particular but is just something I've noticed, I really dislike the doom and gloom attitude some take about the direction of the breed. "______ is ruining the breed!
" I recently was perusing some issues of the GR News from the 80s and there were many articles on the same issue. [insert fault here] was going to be the downfall of the breed. It just seems so ironic to me that the same conversation seems to be happening over and over. I have to wonder if anyone will ever be happy??? And if not, why aren't these influential people doing something to change the direction? (Again, I don't mean anyone in particular.) I tend to agree with Feather River Sam, I am fine with people having the dog they want within reason. Ideally one bred in compliance with the COE that can pass a CCA, IMO


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> But what about the field and performance end as well? Didn't they start drifting away from the breed standard in the opposite direction? With faulty coats, mismarks, odd sizes, pointy setter like heads.... and hyperactive temperament as well?


I don't believe the field dogs have drifted "Away" from the standard at all. They have for the most part stayed the same course their ancestors were on. Granted they haven't altered course and moved "toward" the perceived more perfect dog conformationally speaking. That does not mean that Field dogs don't conform to the breed standard, they do. 

The perceived "pointy heads" and "mismarks" have always been with the breed. They aren't new and haven't "Digressed" conformationally. The Irish Setter is one of the ingredients that went into creating the Golden Retriever. The Setter head is never going to be far away. The late Gertrude Fischer noted in one of her writings that the presence of white markings was a real problem in pre and post war dogs. (That's WWII for you youngsters.) Prior to the 70's white markings were common in the breed, even in the conformation ring. White markings are still around and pop up from time to time when you least expect them. 

Are the changes made in the 70's an improvement? Conformationally speaking, perhaps they are. But what was given up or lost along the way to get there? There is always a cost. From a working standpoint they gave up a LOT. From a health standpoint the jury is still out that one. 

Look at at the old Champions and Dual Champions of the past. A lot of them would be called needle nose or weedy by today's interpretation of the standard as it pertains to the conformation ring. Do those old dogs still conform to the standard? You bet they do, but they wouldn't get a second look in the ring.

People need to understand that the "Breed Standard" is vastly different from "what is needed to win" in the ring. 

Do people really comprehend the variation in size allowed with the standard as written? Probably not. With the plus/minus 1" wiggle room you can go from a little 45 pound bitch all the way up to a large heavy boned 100 pound male. Our local golden club did a demo at an event a few years ago with ten goldens across the range of allowable size and color. We ended the demo putting big 100 pound conformation champion male next to a little 45 pound field trial bitch to illustrate the allowable size range and it got the crowds attention. The difference was that apparent. 

The GRCA recognised that there was a problem some years ago. They have made efforts to try to get the working ability back into the dogs. They're started on the path, but they have a long journey ahead of them.


----------



## rhondas (Sep 10, 2010)

I want to add something to what Barb said (hotel4dogs).

There is one field trial dog that I can name that doesn't look like any other field trial dog 
that placed or got a JAM at the GRCA speciality and that was Raggedy Run Time Well Wasted Pedigree: Raggedy Run Time Well Wasted MH *** WCX CCA. He definitely doesn't fit the field dog look or structure. He's a MH and QAA Golden (also has his CCA and probably if campaigned could have gotten his CH but who knows). He was a finalist at the 2011 Masters National. He got to the 5th series this year at the Masters National - very few goldens got to the 5th series. He has a great work ethic and passes that along to his offspring. It's my puppy's dad so I know more about him. 

I also want to mention what I observed at the only two JH tests that I entered my 5 year Golden at this past summer. We only trained every other weekend for four months prior to the tests (he is my first ever dog so I have no prior experience). He passed one test and got to the 2nd water mark on the second. Additionally, he got his WC on his first try. He doesn't fall into either category discussed - he has siblings and close relatives who are Service Dogs. The breed goldens (about 12) who were entered trained at least the past two winters in Texas and were run by professional handlers and did not do well. I saw no worth ethic or natural ability to speak of. A well known male of the bunch still doesn't have a JH title after at least 16 JH test entries. So just because a dog has a CH it doesn't mean the dog has the ability to get a JH and SH title even if trained. Natural abilities and work ethic have been bred out of many these dogs. Please don't beat me up for stating my opinion.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Swampcollie - the reason why I included that picture of that golden from the 50's is because he does bear a certain resemblance to some conformation goldens that I've seen today. The only difference is the coat and I imagine coloring. 

I've seen goldens who come from certain field and performance line kennels, and they bear little resemblance to that dog - I mean, I may be looking at poor specimens, but still. You have some coat issues - primarily the coats being too oily and curly. You have dogs who are drastically undersize or tall and lean like setters. You have dogs who are blatantly red and have that white stripe going down their chest. You have dogs whose heads are too pointy or flat. You have dogs who worry too much and get too hyped up. <- There is somebody I know who has the most wonderful little golden girl ever. She comes from a fairly successful and well known field and performance breeder in the midwest. The one thing I notice about her is she can be somewhat on the overly nervous and submissive streak. This has caused her owner a few issues as far as getting consistent performance from the girlie in the obedience ring. Please keep in mind they both are very successful and they do both obedience and field. 

I've seen some beautiful field style goldens, so please I'm not "ugging" anyone's dog. I just think that you do have some people who blatantly do the complete opposite of what they accuse conformation breeders of doing. Meaning, I do think that some conformation breeders put drive and trainability in the backseat as far as what they are breeding for. Meaning that some field/performance (sometimes the same thing) breeders are putting the physical breed standard in the backseat as far as what they are breeding for. 

I totally agree that there were dogs back then who were pointy headed and so forth - but weren't people trying to fix those problems while breeding?


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

FeatherRiverSam said:


> What an interesting topic..here's my take. I don't think it's sad what we have today "the split". It's just where the market has taken the breed. I think it's great that we have such lovely, beautiful goldens in the show ring. They're bred for health, character, stature, coat, temperament and personality. And what you end up with is wonderful family dog who will sleep with the kids, play with the kids, perform endless tricks, turn the eye of every passer-bye, bring a smile to everyone he meets, work with the elderly and make every member of the family absolutely fall in love with him. I just don't see a problem with that. And I think the conformation Golden goes well beyond the few things I've listed
> 
> The vast majority of people who own Golden's from quality breeders have no intention of ever hunting the dog. They just want that unconditional love and personality a Golden brings to the table.
> 
> ...


I really like this. It definitely seems like sometimes people go a little too severely down one path or another and I think there should be some balance or else one can't really be keeping with the standard. But I really like looking at the breed in the way you put, thanks


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

There are plenty of great breeders breeding for it all. But you don't hear as much about them because they aren't going to be as competitive. It kind of goes with the saying "A jack of all trades, a master of none.".

Lots of nicely put together, nice looking dogs that can do a day's hunt. Lots of conformation dog's that can do "some hunting.". Lots higher level field dogs that are nice looking and fit the standard. The only thing you don't see is dogs who are at the top of their game in both areas.

My personal preference is the in-between dog. I want a dog that I consider nice to look at that meets the standard. It doesn't necessarily need to be a look that would win in the ring. And I want a dog that can do the work a golden was bred to do. It doesn't necessarily need to be able to keep up with field trials, which are far and beyond what goldens were intended for initially.


----------



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

Rhondas, I know that dog. I bred to his daddy, a CH SH. He(Kaze)is a beautiful dog with a wonderful dedicated owner. He has been shown in conformation, as well..


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

goldentemperment said:


> The notion that a conformation dog wouldn't do well for training a hunting title was really only a theoretical notion, from my perspective.
> 
> As a layman, I have no doubts there are dogs that do both, but I think I would look at the pedigree to get good insight into how successful a dog would be at covering both sides of the titling.
> 
> ...


A lot of this depends on the owners of the dogs and their interests in pursuing titles in different arenas.

We have a litter that recently turned 2 years old. There are 2 puppies from the litter that are Champions and 1 has her GCH and group placements. The 2nd champion will also pursue his GCH and regularly hunts with his owner on weekends when he is not at shows. Another littermate has his WC, JH and his first pass on his SH. Another littermate has it CH in Canada and is now working on obedience titles. 

My point being that these are all littermates but there is a wide variety of things being pursued in the litter and that is because those are the activities that the owners are interested in.

A well bred golden should really be able to play whateve games the owner has an interest in pursuing.

Yes, there are extremes in conformation with dogs that are too heavily coated and large and have heavy bone but there are just as many in performance events that also do not meet the standard.

We have had the discussion about the CCA previously. The CCA is in no means meant to replace a championship in the breed ring. It means that the dog meets the minimum criteria set forth in the standard and this is as speaking as a CCA judge/evaluator. The dog cannot have any disqualifying faults according to the standard but it also does not mean that the dog would even be able to get a single point in conformation.

It was done more as a program to teach breeders and owners about the standard and how to apply it to their individual dogs to try to teach owners and breeders more about the standard.

The debate about field vs conformation has been going on for decades and it is not one that will ever stop.

We do also now have Stoney-GCH CH HRCH U-CD Springcreek Everlore All Time Hi RN CDX MH WCX VCX DDHF BOSS

He has attained Dual Dog Hall of Fame Status and is also an AKC grand champion. Yes, these dogs are few and far between and a lot of it is due to the time and commitment that needs to be put forth with a dog that has attained so many upper level titles. 

And yes there are dogs who have CH and hunting titles. There is actually a special section in the GRNews called Double UR Pleasure and it for for dogs who have conformation championships who also have attained field titles.


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

rhondas said:


> I want to add something to what Barb said (hotel4dogs).
> 
> There is one field trial dog that I can name that doesn't look like any other field trial dog
> that placed or got a JAM at the GRCA speciality and that was Raggedy Run Time Well Wasted Pedigree: Raggedy Run Time Well Wasted MH *** WCX CCA. He definitely doesn't fit the field dog look or structure. He's a MH and QAA Golden (also has his CCA and probably if campaigned could have gotten his CH but who knows). He was a finalist at the 2011 Masters National. He got to the 5th series this year at the Masters National - very few goldens got to the 5th series. He has a great work ethic and passes that along to his offspring. It's my puppy's dad so I know more about him.
> ...


Ooooh! My Oliver is somewhat related to him. Oliver's great granddaddy is Kamikaze's Granddaddy. Hopefully the hunting genes got passed down - we start field/hunting foundation class next week so I guess we'll see. Thanks for posting this!


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

"High desire dogs don’t seem to want to handle and compliant handling dogs don’t
seem to want the bird enough to go through hell and high water.Then if you do find the high desire compliant dog, you have to keep that dog healthy."
From the article posted earlier today. 
IMHO - until you see a Golden Retriever actually hunt you will never understand what the breed was actually meant to be. And it takes a nice combination of the eagerness to breed and the stubbornness to go get the bird. If you don't have the heart for hunting then you cannot train for hunting. That dog will know you are just there and not there for real work.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

coaraujo said:


> sidenot: is there a difference health wise with the "old" goldens and the new conformation goldens? I know someone mentioned shorter legs and longer backs and poorer fronts. does this have any effect on hips/joints? do leggier field goldens have more joint issues?


Leggy appearance is just that appearance. they really don't have longer legs. That appearance is due to several other things involving proportion, angulation, mass and bone. The issues involving jonts are different. I haven't had a dog or produced a dog with hip dyplaysia in over twenty years. Elbows have been good too. but every once in a while a case of OCD in the shoulder pops up. 

Breeding to eliminate a given trait is kind of like pulling on a thread, you think it's going to be easy, but it may be attatched to other things you haven't anticipated. It's safer to take change one at a time and see what comes of it, before moving forward.


----------



## rhondas (Sep 10, 2010)

@ Sally's Mom 

I hope to get to meet Kaze one day. I love his daughter that I own and so do owners of the other pups in the litter. Because of her folks locally are recommending looking at litters with Kaze as the Sire. His uncle Ticket was another all around dog that Performance breeders have used and some are doing frozen semen now.

He is also passing his looks and structure onto his kids. I've been told by a very well respected breeder who grooms her that while she isn't the type that is successful in the AKC breed ring she would do well in UKC. We'll need to see how she is at 1 year old because right now she is still going through the 7 month old awkward stage .


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> They were bred to be a gentleman's hunting dog, not just a hunting dog. They are not supposed to have the equal drive of some of the other sporting dogs.


The breed standard says the breeds purpose is to be a hunting dog. It makes no comparison to any other breed, nor does say Field Trial dog either. A Field Trial dog is an elite high performance animal. They don't come along in every litter. 

The AKC has done a very good job in defining the attributes of a hunting dog with the Retriever Hunt Test Program. That would be a very good place to look when starting the attemp to quantify what a "Hunting Dog" is, and the qualities one should possess. 

Granted not everybody is going to train their golden to be a hunting dog, but the raw materials required to be a hunting dog should none the less be present in every golden in order to meet the intent of the breed standard.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

drloripalooza said:


> Aren't there certain breeders who breed their field dogs/bitches back to conformation dogs/bitches every few generations to retain a more moderate style?


 
Yes, there are a number of breeders who want it all. Drive, trainability, temperament AND still look like a Golden. But it will come at a cost. These breedings are generally outcrosses and the coi can drop quite low. This can lead to a greater variance in the litter in ability, size, structure and coat. 

For the breeder who does this type of outcross they can test the pups for innate desire for birds, as this is usually still very apparent in even a younger pup. However, but one must wait to see if marking, perserverance, and trainability carry thru in the pup. 

It is seldom seen that a conformation bitch is bred to a field dog since this would lower the chances of the pup being a success in the show ring.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

If you want to look at the trend in the golden retriever look at the statistics of AKC registered dogs and see how many are bench ring show dogs and how many are field dogs. 
Leslie B - unfortunately you can't really tell until the pup is one to two years of age if he truly is a hunting dog.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> If you want to look at the trend in the golden retriever look at the statistics of AKC registered dogs and see how many are bench ring show dogs and how many are field dogs.
> Leslie B - unfortunately you can't really tell until the pup is one to two years of age if he truly is a hunting dog.


 
That is exactly what I was saying, but perhaps my meaning was not clear. You can see desire for birds at a younger age, but the rest of the package cannot be determined until the dog is an adult.


----------



## alphadude (Jan 15, 2010)

Definitely a divergence IMHO. Although I am a relative NOOB considering the 2 Goldens I currently have are my first, I'm pretty sure I have one of each. The field boy Axl draws raves for his energy, drive and sheer athleticism, while pretty boy Angus, gets all the attention for his magnificent coat, massive bones and super sweet temperament. I have no interest in either conformation or field competition, I just want to have fun with my boys. They both accomplish that goal exceedingly well and are cherished family members.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> The breed standard says the breeds purpose is to be a hunting dog. It makes no comparison to any other breed, nor does say Field Trial dog either. A Field Trial dog is an elite high performance animal. They don't come along in every litter.
> 
> The AKC has done a very good job in defining the attributes of a hunting dog with the Retriever Hunt Test Program. That would be a very good place to look when starting the attemp to quantify what a "Hunting Dog" is, and the qualities one should possess.
> 
> Granted not everybody is going to train their golden to be a hunting dog, but the raw materials required to be a hunting dog should none the less be present in every golden in order to meet the intent of the breed standard.


I agree that is what the breed standard says, I didn't say it made a comparison to another breed. The purpose of the comparison was because the energy level of some of the other sporting breeds is much higher than a golden, and the breeders actively breed for that. It takes a very unique owner to have a dog that high energy living in the house. You would have to agree that the temperament/energy level of a golden is not supposed to be identical to, say, a GSP? If the energy level was the same as the higher energy sporting breeds we (meaning my family) would not have goldens. The primary reason I love them is because they have an "off switch" but are still active dogs. I do get concerned when I hear that any one area breeds for one trait (as was mentioned above) since to do so one inevitably discounts other things. But that happens in every facet of competition, not just with conformation or performance breeders. Not any one is immune to making that mistake, for sure.


----------



## Guybrush (Apr 17, 2012)

_ love reading these and thinking in my head the breed split when it was imported to the americas. You can tell by looking at a GR whether it was from American lines or English/german/australian/new zealand lines. The split in America between field and show lines is huge compared to Australia. But this is true for quite a lot of breeds.

Here the breeds with the big splits are border collies, kelpies & heelers. Those breed for show and those breed for work.

I guess there is not much call for hunting dogs here, though we have retrieving trials which feature mostly GRs & labs.
_


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It is so complicated to do outcross breeding in the name od dual purpose breeding, even though it makes sense on the face of it. One of my first performance puppies was a MH mom and a CH dad with all clearances, but severe ED bilaterally resulted. A friend and I have discussed how much we believe in dual purpose dogs and ponder this breeding below. What do you all think about it? 

Pedigree: RangerLush

Ranger can still run field trails at his advanced age and Lush is a GCH at her young age. Lushie's littermate just earned a SH pass, and was a JH before age 2 just as Lushie was a GCH before age 2. Ranger has MH/CCA siblings. 

While puppies are likely to pass CCA and attain SH, they are unlikely to be breed CH or capable of running fleld trials, unless the lottery of genetics spins around and lands on incredibly lucky. Even if they do, and you get that wonderful fluke, as dog on high in the conformation ring and field, will the dog produce puppies like that? People are reluctant to breed to a dog too outcrossed no matter what, bc of the lottery factor. The COI is so low: http://www.k9data.com/coi.asp?ID=523128. It starts to present deep questions of why breed and what is best for the overall breed. For each parent, a setback is likely in terms of acheivement capacity in his/her own venues, but yet working ability should improve in the conformation dog and structure should improve in the work ethic/brains dog. . . So. It is so complicated to come up with a Stoney or a Tito, and those dogs are extraordinary for a reason! I think people who wanted a show CH would avoid this dual breeding, and also people who wanted to run field trials would avoid it. 

For me personally, having grown up with Tigathoe goldens almost pre-split, I find a tiny agility golden, a long -in- the -leg field trial golden, and a big blonde ball-gowned coat golden each misses the iconic in my mind's eye, but I love each in a different way as an interpretation, a style. I think most of the CH goldens have the ability to go out and earn a JH but are not asked to, yet I do not believe many JH goldens can earn a CH. I think a CCA is not rigorous enough to justify breeding a dog though it is a wonderful educational tool. There too is eye of the beholder questions, and the tendency of people to get behind the style of golden they actually own. My most revered golden lived in the NE and was an amazing worker, but then at field training you would here people with under-standard, small MH dogs comment how he was overdone and not quite good enough in water. I was outraged, lol. To me, he was the best golden living in our times and I still think so. So. It is complicated.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Noob post ---> I like to think of Goldens as the humans of the dog world. In other words, generalists as opposed to specialists. So, I don't see or care about a "split." I see variety and emphasis. Just like with people, Goldens have their athletes, beauty queens, drill teams, detectives, hunters, nurturers, couch potatoes, and child care workers. All of them meet the breed standard. And the breed is unlike others that are much narrower in focus and standard. Goldens are the James Bonds of dogs: they'll chase the bad guys during the day and show up to the dinner party looking great in a tux at night.

People -- not the dogs, but people -- seem to put greater emphasis on some parts of the breed standard than on others. You can see it in this thread, in the emphasis on the phrase "primarily a hunting dog," or the talk about coat, or posts emphasizing structure, etc., and arguing who is really moving away from the breed standard. And people likewise de-emphasize other parts of the breed standard, dismissing with a wave of the hand things like white markings, needle heads, high drive, etc.

To me, this is more about taxology than a "split." People organize and emphasize according to their own agendas, and how they do that says more about them than it does about Goldens. An optometrist might divide his patients into those who wear glasses and those who wear contacts. By doing so, he hasn't discovered a "split" in human beings or two different "types" of human beings, he has merely divided them according to his own agenda -- according to what is important to him in human beings. Same with Goldens. Because they are generalists, Goldens, like people, come with their own attributes and differing innate abilities, and we humans end up dividing them, breeding them, advocating for them and judging them according to _our own agendas_, not the dogs themselves.

To me, the wonderful thing about Goldens is their generalist natures. They are unlike, say, greyhounds or rat terriers or any of the real specialists. And that's the really amazing thing about this breed. They are like us in so many ways.

I think everyone in this thread is right, but they are all like the three blind men who come across the elephant and try to describe it from their different perspectives.

No doubt the experts will scoff at my opinion, and that's fine. I am, after all, thinking about this from a generalist's perspective, not a specialist's.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

> I think most of the CH goldens have the ability to go out and earn a JH but are not asked to


This is where you and I are going to disagree. 

If you look at the CH dogs as a whole, the majority would not be able to go out and do acceptable JH work nor pass a WC. The GRCA noticed that too which is why they stepped up efforts to generate interest in field work so fanciers start to put some hunt back in their dogs. 

Leslie B made a point that should cause a little thought. The field breeders (those with dogs Titled in Field work) do on occasion outcross to CH dogs to get more size or substance in their dogs. They certainly know that the offspring of such a pairing will likely not be competitive in a field trial, but they have the standard in mind and realize that they owe something to the breed and have to keep a Golden a Golden.

Yet, it is extremely rare to see a CH bitch bred to a FC or AFC, or to the lines that consistently produce them. Why is that? If the goal is to produce dogs that meet the breed standard and working ability is part of that standard, wouldn't it make sense to outcross to a dog that has those traits and abilities in abundance?


----------



## drloripalooza (Jan 7, 2012)

Not sure what a "needle-head" is. Is that a wedge-shaped head like a Flattie has?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> The purpose of the comparison was because the energy level of some of the other sporting breeds is much higher than a golden, and the breeders actively breed for that.


The energy level for a Golden should be adequate to perform well all day in the field in the pursuit of game. (Pheasant, ducks, geese, grouse and rabbit if you want to be true to what Lord Tweedmouth had in mind when designing the Breed.) Quartering, running, jumping, pushing through cover, swimming and diving are all in a days work for a hunting dog. A good energy level is required to perform from sun up to sun down during a gentlemans day afield with his faithfull companion.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> This is where you and I are going to disagree.
> 
> If you look at the CH dogs as a whole, the majority would not be able to go out and do acceptable JH work nor pass a WC. The GRCA noticed that too which is why they stepped up efforts to generate interest in field work so fanciers start to put some hunt back in their dogs.


I don't mean this in a snarky way at all (so please don't take it that way) but I'm genuinely curious how one would know this? My CH boy will be able to (eventually once I get my butt in gear) pass a JH and WC. He only has 1 WC in his three gen pedigree but definitely has the drive needed to be successful at least at the JH level. (I don't think I have the drive to do more than that, so that is likely where we'll stop). Our field trainer loves his natural ability and although also ribs me regularly that he is a "pretty dog" and it would "be a pity to get that coat dirty" he also loves working with him. And this is a trainer who almost exclusively trains labs, owns labs and hunts regularly in his off time. 

My Smooch has zero WCs or any hunt titles in her three gen pedigree but has the most natural affinity for field that I've seen in any conformation dog I've trained with. So I'm curious how one can know, with absolute certainty, that a majority of CH dogs would not be able to pass a JH or WC without seeing them train? I say this because just like I don't think it's fair to generalize all performance goldens as needle headed tiny dogs, it's not fair generalize all conformation dogs as long haired overdone lumps on the couch who have no natural ability. 



Swampcollie said:


> Leslie B made a point that should cause a little thought. The field breeders (those with dogs Titled in Field work) do on occasion outcross to CH dogs to get more size or substance in their dogs. They certainly know that the offspring of such a pairing will likely not be competitive in a field trial, but they have the standard in mind and realize that they owe something to the breed and have to keep a Golden a Golden.
> 
> Yet, it is extremely rare to see a CH bitch bred to a FC or AFC, or to the lines that consistently produce them. Why is that? If the goal is to produce dogs that meet the breed standard and working ability is part of that standard, wouldn't it make sense to outcross to a dog that has those traits and abilities in abundance?


I agree with this. I wonder how often this would need to be done to truly improve on the working ability in a pedigree? I do wonder if the outcome could be disastrous, as LJilly pointed out, with only getting mediocre everything instead of truly improving on what you have. I guess you only know by trying it though.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Leslie B made a point that should cause a little thought. The field breeders (those with dogs Titled in Field work) do on occasion *outcross to CH dogs to get more size or substance in their dogs*. They certainly know that *the offspring of such a pairing will likely not be competitive in a field trial*, *but they have the standard in mind and realize that they owe something to the breed and have to keep a Golden a Golden.*...


This is coming from someone that doesn't hunt, will _never_ hunt, so I hope I will make sense...

My question is this...if the standard is for a hunting dog, yet those that breed for this ability do not produce dogs that meet this standard, (physically), what's that say about their dogs? If they have to outcross to CH dogs to get more size or substance in their dogs...which in turn will stay true to the standard and "keep a Golden a Golden", then is what you're saying is that they're not breeding a true Golden? Why would they breed so far from the standard when that standard is for a hunting dog? If they have to outcross to keep their dogs Golden Retrievers, that's the part that I am confused about.

To keep true to a hunting breed, do you feel that the standard should be changed? I mean by saying that breeders of top hunting lines have to outcross to keep their Goldens Goldens, I don't get that at all.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

kwhit said:


> This is coming from someone that doesn't hunt, will _never_ hunt, so I hope I will make sense...
> 
> My question is this...if the standard is for a hunting dog, yet those that breed for this ability do not produce dogs that meet this standard, (physically), what's that say about their dogs? If they have to outcross to CH dogs to get more size or substance in their dogs...which in turn will stay true to the standard and "keep a Golden a Golden", then is what you're saying is that they're not breeding a true Golden? Why would they breed so far from the standard when that standard is for a hunting dog? If they have to outcross to keep their dogs Golden Retrievers, that's the part that I am confused about.
> 
> To keep true to a hunting breed, do you feel that the standard should be changed? I mean by saying that breeders of top hunting lines have to outcross to keep their Goldens Goldens, I don't get that at all.


That's an interesting point and one I agree with.  The same could certainly be said for conformation breeders though (to be fair), if conformation breeders have to breed to field dogs to maintain working ability then are they adhering to the standard? I certainly don't think the standard should be changed to accommodate the extremes in the breed, though. JMHO.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I had been seriously toying with the idea of hunt classes for fun, and to see what Molly is capable of. Now I wonder if I should even bother, since she comes from conformation lines.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> The same could certainly be said for conformation breeders though (to be fair), if conformation breeders have to breed to field dogs to maintain working ability then are they adhering to the standard?


But...I agree with your previous point that _we don't know_ if conformation dogs have lost the working ability because a lot of their owners haven't even tried. We do know that extreme field dogs would not do well in the ring. Maybe I shouldn't even say that because that's my opinion and it might be wrong. :curtain: But let's say that it's true...which Golden do you want to breed for?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I had been seriously toying with the idea of hunt classes for fun, and to see what Molly is capable of. Now I wonder if I should even bother, since she comes from conformation lines.


I wouldn't take anyone's comments as intended to discourage you from trying out field work! It's really fun!


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

Yes, our breed is split into two different types or styles of dogs. Is that a bad thing or a good thing?? No one can really define that answer. I always say that we have one dog who can't always do field work and the other can't even go into the conformation ring. I shouldn't say that they can't do field work, but most are bred for the conformation ring, because it just might win. 

With some training, yes, they might eventually be able to, but most people's intentions are to show in the breed ring and finish their CH. On the other hand, you have some who want a nice working field-line dog, who is within the standard and can achieve performance titles. 

I'm with Jodie and like the in-between dogs, but what I want in a dog is different than someone else's desires. I see some "moderate" dogs who are by no means moderate. We all take the standard's definition differently and maybe that's what it's supposed to do. 

Our breed is split, but if you look at English Springer Spaniel's, so are they...as well as Cockers, etc. etc. 

It may not be that we are headed in the wrong direction, it just depends on what someone is looking for in a breeding. We all want something different, but HEALTH has to be our top priority!! I can't stress that enough.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

You are absolutely right that many/most conformation bred goldens are never given the chance to display their innate ability in the field. That's a shame for them, their owners, their breeders and the breed.
Having said that -- PROVE IT, OR LOSE IT.
Breed for it - or lose it!
You may luck out and have a great field dog with your conformation golden -- but if breeders continue for generations to ignore the hunting abilities of their goldens -- then they will go away. Just like coat, headpiece, fronts, topline, you name it, if you don't actively select for it, it may or may not be there several generations down the line. If you don't place an emphasis on it, it may go away. Ignorance is bliss! If you never do field work, how do you KNOW that your dogs have the chops?

I for one embrace the variation within our breed. There is something for everyone and so long as it can be identified as a golden retriever and has the proper temperament to do the work it is intended for, great! We have a wide variety of pedigrees to choose from when breeding or buying.

About the show x field crosses. Yes, you may get a jack of all trades incapable of being a CH or high level field trial dog, you may also get some outstanding performance dogs with really good looks that can add something to your FUTURE generations. A breeding program is not about one generation.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Oh no, don't even SAY something like that. Do it!! 
Take a look at Tito's pedigree. 
Five generation pedigree: CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH AXP MJP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
Do you see ANY working titles in there ANYWHERE??? And that's a 5 generation pedigree! Now look at his titles.
Try it. You won't know until you try. 



Vhuynh2 said:


> I had been seriously toying with the idea of hunt classes for fun, and to see what Molly is capable of. Now I wonder if I should even bother, since she comes from conformation lines.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Breed for it - or lose it!
> You may luck out and have a great field dog with your conformation golden -- but if breeders continue for generations to ignore the hunting abilities of their goldens -- then they will go away. Just like coat, headpiece, fronts, topline, you name it, if you don't actively select for it, it may or may not be there several generations down the line. If you never do field work, how do you KNOW that your dogs have the chops?


Okay, this kind of explains it to me, but is it really luck? Physical traits, as you stated, "coat, headpiece, fronts, topline", are in your face traits. Obvious. Hunting ability is not...unless the dog pursues that venue. So you may _not_ lose it. You just don't know. Case in point, Tito...hotel4dogs' quote below proves that.  



hotel4dogs said:


> Do you see ANY working titles in there ANYWHERE??? And that's a 5 generation pedigree! Now look at his titles.
> Try it. *You won't know until you try*.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> Oh no, don't even SAY something like that. Do it!!
> Take a look at Tito's pedigree.
> Five generation pedigree: CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH AXP MJP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
> Do you see ANY working titles in there ANYWHERE??? And that's a 5 generation pedigree! Now look at his titles.
> Try it. You won't know until you try.


Tito is something else.. 

Molly's 5 generation pedigree has a couple JH's and WC/WCX's in there. Hopefully she got all those genes from way back!


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Then she has a much better working pedigree than Tito does 



Vhuynh2 said:


> Tito is something else..
> 
> Molly's 5 generation pedigree has a couple JH's and WC/WCX's in there. Hopefully she got all those genes from way back!
> 
> ...


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I had been seriously toying with the idea of hunt classes for fun, and to see what Molly is capable of. Now I wonder if I should even bother, since she comes from conformation lines.


I agree with GoldenJackPuppy and Hotel4Dogs. obviously I'm a newb so they know much more than I do, but many reputable breeders/golden owners say often that you can't just trust your pedigree - the dogs have to prove themselves. So even though Molly comes from conformation lines doesn't mean she doesn't have the drive/passion for hunting  and just because a dog does have performance lines doesn't mean they'll have the drive. It'll be a great bonding experience for both of you no matter what the outcome. Just my newb opinion!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

K9-Design said:


> A breeding program is not about one generation.


That's the key right there. A breeder isn't (or shouldn't) be focused on the generation in that breeding when making breeding decisions, they should be looking at the long term, and thinking about where this breeding could develop several generations down the road).


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

K9-Design said:


> You are absolutely right that many/most conformation bred goldens are never given the chance to display their innate ability in the field. That's a shame for them, their owners, their breeders and the breed.
> Having said that -- PROVE IT, OR LOSE IT.
> Breed for it - or lose it!
> You may luck out and have a great field dog with your conformation golden -- but if breeders continue for generations to ignore the hunting abilities of their goldens -- then they will go away. Just like coat, headpiece, fronts, topline, you name it, if you don't actively select for it, it may or may not be there several generations down the line. If you don't place an emphasis on it, it may go away. Ignorance is bliss! If you never do field work, how do you KNOW that your dogs have the chops?
> ...


Anney, you are my type of thinker  I won't mention any kennel names on here, but there are some in the Golden dog show world that probably have never put a single title on their dog, BESIDES a CH. That tells me a whole lot more about preserving the original purpose of our dogs, in their lines.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

kwhit said:


> Okay, this kind of explains it to me, but is it really luck? Physical traits, as you stated, "coat, headpiece, fronts, topline", are in your face traits. Obvious. Hunting ability is not...unless the dog pursues that venue. So you may _not_ lose it. You just don't know. Case in point, Tito...hotel4dogs' quote below proves that.



If you don't actively select for something in your breeding program, then yes, it is LUCK if you end up with it.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

would you consider it possible to actively select for versatility? I would think so?



K9-Design said:


> If you don't actively select for something in your breeding program, then yes, it is LUCK if you end up with it.


----------



## drloripalooza (Jan 7, 2012)

Wasn't "Push" another dog who had it all? Pedigree: Can. Triple CH FTCH AFTCH OTCH Firemark's Push Comes to Shove Can. WCX Am. *** OS


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> would you consider it possible to actively select for versatility? I would think so?


I would think so, too...if the dog has been _given the opportunity_ to _be_ versatile and excels in those varied competitions. And that's where I understand how the luck aspect would come into play if opportunities were not given.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

On both sides of the perceived spilt, compromises are made in order to select for winning qualities. These are things that should be insisted upon by all golden breeders imo but are not:

1) A golden with a superlative temperament. At both field training and dog shows, there are too many goldens who are too edgy/aggressive/spooky to meet the standard. People make excuses for these dogs. 

2) A golden with a solid history of health and longevity . People makes excuses of all kinds for linebreeding on a dog who died at 7 with a family history of young deaths.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> On both sides of the perceived spilt, compromises are made in order to select for winning qualities. These are things that should be insisted upon by all golden breeders imo but are not:
> 
> 1) A golden with a superlative temperament. At both field training and dog shows, there are too many goldens who are too edgy/aggressive/spooky to meet the standard. People make excuses for these dogs.
> 
> 2) A golden with a solid history of health and longevity . People makes excuses of all kinds for linebreeding on a dog who died at 7 with a family history of young deaths.


This really makes a lot of sense to me. Not to rehash what appeared in a recent thread, it seems that temperament being not as readily observed and judged as physical characteristics get's less attention.

I think I've seen the reference other times to linebreeding on a dog who died at 7 but am wondering how common something like this is and whether there's a reasonable explanation?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

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



Ljilly28 said:


> On both sides of the perceived spilt, compromises are made in order to select for winning qualities. These are things that should be insisted upon by all golden breeders imo but are not:
> 
> 1) A golden with a superlative temperament. At both field training and dog shows, there are too many goldens who are too edgy/aggressive/spooky to meet the standard. People make excuses for these dogs.
> 
> 2) A golden with a solid history of health and longevity . People makes excuses of all kinds for linebreeding on a dog who died at 7 with a family history of young deaths.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

K9-Design said:


> You are absolutely right that many/most conformation bred goldens are never given the chance to display their innate ability in the field. That's a shame for them, their owners, their breeders and the breed.
> Having said that -- PROVE IT, OR LOSE IT.
> Breed for it - or lose it!
> You may luck out and have a great field dog with your conformation golden -- but if breeders continue for generations to ignore the hunting abilities of their goldens -- then they will go away. Just like coat, headpiece, fronts, topline, you name it, if you don't actively select for it, it may or may not be there several generations down the line. If you don't place an emphasis on it, it may go away. Ignorance is bliss! If you never do field work, how do you KNOW that your dogs have the chops?
> ...



Could not have said it better. I hope everyone rereads your post since I believe this is the future for our breed.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

I have another question...

The coats that I sometimes see on Goldens in the conformation ring don't seem like they would do very well in the field. Again, I might be talking out of my butt, I have no idea if this is true or not, just seems like it to me. 

Now, let's say you're pursuing both field work and conformation at the same time. Will the judge allow or penalize for a shorter coat? Penalize as in if two dogs are equal physically to the standard, will the judge put up the dog with more coat before the shorter coated dog? Would it make a difference if they knew the dog was doing field work, too?

Jeez, I hope these aren't dumb questions. :curtain: I know people say there are no stupid questions, but c'mon, we've all heard them at one time or another, right?


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

kwhit said:


> I have another question...
> 
> The coats that I sometimes see on Goldens in the conformation ring don't seem like they would do very well in the field. Again, I might be talking out of my butt, I have no idea if this is true or not, just seems like it to me.
> 
> ...


I was wondering something similar to this. I do hear people say a lot of the time that conformation goldens' coats hinder them in the field or just aren't realistic for field work. *How much of a difference does it really make?* I don't know much about field work (well anything really), but I could see a coat weighing down a dog, but not so much that if it had the drive and natural ability it would make that much of a difference. Is it like with swimmers where shaving their bodies makes them that much faster? How does the coat hinder them - if they have the drive and smarts to get the bird does the coat really get in the way enough to cost them a field championship?


----------



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

I think that those who think they can predict longevity, you need to re evaluate.... My Sally had a mom who died at 7, she lived to be 12.5 years. My second golden, Laney who was almost 12 when she died, had at least two brothers who died at 8 or 9, yet the parents were 13/14 when they died. Not that easy to predict. And as far as my beloved Sally goes, she easily got a CDX after her probably inherited laterally luxating patella was repaired. My almost 88 year old dad was and still is a cancer researcher... He has worked on that all his life... Were it that easy to,predict, he would've been gone a long time ago based on his dad's death from colon cancer at 68 years...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

_"...Will the judge allow or penalize for a shorter coat? Penalize as in if two dogs are equal physically to the standard, will the judge put up the dog with more coat before the shorter coated dog? Would it make a difference if they knew the dog was doing field work, too?..."

_

Not a good judge. Proper quality of coat is more important. *Some* of the field dogs are being bred without the proper undercoat, a huge disadvantage to them if you do actually hunt them. *Some* of the show dogs are being bred with long, silky, flowing and/or open coats. 

From the golden standard:

_*Coat *_-- Dense and water repellent with good undercoat. Outer coat firm and resilient, neither coarse nor silky, lying close to body; may be straight or wavy. Untrimmed natural ruff; moderate feathering on back of forelegs and on under-body; heavier feathering on front of neck, back of thighs and underside of tail.
Coat on head, paws and front of legs is short and even. Excessive length, open coats and limp, soft coats are very undesirable. Feet may be trimmed and stray hairs neatened, but the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping.

From Marcia Schlehr's book "A Study of the Golden Retriever" (EVERYONE should own a copy, it's the bible of the golden!), 
"The Golden's coat provides protection from cold, wetness, and heavy cover. A very thick, soft, wooly undercoat from 1/2" to 1-1-1/2"in length underlies a longer topcoat of hair while lies to the body to form a weatherproof jacket.
...Length or profusion of coat that would interfere with function as a field and water dog is not desired, nor is it to be rewarded (in the show ring)....the open coat is not as weather resistant as the close-lying one. While this profuce coat may, with careful grooming, look very attractive it is not as functional in field work, and tends to become worse with exposure to water. It absorbs and holds water, and carries too much ice in freezing weather. Often the topcoat is too soft, and lacks water-repellency, allowing moisture to reach the skin and cause chilling.
....soft, silky, dead-straight coat....is not water-resistant, mats too easily, picks up burrs and tangles, and often lacks proper undercoat. 

This is the judge's comments from National, Ms. Linda C. More, who judged the bitches...
"I think the breeders are still struggling a little bit with too long coupling, in other words, too long in loin. There were the usual number that lacked sufficient spring of rib...overall, I thought the presentation was very good. Fewer fluffed coats than we have sometimes seen in the past, but again some people are giving into (sic) the impulse to fluff them and fill them up with stuff. At least a number of them appeared to be that way."

Many judges (and breeder-groomers) have commented on how correct Tito's coat is. I try to remember to brush him once a month, and that's not an exaggeration. He just doesn't need to be brushed more often. Here's one of his show ring photos, you can see his coat is not long or dripping, or particularly heavy. He had no trouble winning with that length of coat. 
Good judges know that coat quality is much more important than coat quantity.


----------



## rhondas (Sep 10, 2010)

Anney and Barb have said it all and I couldn't agree more.

It's true that you have to prove it. I have a 5.5 year old Golden that you have go back 5 generations to find 1 performance title and so far back to find field titles it counts even less. He does have siblings and half siblings who are service dogs. 

He is my first dog ever. I work full time and didn't even take a training class related to performance events until he was 2 years old. As of the end of 2012 he has his AKC RE (9 trials from RN to RE), AKC TDX (passed on first try, 13 training tracks after TD), AKC AJP and AXP (both titles earned in about 1 year with limited showings and did not start training until 4 years old), APDT RL3, ARCH, RL1X, RL2X, RL3X, one JH leg (passed one out of 2 entered after only 12 Sunday's of training), GRCA WC (passed first time a week after JH leg) and JDD (Junior Dock Dogs). We are also an active Pet Partners Therapy Dog team. 

We are training for VST, compete in AKC Masters Agility and have MJP and MXP legs and will debut in Novice A this spring (took over a year off from training because there is just so much time in a day). Hopefully, we'll finish up his JH>

Soooo, if a newbie owner with a dog that doesn't come from field, performance or conformation lines can do it then CH dogs should be able to get an advanced or excellent level AKC title(s) by the time they are 5 years old. 

I see Tito often at Agility events because my dog either runs before or after him so it can be done. Tito will continue to be one of a kind unless folks start proving that their CH dogs have working ability.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I am going to drive you guys nuts posting photos of Tito, but truly a picture is worth 1000 words sometimes.
Here he is at his first Senior Hunter test. Those logs are floating, and the dogs had to go over each one to get to the bird and back to the handler....times 3 birds....and you can't see it in the photo, but he also had to trudge thru about 50 yards of chest-deep swampy water to even get to the stick pond that you see him in.
No way would a dog with a big, fluffy, open (incorrect) coat be able to do it. 
And if they were truly hunting, it wouldn't be just 3 birds in a day!
It's why they need to be in "hard working condition".





coaraujo said:


> I was wondering something similar to this. I do hear people say a lot of the time that conformation goldens' coats hinder them in the field or just aren't realistic for field work. *How much of a difference does it really make?* I don't know much about field work (well anything really), but I could see a coat weighing down a dog, but not so much that if it had the drive and natural ability it would make that much of a difference. Is it like with swimmers where shaving their bodies makes them that much faster? How does the coat hinder them - if they have the drive and smarts to get the bird does the coat really get in the way enough to cost them a field championship?


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

The breed is split by purpose. I do not like to refer to them as types though. Type is what defines a breed. This is more a matter of style and interpretation of the breed standard. It is beyond even simply show and field, as there such significant interpretational differences that the show dogs in Europe cosmetically appear very different from the American show dogs, and so on. Much of the divergence has been driven by interpreting the standard to extremes in making breeding decisions. However, they are all still Goldens.

I would never want to see the splits formalized by defining the different styles as separate breeds (as happened in the show ring with English and American Cockers.) One of the advantages we have is that we can breed one style to another in order to build the strengths that one has to offer into the weaknesses of the other. Of course breeding is complex and it is a multi-generational process, so it is not as simple as "fix X" by breeding a dog with good "X" to a dog lacking in "X" whether that be front assembly, correct coat, working ability,.... I personally tend to blend as I believe in the Golden as a moderate, functional hunting dog.

And remember, that just because something wins does not mean it is actually correct as per the standard. There has been significant discussion in a breeders group about the direction movement is heading in the breed due to the influence of all-breed judging which rewards generic flashy showdog movement, as opposed to movement that is correct by standard. There was a lot of consternation about the front movement on many of the CH's at Westminster as revealed by the camera position at the end of the down and back....


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Methinks too many judges of Goldens have been judging TERRIERS for too long :



sterregold said:


> And remember, that just because something wins does not mean it is actually correct as per the standard. There has been significant discussion in a breeders group about the direction movement is heading in the breed due to the influence of all-breed judging which rewards generic flashy showdog movement, as opposed to movement that is correct by standard. There was a lot of consternation about the front movement on many of the CH's at Westminster as revealed by the camera position at the end of the down and back....


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

coaraujo said:


> I was wondering something similar to this. I do hear people say a lot of the time that conformation goldens' coats hinder them in the field or just aren't realistic for field work. *How much of a difference does it really make?* I don't know much about field work (well anything really), but I could see a coat weighing down a dog, but not so much that if it had the drive and natural ability it would make that much of a difference. Is it like with swimmers where shaving their bodies makes them that much faster? How does the coat hinder them - if they have the drive and smarts to get the bird does the coat really get in the way enough to cost them a field championship?


Coat quality makes a huge difference if you are actually hunting the dog. And the purpose of hunt tests is to demonstrate that the dogs possess the skills and aptitudes to be good hunting companions. In an actual hunting situation in the marshes I hunt, a dog with an incorrect open coat would be in danger of hypothermia. That open coat allows the dog to get wet to the skin and holds water rather than shedding it. Our duck season ends in mid-December, and goose at the start of January. There can be ice on the water. In these conditions that incorrect coat is life endangering. Seriously.

Field trials are like the Olympics of retriever sports. The dogs have to make insane swims. The picture Barb posted of the pond Tito was working, was not a hugely long retrieve (they can only be 100 yards max in a hunt test). In a FT, there is no max distance, and swims can regularly exceed 200 yards one way on just one bird of a triple. When my friend's bitch won the Open at the GRCA National several years ago the water series was in a nasty pond with logs and standing dead trees, and lily pads, and duck weed. Imagine if she had had to drag a long flowing saturated coat through that for what likely added up to over 1000 yards of swimming in 15 minutes. Think about how much heavier your hair is when saturated with water in the shower, and then consider having that all over your body and dragging it with you while swimming and carrying a 5 lb bird.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Untrimmed natural ruff;


Isn't Tito trimmed there though? 

Could you walk into a show ring without tirmming your golden's "mane"? 

And are the show goldens with the "open" coats - actually _groomed_ that way? I seem to remember a conversation on GRF a while back and somebody said that they are no longer blowing the coats open? But I stood at the side of the ring a couple months ago and watched as the goldens had their coats fluffed up and totally blown out from their legs upward.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Some are groomed to appear fluffier and open, but there are some who just have that puffy incorrect coat as well.

I do not trim ruffs on my boys. I do feet and ears and tip of tail. If you do not have incorrect excessive length then there is no need to trim it. The illustrations in Marcia's Blue Book show the difference between ideal and excessive really well, I think.

Now, the fact that mine get to go field training and hunting does mean that they lose some hair to the, uh, environmental factors. Some exhibitors put their dogs under a bubble t keep them from losing any of the precious hair. Judges who understand the breed and a functional standard are not phased by it. Those who cannot see correct coat for what it is are unfortunately too many, but I do not consider their opinion of this breed worth too much if they will put up a a dog whose structure and coat make them non-functional if they have a sound, correct, and typey dog available to them, no matter how different it may look from the rest of what is in the ring. Laurie Doumaux's comments in the interview done by Michael Faulkner in the current GR News are bang on in regards to the issues we are facing.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Re: coat

If a dog has an attractive, healthy coat and proper body proportions, and a nice balance of parts and pieces and moves well, and has a nice head, and all that other stuff that make it a good golden retriever, unless he looks positively moth-eaten, coat is not going to hinder you greatly in the show ring. I speak from experience! Fisher is a "short haired" golden. He has very proper coat but it is not long. There is very little for me to groom to prepare him for the show ring. It is straight as an arrow and fits him like a glove. Slater is much the same way, although he has a much denser coat (more undercoat) and it is longer. Straight as an arrow. Yeah I trim feet and ears and a little snip snip here and there, but really, Slater looks identical whether I spend 5 minutes grooming him or 2 hours. He gets in the water, he gets out, he shakes off, in about an hour he's bone dry and looks exactly like he did before he ever got wet.
Both of my guys have proper, balanced outlines and proportions, they look athletic and in harmony with themselves without a bunch of coat. 
My co-owned dog Blade, has a long, silky, wavy coat. To look his best I had to bathe & blow dry him every day of a show, and cut a half an inch off of it every week, but wow was he ever beautiful!! Slightly too much coat and slightly too silky for my tastes. 
Coat can really hide faults in the ring, and it gives owners something to mess with to kill the time. That's why everyone "wants more coat!!"
You don't see it so much but these 2 year old dogs dripping in coat, you know what they look like when they're 6, 7, 8+ years old? Wooly mammoths. COMPLETELY inappropriate for a sporting dog.
The two main things show breeders actively select for (there's that key word, again) that absolutely hinder a working retriever are coat and substance in excess.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> would you consider it possible to actively select for versatility? I would think so?



What is versatility though? Do you mean a dog who can do obedience, agility, tracking (the games) AND field work, and look good? Without doing field work to prove it?
I do think there's some validity to it. Breeders can actively select for intelligence and trainability without ever doing field work. That at least gives you a nice base to do all the performance games and you're a step ahead if you give field work a try. 
Having said that, most field dogs naturally take to obedience/agility/etc because the same skill set they need in field work, is essential in these sports as well.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Anney - agility and field are slightly different, because of the risk of damage to the coat or career ending injuries... but why wouldn't a conformation golden show natural skills for obedience? 

I mean my feeling is that the reason more dogs are not put into obedience after getting their CH's is by the time they are 2 or 3, it's already a little to late to really start working on obedience after not focusing on anything beyond basic before that point? Or the owners have too many dogs on their hands to really work individually as they need to for obedience?


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Megora said:


> @Anney - agility and field are slightly different, because of the risk of damage to the coat or career ending injuries... but why wouldn't a conformation golden show natural skills for obedience?


Well I'm sure they can, and many do. I've also seen plenty of show bred goldens who are positively sorry in obedience because they lack fortitude to do the hard stuff, and drive to enjoy their work. Couch potatoes. Pair that with a sucky trainer and things look pretty miserable. Put a field dog into the same hands and the dog is usually bonkers. At least they look a little happier while they are misbehaving! LOL



> I mean my feeling is that the reason more dogs are not put into obedience after getting their CH's is by the time they are 2 or 3, it's already a little to late to really start working on obedience after not focusing on anything beyond basic before that point? Or the owners have too many dogs on their hands to really work individually as they need to for obedience?


Well a lot of serious show people, now I don't get this at all or what fun it is, but you're right, they show the dog until it finishes it's CH then guess what, time for puppies and time to start showing the new dog. They've got a handful of dogs and no extra time to spend training them to do anything. Not my cup of tea! Doesn't have anything to do with the dog's abilities or age.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't think waiting until the dog is two or three is a problem, lots of dogs aren't started with serious obedience work until they are older and go on to get their OTCH.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

K9-Design said:


> I've also seen plenty of show bred goldens who are positively sorry in obedience because they lack fortitude to do the hard stuff, and drive to enjoy their work. Couch potatoes.


I think sometimes it comes down to training though... ? 

That flash and drive makes obedience FUN, but it isn't as necessary as accuracy? If not necessarily put otch's on their dogs, then to at least get those titles by the skin of their teeth?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> I think sometimes it comes down to training though... ?
> 
> That flash and drive makes obedience FUN, but it isn't as necessary as accuracy? If not necessarily put otch's on their dogs, then to at least get those titles by the skin of their teeth?


Where you're likely to see it fall apart is in utility. The majority of dogs should be able to get through novice and open without much problem, but it takes more dog to get through utility. Shoot, I've seen enough dogs that were HIT dog's in novice/open that couldn't make it in utility. 

And I'm thinking if titles are earned "by the skin of their teeth" that wouldn't really make them good obedience dogs, just "capable."


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I don't think waiting until the dog is two or three is a problem, lots of dogs aren't started with serious obedience work until they are older and go on to get their OTCH.


But their owners are dedicated and experienced trainers....? 

I've met wonderful people through the obedience classes - and know people who can put UDX titles on very young dogs, or get all the "fun stuff" done first and dig into obedience when the dogs are 8+ - and still get at least CDX's on their dogs. :uhoh: But all of these are very experienced trainers who have put a lot of obedience titles on dogs before.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

There is no doubt the dog has to be trained in obedience before it is trained in the field. However a hunting dog will be heeling by your leg and hear you as you move not look constantly and go jumpy jumpy by your side. That may be fine for a puppy before field training but certainly not in the field. A hunter needs to be able to concentrate on the bird and not on what the dog is doing. The dog needs to be obedient and follow the owner, wait patiently until released to go get the bird. Now comes in the agility, the dog will have to be able to jump over fences, crawl under/thru logs, swim thru marshes and bring the bird back. 
IMHO, the hunting dog has to have all the obedience and agility characteristics. With that said I feel that obedience training is the foundation of everything but not enough.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> But their owners are dedicated and experienced trainers....?
> 
> I've met wonderful people through the obedience classes - and know people who can put UDX titles on very young dogs, or get all the "fun stuff" done first and dig into obedience when the dogs are 8+ - and still get at least CDX's on their dogs. :uhoh: But all of these are very experienced trainers who have put a lot of obedience titles on dogs before.


I'd say the majority of new trainers start out when their dogs are older. most people don't get their novice A dog so they can do obedience, most people get into obedience because they have a dog.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> And I'm thinking if titles are earned "by the skin of their teeth" that wouldn't really make them good obedience dogs, just "capable."


But at the end of the day - if somebody were looking at their pedigrees on K9data, I'm sure they'd be much more impressed to see those capable dogs who titled by the skin of their teeth.... but titled, perhaps even qualifying in every trial they showed in? As opposed to those people who didn't even bother. Let's say you are looking at a loaded pedigree? And then find out that a lot of those dogs got middling scores or had minor flaws that probably would make them less fun to work with even though none of those flaws would NQ them?

@Claudia - I know of a few people who dabble with obedience with their puppies - teaching foundation stuff, but go after the field titles first as far as that dog's career. The WC's and JH titles seem to be the very first ones that people go after - even before their dogs are a year old.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> But at the end of the day - if somebody were looking at their pedigrees on K9data, I'm sure they'd be much more impressed to see those capable dogs who titled by the skin of their teeth....


that's why always say I don't think titles really tell you that much about a dog. I think most titles can be earned with enough hard work. What working towards the titles does is gives the owner an idea of what the dog is made of. It is up to them to then be honest about what their dog has, both with themselves and others.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

YIKES!!
Tito's ruff is NOT trimmed. The only place he was trimmed for the show ring was the edges of his ear leather, his feet, and hocks, and his tail. Nowhere else.



Megora said:


> Isn't Tito trimmed there though?
> 
> Could you walk into a show ring without tirmming your golden's "mane"?
> 
> And are the show goldens with the "open" coats - actually _groomed_ that way? I seem to remember a conversation on GRF a while back and somebody said that they are no longer blowing the coats open? But I stood at the side of the ring a couple months ago and watched as the goldens had their coats fluffed up and totally blown out from their legs upward.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

By versatility I mean a dog who is pleasing to look at, easy to live with, gets along with all people and dogs, easy to train, willing, and can participate in any and all dog sports, including hunting, at least to a medium level of skill. Not necessarily OTCH, MACH, CH, or FC, but at least to mid-range.



K9-Design said:


> What is versatility though? Do you mean a dog who can do obedience, agility, tracking (the games) AND field work, and look good? Without doing field work to prove it?
> I do think there's some validity to it. Breeders can actively select for intelligence and trainability without ever doing field work. That at least gives you a nice base to do all the performance games and you're a step ahead if you give field work a try.
> Having said that, most field dogs naturally take to obedience/agility/etc because the same skill set they need in field work, is essential in these sports as well.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Totally agree with Jodie.
Also, a lot of people seem to think you just stick a leash on a dog and drag them to the show ring. Not! They take classes for conformation showing, too. They are expected to behave around other dogs, not react to things going on outside the ring, stand when told to, trot when told to, allow their feet to be handled and placed in a certain position and not move them until told it's okay to do so (try that with your own dog! Pull their back feet into a slightly unnatural or uncomfortable stance and see what happens), and a variety of other things including confidence! So they aren't really just untrained neanderthals. Taking a dog who is 2 or 3 and already has a fair amount of ring experience into obedience should be a fairly easy transition, they already have a lot of skills.



Loisiana said:


> I don't think waiting until the dog is two or three is a problem, lots of dogs aren't started with serious obedience work until they are older and go on to get their OTCH.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Yes and no.
I think a CD, CDX in obedience, JH in field, AX, AJ (or AXP, AJP) in agility that's probably true, they can be earned pretty much by anyone if they are willing to put in the time.
But the UD/UDX or OTCH, SH/MH and certainly FC, AFC in field, MACH in agility, and CH require the dog to have *something* there. You really can't just take any dog and get those titles, IMO, no matter how much work you put into it. Some dogs just aren't cut out for it, and it would do them a dis-service to insist on it.
When I look at titles, I do also look at age, and attempts, and the trainer's qualifications. A dog with a total novice trainer got his UDX at 3, in 16 attempts, I think that speaks a lot more than a dog with a very experienced trainer who got his UDX at 7, with 70 attemps. A dog who got his MH at 3, who has lived, since 8 weeks old, with and was totally trained and run by a pro who does nothing but that all day every day, and took 10 tries to pass the MH, sorry, not impressed. But a dog who got his MH at age 3, owner trained and handled by a relative novice owner, with more passes than fails, now that impresses me. 
A dog that takes 3 years of active showing to get a CH, professionally handled, bouncing from handler to handler and living with each handler, sorry, not impressed. A dog that shows only to certain judges because the breeder and the judge are great friends, and gets their CH that way, sorry, not impressed. A dog who gets their CH in just a few weekends, with a "no name" handler, or an owner handler, yep, I'm impressed.
And so on and so on.
I think that becomes especially true when you are talking about hunting. There are a lot of people who hunt their Goldens, and the dogs are fantastic, but choose not to play hunt games.
I believe most people who train their dogs for obedience or agility intend to show/trial them. Not so with field work.




Loisiana said:


> that's why always say I don't think titles really tell you that much about a dog. I think most titles can be earned with enough hard work. What working towards the titles does is gives the owner an idea of what the dog is made of. It is up to them to then be honest about what their dog has, both with themselves and others.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> YIKES!!
> Tito's ruff is NOT trimmed.


.... 

I hope you didn't take offense to my asking the question. Every golden I've had - right back to our first guy had a lot more "chest hair" than Tito in that picture I was commenting on. That's why I assumed you did what everyone else seems to do and thinned it out.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Yes and no.
> I think a CD, CDX in obedience, JH in field, AX, AJ (or AXP, AJP) in agility that's probably true, they can be earned pretty much by anyone if they are willing to put in the time.
> But the UD/UDX or OTCH, SH/MH and certainly FC, AFC in field, MACH in agility, and CH require the dog to have *something* there. You really can't just take any dog and get those titles, IMO, no matter how much work you put into it. Some dogs just aren't cut out for it, and it would do them a dis-service to insist on it.
> When I look at titles, I do also look at age, and attempts, and the trainer's qualifications. A dog with a total novice trainer got his UDX at 3, in 16 attempts, I think that speaks a lot more than a dog with a very experienced trainer who got his UDX at 7, with 70 attemps. A dog who got his MH at 3, who has lived, since 8 weeks old, with and was totally trained and run by a pro who does nothing but that all day every day, and took 10 tries to pass the MH, sorry, not impressed. But a dog who got his MH at age 3, owner trained and handled by a relative novice owner, with more passes than fails, now that impresses me.
> ...


The dog who got an amateur owner trained and handled MH at three is more than just impressive to me--it is awesome. The stats on age at earning MH put most dogs earning that title around 5-6 years old. I was darned pleased with Breeze when we finished hers just after she turned five--she got her five passes in seven attempts.

When I am researching stud dogs for my girls, I not only want a complementary pedigree, complemenatary phenotype, and strengths where my girl needs improvement, I want to know about how the titles were earned as well as what they are. There are some Ch/MH's or Ch/SHs who I have watched work and love (like Fishie) and some who you couldn't pay me to breed to because their work was painful to watch. They did it because they had to, not because they had inherent drive and love for birds. You cannot make that--it is in the dog and you harness it. Which is why if you are not selecting for it, as Anney noted, whether you will get it is a crap shoot. In field, I love that we hae an online entry service that that is really also a searchable database. I can check pass rates for individual dogs, within tests, and track whether they are chasing "easy" judges to get those passes. Once you know a little bit this can tell you a lot! And judging, I get to see offspring of a lot of these dogs, often in owner hands and see what inherent drive is passed on (although of course mom has a lot to do with it as well). I had been interested in the dog I bred Breeze to in January for years, but what solidified my intent was the puppies he has been producing (especially from girls with pedigree connections to mine) and especially the the couple of fun little hotrods I had personally seen.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> YIKES!!
> Tito's ruff is NOT trimmed. The only place he was trimmed for the show ring was the edges of his ear leather, his feet, and hocks, and his tail. Nowhere else.


Not even behind the ears!?!? Now I REALLY want a Tito kid.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

LOL, no offense taken!



Megora said:


> ....
> 
> I hope you didn't take offense to my asking the question. Every golden I've had - right back to our first guy had a lot more "chest hair" than Tito in that picture I was commenting on. That's why I assumed you did what everyone else seems to do and thinned it out.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Nope, not even behind, or on the outer surface of, the ears!



tippykayak said:


> Not even behind the ears!?!? Now I REALLY
> 
> want a Tito kid.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

To veer off topic for a second, have you seen Fisher's son Puzzle?
I really, really like that dog.

Pedigree: Can CH GMOTCH SR Zaniri's Piece By Piece Can SH WCX VCX; Am WCX CCA



sterregold said:


> The dog who got an amateur owner trained and handled MH at three is more than just impressive to me--it is awesome. The stats on age at earning MH put most dogs earning that title around 5-6 years old. I was darned pleased with Breeze when we finished hers just after she turned five--she got her five passes in seven attempts.
> 
> When I am researching stud dogs for my girls, I not only want a complementary pedigree, complemenatary phenotype, and strengths where my girl needs improvement, I want to know about how the titles were earned as well as what they are. There are some Ch/MH's or Ch/SHs who I have watched work and love (like Fishie) and some who you couldn't pay me to breed to because their work was painful to watch. They did it because they had to, not because they had inherent drive and love for birds. You cannot make that--it is in the dog and you harness it. Which is why if you are not selecting for it, as Anney noted, whether you will get it is a crap shoot. In field, I love that we hae an online entry service that that is really also a searchable database. I can check pass rates for individual dogs, within tests, and track whether they are chasing "easy" judges to get those passes. Once you know a little bit this can tell you a lot! And judging, I get to see offspring of a lot of these dogs, often in owner hands and see what inherent drive is passed on (although of course mom has a lot to do with it as well). I had been interested in the dog I bred Breeze to in January for years, but what solidified my intent was the puppies he has been producing (especially from girls with pedigree connections to mine) and especially the the couple of fun little hotrods I had personally seen.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

I like what I see of him in pictures, and I am friends with his breeder Laureen, and I know she is thrilled with how he turned out, but he is in Alberta so I have yet to see him in the fur. I have seen some very nice pictures and video of pups from the litter the Kinney's just had by him. The girl Mary Shillabeer took looks phenomenal.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I saw him at the National, he is very impressive in ALL ways.



sterregold said:


> I like what I see of him in pictures, and I am friends with his breeder Laureen, and I know she is thrilled with how he turned out, but he is in Alberta so I have yet to see him in the fur. I have seen some very nice pictures and video of pups from the litter the Kinney's just had by him. The girl Mary Shillabeer took looks phenomenal.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Here is a dog I love, who is a strong possibility for Lush in the near future: Am. CH. Amigold On A Wing N A Prayer CD MH WCX VCX DDHF OS *** . Another dual dog who is likely in her future is GCH CH HRCH U-CD Springcreek Everlore All Time Hi RN CDX MH WCX VCX DDHF BOSS. However, there are two dogs without field titles who suit her best, and I have no hesitation about choosing them as they have many offspring with field titles, and Lush's littermate just nabbed his SH pass. I want to make sure a puppy has potential to be a willing and competent retriever, but I do not enjoy field work, either doing it or even discussing it; since I do believe the retriever has to stay in the retriever to preserve the essence of the golden, my choices of stud dog will consider the issue after health, temperament, breed type, and structure. I dont want want to produce a golden who cannot hunt as a family dog or pass a SH test with a dedicated owner, but I also do not want a dog with a multiplicity of titles who is famous for an edgy temperament, a bitchy head, a lack of bone, or who needs to be trained with a two by four. The fact is, there is no perfect line of dogs, and something will always give. I want a golden who is easy to please, easy to love, easy to train, playful, forgiving, and lovely, a water dog with a wonderful structure to keep him healthy and free moving into veteran years. The least of my personal concerns is a golden with the potential to run field trials, but I have owned and adored goldens from breeders for whom that was their chief focus. I respect those breeders and their goals. I love that there are breeders pushing the limits at the polarities of excellence, and I have room for these goldens in my heart and in my household too.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

whooo eeeeee am I about to take this off topic....how do you feel about using frozen on a maiden bitch? I'm curious because a lot of people won't touch it, and even our repro. vet has commented about it.



Ljilly28 said:


> Here is a dog I love, who is a strong possibility for Lush in the near future: Am. CH. Amigold On A Wing N A Prayer CD MH WCX VCX DDHF OS *** .


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I have been deep in the midst of that research, bc Lushie's litter this spring will be with a gorgeous dog of the past who suits her in every way- Ch Laurell's Goin' Great Guns SDHF OS. It is more of a risk for the stud dog owner, but is very safe for the bitch at a tiptop reprovet like hers with the new nonsurgical techniques. Fingers crossed for many puppies . . .


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Have done frozen twice with maiden bitches - litters of 8 and 7 puppies!
One of those is Fetcher & Puzzle's litter.
I require surgical AI for frozen.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

My Bug was the result of a frozen breeding on a maiden bitch, using surgical AI. I think there were 9 in the litter if memory serves-7 boys and 2 girls 

I'm doing a surgical on an upcoming litter, because I have a slightly older, maiden bitch (Romey), and an older stud dog (Mister DJ). I feel as though the surgical gives me the best chance for the most puppies, and my girls have sailed through them in the past.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> Taking a dog who is 2 or 3 and already has a fair amount of ring experience into obedience should be a fairly easy transition, they already have a lot of skills.


Except for those who have a lot of bad habits built up from the show ring....? Training that dog to zero in on the handler vs "looking alive" while strutting around the ring for a treat (in the ring)? 

I have trained with somebody who has a golden who is both a BISS CH and a CDX and has assorted agility titles.... the CD and CDX came later in life (I think she was 8 or 9?) after all the breed and agility titles. This was a dog who absolutely loved the breed ring and shut off in the obedience ring. 



> But the UD/UDX or OTCH, SH/MH and certainly FC, AFC in field, MACH in agility, and CH require the dog to have *something* there. You really can't just take any dog and get those titles, IMO, no matter how much work you put into it. Some dogs just aren't cut out for it, and it would do them a dis-service to insist on it.


Why is the UD/UDX in there though? I've seen a lot of dogs get their UDX... while having even the same issues with stays and signals....? Or being shy about the moving stand, or taking the wrong jumps....? 

It seems like people are training through utility with the dogs anyway and aiming for the top title they can get with the dogs...?

I'm not brushing off utility as this thing that EVERYONE can do, I'm just saying it has no business being in the same sentence as OTCH. I don't think too many people have the ability to keep showing to OTCH - especially if they live in a very competitive area.  But UDX, I've trained with people whose dogs are UD's and are working on their UDX's. It takes time, but it's something they can handle with their - won't stay, won't retrieve, won't take the right jump, etc. dogs.... or seems to be? 

And there wouldn't be people stewarding utility at shows coming out of it thinking "hey! my (agility) dog can do this!"


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

Jill, that Amigold dog is REALLY nice. What I would do just to have one of his puppies!


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

One of my best friends has a Sabre son from the last litter he sired before he passed. He is a pretty cool dog, and is nuts about birds. He is well-made--really nice layback and return. I will not compromise on on front assembly. The upright eggbeater fronts that are all too common is show lines I find are not nearly as prevalanet in working lines, and a good front offers so much more stamina for a long day hunting. 

That balance of moderation--in coat, bone, temperament is where the integrity of the breed lies, but to some degree we need the other ends of the spectrum to have somewhere to go when we need to make corrections. I am watching the second generation of my breeding growing out now, and am starting to see where the elements are coming together, and have my fingers crossed that what I was trying to set up for that third generation breeding will come to fruition. I may have to do frozen on a maiden bitch to make it happen, as the dog I bred her to be bred to is dead, and his owner who has the frozen is not getting any younger either! I may have to buy it and store it until I am ready to use it. He wasn't the prettiest dog, or the most richly coated dog, but he was soundly made and a good worker, as was his sire, and the part of his dam's pedigree that connects to my girl's does have the prettiness to bring through on the shared line. Sometimes those breeding which seem a bit outside the box, but actually make sense on pedigree can work really well. When Marge bred Folly to Bainin a lot of people told her she was crazy to breed her beautiful bitch to this FT dog, but it really did make sense in terms of the shared elements of their pedigrees, and look what it produced--Whirly!!


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Regarding the original topic, I had an interesting conversation with a breeder friend yesterday. We were talking about her breeding program and she mentioned that she had placed a girl who was from a combination performance/conformation breeding. The reason was, although she had all her clearances and was lovely, she was too driven of a dog for her and she didn't want that temperament in her breeding program. She had complaints from puppy buyers about the difficulties in raising the pups from that litter, where she usually has questions but rarely a "OMG this puppy is a terror" type of call from a puppy buyer. She had many of the "this puppy is a terror" cals from her performance/conformation litter puppy buyers. Bear in mind that the breeder's dogs are typically fairly laid back and very easy to live with, even as puppies. They do have the retrieving instinct, but would probably not make good hunting dogs...at least from what I've seen. 

I'm curious how one would try to convince this breeder that she needs to incorporate more drive into her breeding program when she has had specifically selected away from it. I often read when people are looking for puppies on the forum, recommendations that they not seek out performance breeders unless they know what they are getting (a higher energy, higher drive dog). If a breeder is looking to produce a family dog who is easy to live with, why would they incorporate dogs from performance lines into their breeding program if they are going to produce a dog that is harder to live with than the dogs they typically produce? It was an interesting perspective I hadn't thought of before. 

Short of telling her "get another breed" how do you convince someone to breed for a characteristic they don't want? I think this could apply across the board (i.e. telling performance breeders who like their smaller dogs to incorporate size to get their dogs within the breed standard even though they may have selected for smaller, finer boned dogs previously)


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

A combination like that is likely not even super-drivey compared to some of the field breedings out there. I don't think the problem was with the breeding, but with the placement of the puppies. I personally think it is a major problem that the drive is being bred out of these dogs (although some conformation dogs are so "up" that they can be pretty off the wall, and not in a focused way.) Working ability and drive are integral to breed character, along with intelligence and tractability, and that wonderful, warm temperament. We lose the essense of the breed if we lose working drive and bird desire in what is "primarily a hunting dog"! 

It means that sometimes breeders need to tell interested parties "No" because the breed really is not a good fit for them. But people want the dogs to be what THEY want them to be, rather than what the standard says they are supposed to be.

The standard (not what is winning in the ring, or in field trials, or what pet people are asking for) is what should be the reference point in making breeding decisions, but all too often people cannot see past their own pidgeon-hole of interest to ask if the breeding decisions they are making are good for the breed as a whole. I respect that above, Jill is considering working ability (as in hunting ability--as doing obedience and agility are fun activities, but not breed purpose!) Even though it is not in her personal wheelhouse or comfort zone--she is thinking about the big picture of the breed, not just what suits her personally. I have a good friend in Tollers who is a vegetarian. Yet she trains and titles her Tollers in field work, and does the bird work because she acknowledges that it is fundamental to maintaining breed type.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Hi Michelle, that is a good question and one that cannot be answered easily.
The main thing I would like to point out is, just because a dog is bred for performance or is good at performance events, doesn't mean it is a high energy, busy-body dog at home. My two spend a majority of their down-time sleeping or loving on their babies, they are very good in the house, were very good puppies, didn't chew inappropriate objects, I don't have crates or babygates in my house, etc etc etc. This is why you have to really get to know dogs before you breed to them -- not just based on their titles! 
The other thing is, golden retrievers are, after all, sporting dogs. We've come to expect them to be laid back housepets. Pet people aren't always prepared for the energy and commitment it takes to keep a puppy occupied. Is this the breeder's fault? Well, for placing a dog with the wrong family, maybe. In the right hands these puppies may have been brilliant. 
Dogs can be lower energy and still be birdy, like to swim, trainable, intelligent and perfectly suitable gundogs. Sounds like this breeder went too far to the other side of the pendulum and got something she wasn't quite expecting, but kudos to her for pursuing a more functional golden retriever! Hopefully next time she will have some performance homes to sell those pups to


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Anney,

It's funny because mine are that way as well. They relax in the house but are very active when appropriate. 

The way the conversation started was I was talking about Smooch being "naughty" in the conformation ring right now (there is an awesome picture Toyomi took of her last weekend jumping up when she was supposed to be free stacking  ) but in reality she so biddable and easy to train with really minimal intervention from me. She is 100% reliable on recall....and I'm embarrassed to say I never specifically taught it to her. I just say "Smoochie here!" and I know she will come happily running over, even in the midst of something much more interesting than me. But from my description of Smooch's temperament (and me relaying my desire to run in the WC at the Western Regional or National since I think she will be able to do it) she mentioned the performance/conformation breeding she did several years back. It never occurred to me that someone would actively select away from traits that should be inherent in the breed, but I understood her reasoning. She has no performance homes lined up, she doesn't want the drive of a performance dog, so she will not ever select for that. It makes logical sense. As a general matter, she breeds on a very limited basis and is more picky than anyone I know regarding puppy buyers. She is VERY focused on health and longevity... much more so than many many many many (did I say many?) breeders. So this isn't a novice breeder new to the breed, she has been breeding for 20 plus years and knows her stuff. 

I guess it is the distinction of breeding to the standard versus breeding for what you want a golden to be, as Shelley said above. But that goes back to the problem that in all venues, breeders are selecting for what they want - often in direct contradiction to the written standard. It is certainly not unique to conformation breeders. I'm just not certain there is any way to convince these breeders that what they want is not correct according to the standard. Especially when it works well for them.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

And to add further, with these more active characters, knowing how to direct and harness that energy is also important from an early age. Too many people expect Goldens to be perfect right out of the box, and they are far too intelligent and inquisitive for that when bred well for the characteristics they should have! 

My Breeze is all business, in the field, and Winter is absolutely intense when he is working pheasants, but both can and do settle easily when I am at home. Breeze still cannot be trusted loose in the house when I am not home, though as her inquisitiveness gets the better of her, and she is six! My least drivey dog now, Butch, is a mush at home and more trustworthy than his mother--but he also lacks the oomph to get the job done on tough birds in the field. By contrast, my Bonnie can be a real busy-body and is doing MH marking concepts at two, but she has been taught that she needs to settle at home, and learning to be quiet has helped her to relax when it is appropriate--in a home that did not know to instill that discipline, she could have been a Marley.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> It never occurred to me that someone would actively select away from traits that should be inherent in the breed, but I understood her reasoning. She has no performance homes lined up, she doesn't want the drive of a performance dog, so she will not ever select for that. It makes logical sense. As a general matter, she breeds on a very limited basis and is more picky than anyone I know regarding puppy buyers. She is VERY focused on health and longevity... much more so than many many many many (did I say many?) breeders. So this isn't a novice breeder new to the breed, she has been breeding for 20 plus years and knows her stuff.
> 
> I guess it is the distinction of breeding to the standard versus breeding for what you want a golden to be, as Shelley said above. But that goes back to the problem that in all venues, breeders are selecting for what they want - often in direct contradiction to the written standard. It is certainly not unique to conformation breeders. I'm just not certain there is any way to convince these breeders that what they want is not correct according to the standard. Especially when it works well for them.


I agree, it's a catch 22. I'm not gonna hate on anyone's breeding program if they put a lot of thought and care into health, temperament, longevity, structure, type, and let performance slide, if their primary goal is the show ring and pet homes. Is it my choice, and will I buy from them? Will they be interested in my stud dog? Nope. And that's OK. They are still doing the breed a great service. Just don't hate on me because I DO put working ability as a priority. It's impossible to get the perfect dog, we all have to give and take. (Of course health and temperament are paramount -- that goes for ANY breeding program.)

What I can't stand are the conformation/pet breeders who do NO field work, who think without trying that their dogs are just as suited to field work as a performance-bred dog. Again -- use it or lose it. If you are OK with working ability being a wild card, that's fine, but acknowledge that and be honest with yourself! At least recognize what you're missing, and improve on it if you're able.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

sterregold said:


> I like what I see of him in pictures, and I am friends with his breeder Laureen, and I know she is thrilled with how he turned out, but he is in Alberta so I have yet to see him in the fur. I have seen some very nice pictures and video of pups from the litter the Kinney's just had by him. The girl Mary Shillabeer took looks phenomenal.


One of my training partners has one of the puzzlet girls too. She is about 10/11weeks old now. She is confident and retrieves her baby paint roller bumper like a champ. I like her and can't wait to see her grow up. I think she is well put together. She has a nice head, a Puzzle/Fisher influence?
I heard Mary Shillabeer's pup was lovely and _very_ nice structurally. Both Mary, who is Keener's owner (Mom) and Puzzle's owner took a pup from this breeding, pretty telling. The Kinney's seem to be producing some really nice puppies and are ones to keep an eye on.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

The following is only my opinion, but I think anyone who is PURPOSEFULLY breeding away from the standard is really doing no more than someone breeding mixed breed dogs. They aren't trying to help the golden retriever, they are trying to breed their own kind of dog to suit them.

My own dog is under standard and a little higher on the energy side than what is probably considered correct for a golden. The key difference in him is, you can tell by looking at the pedigree that this was not the ultimate goal. Sometimes what comes out isn't quite what was planned. His pedigree is created from a mixture of a line of well known obedience, field, and conformation dogs. Lots of CCA's. I do prefer a dog on the smaller side of the standard and the higher energy level, but I think the goal should be to still keep it within standard. Of course genetics doesn't always do what is planned.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

sterregold said:


> I have a good friend in Tollers who is a vegetarian. Yet she trains and titles her Tollers in field work, and does the bird work because she acknowledges that it is fundamental to maintaining breed type.


Lol, that is pretty much it. I really gave it a good try, and worked with a nice pro and a nice group. All my dogs do well, but hey, I like ducks and I can't even watch a litter of puppies be given a live bird to play with without my stomach churning. However, my grandfather hunted with goldens all his life, and I recognize how quickly a golden would become a generic couch potato if real hunting and retrieving isnt alive in DNA. Many of the litter I have chosen have had MH parents bc I believe that is a sign of the intelligence and vitality I want. 

I have owned 12 goldens of my own, and grew up also with goldens. I have never drawn a breath without one, probably less than 360 days of my entire life, and even negotiated by teaching jobs in my 20's and 30s so that my golden could come to class with me. I have shared my life with many styles of golden- high energy field dogs, exclusively showbred dogs, and the dogs of my childhood were Tigathoe goldens. Because of this, I admire several styles of golden on both sides of the "split". However, I do think the standard means a dog as a faithful friend with whom to hunt on a Sunday, rather than a modern MH or field trail dog. I have faith in many different kinds of breeders, that they are not purposefully breeding away from the standard. The standard has a good amount of room for interpretation. Primarily a hunting dog means hunting like my grampa did and not a modern field trial. 

So. The eye of the beholder. The important thing is to read the standard, internalize it, and think about it analytically, be sincere in trying to meet it, and work with people you trust who have succeeded on their own terms generation after generation after generation, and not be too impressed with titles or reputations until you go and meet the dogs themselves. 

I had a coach potato showbred golden, and her coat was a ballgown. She would only wade and not swim- that was a drag. On the other hand, I hike with a friend and her highly field titled 48 lbs male golden from a well known field trial kennel, and that dog has a screw loose in terms of sane, common sense on a hike. Inside the obedience ring or hunt test, the dog is awesome. My friend is the first one to admit he is a nightmare with whom to try and do normal things - like take a nice walk in the woods. Neither extreme is moderate, and neither dog is bred with a reverance for the standard as it is written.

I tramp the woods and fields two hours a day with my goldens, and that exploration/adventure, being alive in the woods, is a touchstone of my relationship with the breed and has been since I was 6 years old. I do not want a dog who will not be in love with the woods & the water, but I don't want a dog who has so much prey drive he has no common sense and cannot be recalled from a deer. 

I want a golden I can take anywhere from a ten mile hike in the morning to chaperoning the prom at night, from downtown NYC to teaching a puppy class, from playing frisbee with college kids to sailing in the bay, and visiting a hospital ward at night. I want that dog to be capable of earning his CD, JH, and his CH in the breed ring at least. Icing on the cake if the dog can do more- a SH, CDX, GCH in the right hands. I want the dog to have 12 healthy years or more. I really don't have running a field trial on my radar, though I think it is amazing when people have that passion and devotion to that sport.

So. Since I am a wuss and a sissy about field training, I am going to look for duallly talented dogs so I do not become part of the problem.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> The following is only my opinion, but I think anyone who is PURPOSEFULLY breeding away from the standard is really doing no more than someone breeding mixed breed dogs. They aren't trying to help the golden retriever, they are trying to breed their own kind of dog to suit them.
> 
> My own dog is under standard and a little higher on the energy side than what is probably considered correct for a golden. The key difference in him is, you can tell by looking at the pedigree that this was not the ultimate goal. Sometimes what comes out isn't quite what was planned. His pedigree is created from a mixture of a line of well known obedience, field, and conformation dogs. Lots of CCA's. I do prefer a dog on the smaller side of the standard and the higher energy level, but I think the goal should be to still keep it within standard. Of course genetics doesn't always do what is planned. But to purposefully go it is just wrong IMO.


Generally I may agree, however, in the case of this particular breeder I am discussing - I strongly disagree. She is very very focused on health and longevity and stands up for what she believes is right in that regard. She breeds for herself and has the remainder of the puppies go to companion homes. This is not a person breeding willy nilly. She is very calculated in what she does. She isn't trying to make them an inactive couch potato, but does not like too much prey drive or high energy in her dogs. She is breeding for the golden temperament, just doesn't have working ability as high on her list of priorities. But to say breeders like her are akin to BYBs or people breeding doodles is a really grossly inaccurate comparison, IMO.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm not comparing it to a BYB, I'm saying that if you are not breeding with the whole standard as your goal then you are not truly breeding for a "Golden Retriever" and what it is supposed to be. You are breeding for a breed that does not exist, and are moving away from what a golden retriever is supposed to be, just like if breeding a golden to a different breed. The goal is to produce something other than a "true" golden.

I would say the same about anything purposefully going against the standard. Including the little tiny agility goldens. If the goal of a breeding program is to produce a dog under standard, then that is more in line with creating a different breed than a Golden Retriever.

The standard allows for a wide variety of dogs, so I'm not saying all goldens should be bred to fit a one-size-fits-all mold.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

To follow up on what Jodie said above - I definitely do know of breeders and even puppy buyers who especially try to get the goldens as small as possible to run in agility. It comes down to trying to get their dogs in different classes than border collies, or that's what I've been told. 

It's not that much different from people who deliberately breed dogs who are over standard - whether that is weight or height.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

That's just my personal opinion of titles that *anyone* can get (CD, CDX) versus those which you need something present in the dog's head to get (UD, UDX, OTCH). I am in no way comparing a UD or UDX to an OTCH. They don't begin to compare. Same with the other titles, I think just about anyone can, with a little work, get a JH but the dog needs to check in with a light on in their head to get a SH/MH. Neither of which begins to compare to a FC. 
As for dogs who have problems with signals or whatever, that's why I made the comment that I also look at how many trials it took the dog to achieve the title. A dog that gets a UDX in 15 entries is not the same as one who took 70 entries to get their UDX. In my opinion. 



Megora said:


> Why is the UD/UDX in there though? I've seen a lot of dogs get their UDX... while having even the same issues with stays and signals....? Or being shy about the moving stand, or taking the wrong jumps....?
> 
> It seems like people are training through utility with the dogs anyway and aiming for the top title they can get with the dogs...?
> 
> ...


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Megora said:


> To follow up on what Jodie said above - I definitely do know of breeders and even puppy buyers who especially try to get the goldens as small as possible to run in agility. It comes down to trying to get their dogs in different classes than border collies, or that's what I've been told.
> 
> It's not that much different from people who deliberately breed dogs who are over standard - whether that is weight or height.


Titan is under standard but... he was half the size of his littermates and the one who stole my heart. My choice wasn't about size more than attidude. The rest of the boys and girls in his litter are in standard.
Mighty is from the same sire as Titan as I love the desire from Apollo.
Mighty is also a Push grandson..and the picture you posted a ways back in the thread about the long ago goldens..look just like Mighty..My boys have plenty of coat and drive.. I love my tweeners..


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> I really gave it a good try, and worked with a nice pro and a nice group. All my dogs do well, but hey, I like ducks and I can't even watch a litter of puppies be given a live bird to play with without my stomach churning...
> 
> I want a golden I can take anywhere from a ten mile hike in the morning to chaperoning the prom at night, from downtown NYC to teaching a puppy class, from playing frisbee with college kids to sailing in the bay, and visiting a hospital ward at night...


I'm so glad to read this. I didn't even know they gave live birds to puppies to play with.  Not for me _at all_. I can't even imagine... I was starting to think that maybe a Golden is not the right dog for me, that's it's not right to want to stifle the breed's intended purpose.  And that really made me sad because it's the only breed that has taken my interest away from Danes. I thought I would never be without a Dane, _never_. But along comes Chance and Savanah and I was hooked.

I will never hunt or do any type of field work. I even tried watching a field trial on YouTube and couldn't. I can't even fish...well, maybe I could, but I'd _have_ to put the fish back.  Then Ljilly28 wrote what I quoted and Michelle wrote about the breeder she knows that breeds for _exactly_ what I'd want. I know it's probably not what a lot of breeders would want to hear, but I like the more mellow personality, as in what Michelle described about the breeder: "She isn't trying to make them an inactive couch potato, but does not like too much prey drive or high energy in her dogs.". Good to know, for me anyway, that there are still those that breed for that. Hey Michelle, can I get that breeder's name? :wave:


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

edit....I re-read what you wrote and I misinterpreted it. Sorry! 



Loisiana said:


> I'm not comparing it to a BYB, I'm saying that if you are not breeding with the whole standard as your goal then you are not truly breeding for a "Golden Retriever" and what it is supposed to be. You are breeding for a breed that does not exist, and are moving away from what a golden retriever is supposed to be, just like if breeding a golden to a different breed. The goal is to produce something other than a "true" golden.
> 
> I would say the same about anything purposefully going against the standard. Including the little tiny agility goldens. If the goal of a breeding program is to produce a dog under standard, then that is more in line with creating a different breed than a Golden Retriever.
> 
> The standard allows for a wide variety of dogs, so I'm not saying all goldens should be bred to fit a one-size-fits-all mold.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Lol, for Lushie's litter, they will still get early birds in case someone wants to hunt with them, but I have division of labor all set up!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Keep in mind, though, that there's a huge difference between you as a puppy buyer, and the "keepers of the breed", the breeders.
There is nothing wrong with you wanting a mellow dog, and never wanting to hunt or even watch the dog hunt. As long as the dog doesn't become the foundation of a huge breeding operation!



kwhit said:


> I'm so glad to read this. I didn't even know they gave live birds to puppies to play with.  Not for me _at all_. I can't even imagine... I was starting to think that maybe a Golden is not the right dog for me, that's it's not right to want to stifle the breed's intended purpose.  And that really made me sad because it's the only breed that has taken my interest away from Danes. I thought I would never be without a Dane, _never_. But along comes Chance and Savanah and I was hooked.
> 
> I will never hunt or do any type of field work. I even tried watching a field trial on YouTube and couldn't. I can't even fish...well, maybe I could, but I'd _have_ to put the fish back.  Then Ljilly28 wrote what I quoted and Michelle wrote about the breeder she knows that breeds for _exactly_ what I'd want. I know it's probably not what a lot of breeders would want to hear, but I like the more mellow personality, as in what Michelle described about the breeder: "She isn't trying to make them an inactive couch potato, but does not like too much prey drive or high energy in her dogs.". Good to know, for me anyway, that there are still those that breed for that. Hey Michelle, can I get that breeder's name? :wave:


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I have a picture of cambridge,from the breeder, before i got her, there is a dead duck in a baby pool with a wire around it neck!!!


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Keep in mind, though, that there's a huge difference between you as a puppy buyer, and the "keepers of the breed", the breeders.
> There is nothing wrong with you wanting a mellow dog, and never wanting to hunt or even watch the dog hunt. As long as the dog doesn't become the foundation of a huge breeding operation!


In all fairness, the breeder I am referring to is not running a huge breeding program. She breeds for herself, as I mentioned, with the remainder going to companion homes. And this means she is breeding *maybe* every two years, if that. She is not marketing her boys to be used at stud, nor does she even have a website. For what her goals are, I don't have a problem with her not actively selecting for working ability. I have a lot of respect for the other work she is doing in the breed, in terms of health issues. Those are, in my opinion, vastly more important.

And Karen, if you are serious feel free to send me a PM and I can give you her contact info 

And I'm not saying breeding without specifically selecting for working ability is right....if I ever bred anything I would be selecting for it, while it wouldn't be my top priority - those would be health, soundness, longevity and temperament.


----------



## my4goldens (Jan 21, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> There is nothing wrong with you wanting a mellow dog, and never wanting to hunt or even watch the dog hunt. As long as the dog doesn't become the foundation of a huge breeding operation!


Not to hijack this thread, but I was hoping Tugg would be a mellow puppy. After spending almost three weeks with him, do you think I got one? Lol, to be honest, I truthfully do seem him settling down. Some. And I think he thought we weren't returning this time because since he came home he has been super clingy and sweet. And was wonderful last night at class.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Michelle, I'm sorry if it came across that I was referring to the breeder you mentioned. I was just making a general comment, not referring to any specific breeder.




goldenjackpuppy said:


> In all fairness, the breeder I am referring to is not running a huge breeding program. She breeds for herself, as I mentioned, with the remainder going to companion homes. And this means she is breeding *maybe* every two years, if that. She is not marketing her boys to be used at stud, nor does she even have a website. For what her goals are, I don't have a problem with her not actively selecting for working ability. I have a lot of respect for the other work she is doing in the breed, in terms of health issues. Those are, in my opinion, vastly more important.
> 
> And Karen, if you are serious feel free to send me a PM and I can give you her contact info
> 
> And I'm not saying breeding without specifically selecting for working ability is right....if I ever bred anything I would be selecting for it, while it wouldn't be my top priority - those would be health, soundness, longevity and temperament.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Keep in mind, though, that there's a huge difference between you as a puppy buyer, and the "keepers of the breed", the breeders.
> There is nothing wrong with you wanting a mellow dog, and never wanting to hunt or even watch the dog hunt. As long as the dog doesn't become the foundation of a huge breeding operation!


This kind of goes back to the original discussion, as also the good hunting dog lacking in breed type, being under or over standard, and not meeting the other portions of the breed standard should then never found a breeding program. In reality though, many breeders contribute to the breed in different ways and very few have outstanding temperaments, outstanding health, outstanding conformation, and outstanding performance ability repeated generation after generation after generation without weakening in one area as another strengthens.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Michelle, I'm sorry if it came across that I was referring to the breeder you mentioned. I was just making a general comment, not referring to any specific breeder.


No worries, it's not my breeding program. I understand what you were saying.  If I ever had a breeding program, I would be trying to keep working ability. I do think she is as reputable as they come though, definitely not the same as a doodle breeder  She is one of the people I send possible pedigrees to for her to analyze and tell me if there are any issues I need to be careful of. She is very knowledgeable and I have a lot of respect for her.


----------



## Bentleysmom (Aug 11, 2012)

I love this thread! So much interesting info with back and forth, give and take by adults, so refreshing


----------



## vcm5 (Apr 20, 2011)

K9-Design said:


> My co-owned dog Blade, has a long, silky, wavy coat. To look his best I had to bathe & blow dry him every day of a show, and cut a half an inch off of it every week, but wow was he ever beautiful!! Slightly too much coat and slightly too silky for my tastes.


I know this is kind of off topic, but this is Winston's daddy! I guess that means I may have a big furball on my hands some day!


----------



## vcm5 (Apr 20, 2011)

Also - this thread is fascinating! Thanks everyone for your insight, I'm learning a ton!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

my4goldens said:


> Not to hijack this thread, but I was hoping Tugg would be a mellow puppy. After spending almost three weeks with him, do you think I got one? Lol, to be honest, I truthfully do seem him settling down. Some. And I think he thought we weren't returning this time because since he came home he has been super clingy and sweet. And was wonderful last night at class.


Ha, I there were four things I said I did not want when I was looking for a puppy: under sized, too much energy, dark red, or a pointy head. Well I got a decent head and a nice rich gold color! They do say you get the dog you're meant to have! :bowl: (and don't get me wrong, I love Flip to pieces, just saying that what you plan for isn't always what you get.)


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> However, I do think the standard means a dog as a faithful friend with whom to hunt on a Sunday, rather than a modern MH or field trail dog. I have faith in many different kinds of breeders, that they are not purposefully breeding away from the standard. The standard has a good amount of room for interpretation. Primarily a hunting dog means hunting like my grampa did and not a modern field trial.
> 
> ....
> So. Since I am a wuss and a sissy about field training, I am going to look for duallly talented dogs so I do not become part of the problem.


 Good for you for recognizing your tolerances and making the plans to deal with it! 

I think a good MH is the IDEAL hunting companion. The dog needed to attain MH and the amount of dog needed to run a FT are not the same thing. Many dogs from breedings designed to run FTs are running hunt tests, but they are not the only ones successful at that level. A dog capable of earning its MH is a very livable dog. I have many friends whose MHers are also housepets, as mine is--she sleeps on my bed every night! The SH has the base skills needed to get the job done for a hunter on most days. The MH is the complete package who is going to have the skills to retrieve even the tough birds. Whether someone trains to that level or not, I ideally want the dogs to have the potential to work to that level. I far prefer taking Breeze in the marsh with me because of her skill set, but also because her coat and size is easier to deal with in a boat. Winter is a great upland dog, but he just does not handle well enough on tough water blinds, which is where the dog is the most important tool the hunter has, and he is a lot of dog to have in a small boat.

I personally love the Tigathoe dogs, and they are behind my pedigrees. I believe Mrs. Flinn was a tremendous steward of the breed, and kept in perspective that balanced dog with type defined by working ability and conformation.


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> Keep in mind, though, that there's a huge difference between you as a puppy buyer, and the "keepers of the breed", the breeders.


 
I love the quote "keepers of the breed." It really sums up what breeders are, and frames it in a way that describes why anything other than complete seriousness, carefulness, and reverence to breeding is such a critical thing: breeders are "keepers of the breed," and when you think of it in those terms, it's easy to see what is wrong with BYBs and puppy mills (aside from the other obvious things).


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Well this subject always brings up a lot of cognitive dissonance for me!

While I love conformation in its own way, I also find it frustrating. Frustrating that so much emphasis is placed on how structure is *so* important for the dog to do its job, but then the dog *never* has to prove it. 

I love field work too. I struggle with seeing labs (and I will use labs, because in the context of field where I live I'm the only golden person in a sea of black--but labs as far as split have similar problem as our breed) who are too high strung and some with horrible structure. BUT, I tend love the bidability of these dogs specifically bred with field in mind. Doesn't compare *in general* (IMO) to many conformation bred dogs--not saying that conformation dogs can't do it, just saying overall from my experience the bidability is much better. And I train with show and field labs, and have trained (briefly) with some show goldens.

Disappointingly a lot of show goldens I briefly trained with had very little aptitude for the field, and at least a few of them actually came from show lines that were bred for it. Granted, had the owner been more into field training maybe they could have done better but it still pales in comparison to these dogs bred with more focus on that. I suppose you could say the reverse when it comes to conformation as well. My girl does decently, but I feel like it really is luck as she doesn't really have much working titles in her pedigree and it wasn't a big consideration when I got her--I didn't think it would matter that much and I had no intention of doing field either. My perspective has changed a lot! We have water weakness which I have not been shy to admit, or my own shortcoming as a novice field trainer. But we try!

Is it bad that the breed is split and we have many styles of goldens? I struggle with this too. On the one hand, it makes me very sad. On the other hand, I don't want to begrudge anyway from striving for excellence in their particular venue. Overall though, (without expecting everybody to do the same) it is disappointing to not see more of an embrace for the structurally correct dog that can hunt. That's what a golden is for me.

A training friend of mine breeds pointing labs. I have to admit, I love his dogs in their own way. Lovely workers, and no severe structural weakness, but don't expect to see them at Westminster. So I struggle with that too. Great guy, great dogs, what's not to like?

I guess what it boils down to is I have what I think should be the goal and that's what I work for and promote. I have learned a lot since getting my first golden and continue to learn. My perspectives keep changing. 

At this time I don't think my next dog will be a golden. Part of it is because I don't know which way would I go (field, show, tweener--and yes, actually, I would be totally open to a tweener breeding given that the broader picture was to work toward a vision as opposed to a one time thing just to see what happened--take the best of that breeding and moving forward). Part of it is because I have fallen in love with breed which feels like a better fit now that I have a better understanding of what I want going forward.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> That's just my personal opinion of titles that *anyone* can get (CD, CDX) versus those which you need something present in the dog's head to get (UD, UDX, OTCH). I am in no way comparing a UD or UDX to an OTCH. They don't begin to compare.


I didn't think you were, Barb - but I just had to say something simply because most people train their dogs through utility right from the start - so in theory, by the time a dog is 3-6 years old, he's had a few years worth of utility training. 

I don't count myself in there because I did just open up to training Jacks for utility exercises (for reals) last year. I don't know if he will ever show in utlity because we have to get through open first. But even open is not so vague a goal now that he has matured. 

I am not as experienced a trainer as those I train with, but I can't say exactly the utility exercises are as horrible as I imagined before taking the classes. 

I just wouldn't want people thinking it is not a reasonable goal for them. At this point in time, I'm hugely thankful to my instructors for the fact that they don't keep people locked in levels until they title out. 




> As for dogs who have problems with signals or whatever, that's why I made the comment that I also look at how many trials it took the dog to achieve the title. A dog that gets a UDX in 15 entries is not the same as one who took 70 entries to get their UDX. In my opinion.


But that also comes down to the training behind those dogs, doesn't it? 

Let's say that dog had to be entered 70 times to get their UDX - but that was mainly because they laying down on their stays. Or they fail one of the signals because of anticipation. But they excelled in everything else.

Compare that to a dog who gets a UDX but really without any standout abilities or excellence. Should that dog be getting the nod over a dog who flies over the jumps, is a natural at retrieving, heels like a dream, etc....? 

I'm not arguing - I'm just babbling I guess. :


----------



## gold4paws (Mar 29, 2012)

GoldenSail said:


> Disappointingly a lot of show goldens I briefly trained with had very little aptitude for the field, and at least a few of them actually came from show lines that were bred for it. Granted, had the owner been more into field training maybe they could have done better but it still pales in comparison to these dogs bred with more focus on that.


My first golden was from "field lines" , then I went into the conformation bred goldens. Presently I am training a golden from "show lines" in several performance areas.

As far as field, I could not ask for a better marker, a lot of drive, great memory for multiples, but where she falls short is bidability. I started field training with this dog when she was a pup and have never stopped training. Even with the drive and desire to retrieve, repetative drills are not her thing. So I am constantly having to be creative to keep her interested. She could run marks all day long, but that won't get us a SH. 

Even in Obedience, this issue is there. By the time we show, she is ready and does well. But, the journey is quite a challenge.

At 4, she has a JH and CDX. We will begin showing in Utility this spring. 

I've trained in field with people with labs, goldens (field and show). In my experience I see a difference in the trainability. 

I've seen quite a few goldens from "show lines" that do well at the beginning levels, but when moving up into the more difficult skills, the trainability issues seem to come to light. I had no idea the challege I would have with this dog until she was over 2 years of age, and we started training higher level skills. 

I would be interested to know if anyone else sees a difference in the trainability/bidability in "show" vs "field" lines.

Although I have considered getting a lab, I'm leaning towards a "field" golden for my next pup. I really want a team player next time around.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Molly is from show lines and if bidability means being able to do the same thing over and over, that's Molly. I am a perfectionist and tend to obsess over little things, so I will do certain exercises over and over and over again with her and she is as excited about the last try as much as she was about the first, as long as I keep my own spirits up. I sometimes have to make myself stop for the day, but Molly really doesn't seem to have a problem doing an exercise repeatedly. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

gold4paws said:


> My first golden was from "field lines" , then I went into the conformation bred goldens. Presently I am training a golden from "show lines" in several performance areas.
> 
> As far as field, I could not ask for a better marker, a lot of drive, great memory for multiples, but where she falls short is bidability. I started field training with this dog when she was a pup and have never stopped training. Even with the drive and desire to retrieve, repetative drills are not her thing. So I am constantly having to be creative to keep her interested. She could run marks all day long, but that won't get us a SH.
> 
> ...


I know I see a difference--my Ch/SH boy is pretty much all show breeding, and while he does really well at parts of the work, and is an excellent upland dog, getting him to run blinds was the challenge, especially water blinds. Part of that was due to my mistakes in his early training when I was learning as well. He is a good marker. My MH girl comes from a more versatile pedigree, but not super-performance oriented either. She was so easy to train to run blinds and is great at them, but her shortcoming is in courage on tough water marks. When I bred her to an old-line working dog, I got really awesome puppies. Her son had his SH before two (and ran his first MH at 23 months--got as far as the water blind!), owner trained, and the girl I kept is running MH marking concepts already. There is just a lot more focus and natural aptitude in her, and she is still a pretty girl. She has the best natural freestack of any of my dogs, but also likes to rip holes in her tail, so I have not really shown her! She's a tweener, but it was a lose linebreeding so I got more drive, and trainability, and natural talent, but did not really sacrifice the style I like. My friend who has the boy had come from English style show lines like me, and we had talked about the difference selecting for this as well as physical type makes, and he really is proof in the pudding--she has progressed with him so much faster because he just wants to do it.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

The word "tweener" has been used a few times above. Can someone explain what that means?


----------



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

That fact that it took my Laney girl many shows to get that UD is not reflective of her, but hello, maybe her owner!!! She got her CD and CDX each in three straight shows. 

Others have said that a CDX is easy...I have done it with three Goldens... I have also gotten five CD's with my guys plus one UD and many many rally titles...


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

This thread has been very interesting to read. Field goldens are often categorized as too high energy for the average owner. In order to excel in the field the dog has to be a highly motivated team player. Dogs that are untrainable or difficult do not often succeed at higher levels. I have owned two field goldens, both well within the standard in size and both easy to live with house dogs. I have to agree with gold4paws that one of the easiest qualities to lose is trainability. You cannot assess this at the JH or WC level. Those titles show basic hunting instinct. By trainability I am referring to a dog that will show a good level of obedience when birds are flying and guns are shooting. A dog that is steady and will handle when needed, a dog that shows control when the excitement is high.
A good work ethic is crucial in a breed that is 'primarily a hunting dog' along with the drive and structure to do the job. A well bred field golden is a dog that you can take anywhere and work in any venue, obedience, agility, field. And is a pleasure to live with.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

TheZ's said:


> The word "tweener" has been used a few times above. Can someone explain what that means?


A tweener is when a cross breeding between a field pedigree and a show pedigree occurs. The problems inherent in that can be a lack of uniformity. It is more common for field breeders to incorporate some conformation pedigrees into their line then it is vice versa.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I don't think I can easily explain what I mean by bidability. In a nutshell what I mean is that some of these dogs thrive despite their handler's poor training. It's the heart and desire that drives. And it isn't about whether or not a dog can do it...sure they can, but the desire and drive not quite the same. (I do not intend to imply the case with all, there are some great exceptions)

And look at any GRNews. By far the top dogs in agility, obedience, and field are largely dominated by field pedigrees. Ever ask yourself why?


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Biddability is another word for trainability. The dog is happy to do your bidding. They are pliable and compliant.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

There are alot of smart people in this thread,love reading every ones post.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

K9-Design said:


> Biddability is another word for trainability. *The dog is happy to do your bidding. They are pliable and compliant*.


^ As goldens should be. 

Admittedly - and I have no idea if it is the result of earlier focus on training and handling with my current two boys, but they fit that mold. The three guys before them? Nope. 

Sammy who was our "tweener" - and his immediate 5 generation pedigree includes field champions (FC's AFC's and FTCH's?), OTCH's, TDX's, and CH's.... <- And he had a mind of his own and showed it early and often. The biggest joke was him getting his CGC (the old test) when he was 2, because the way he was... he didn't get his CD until he was 7. He was very "I'm doing it my way".  And he was not into retrieving. Ever.


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

Megora said:


> But that also comes down to the training behind those dogs, doesn't it?
> 
> Let's say that dog had to be entered 70 times to get their UDX - but that was mainly because they laying down on their stays. Or they fail one of the signals because of anticipation. But they excelled in everything else.


Coming from an obedience background, then it comes down to the owner who should make the choice to pull the dog from any competition, until that dog has rock solid stays. Proofing for every little thing and beyond. Why waste the money for gas, hotel, food, and your entry when you know it might be unreasonable to ask the dog to stay when you're out of sight, or because you're having trouble with scent articles. 

One thing that kills me is showing a dog who clearly is not ready. I'm guilty of that, we all are.  BUT, that doesn't show what the dog isn't capable of. JMO.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

MaddieMagoo said:


> Coming from an obedience background, then it comes down to the owner who should make the choice to pull the dog from any competition, until that dog has rock solid stays. Proofing for every little thing and beyond. Why waste the money for gas, hotel, food, and your entry when you know it might be unreasonable to ask the dog to stay when you're out of sight, or because you're having trouble with scent articles.


Well... speaking as somebody with a dog with stay problems - I took a year to focus on showing my guy in rally while I retaught stays from scratch. So definitely I agree that if it's broken, you don't just keep going out there and make it worse. With Jacks though - his stay problems were not specific to the show ring. He would break at class and fun matches. 

Reteaching the stays got us to the point we are at right now where I'm getting closer to being able to show him in Open. We aren't there yet because I haven't gotten quite enough fun matches under my belt, but it's plausible now vs impossible as it was a year ago. 

But what I was referring to -

I think it sometimes comes down to the dog having mood swings... or things you have to work through at shows. 

One of the people I was thinking about when I made that comment was my instructor who had the worst time getting a UDX with her older girl. I've seen this dog at class and fun matches, and she absolutely NEVER broke her stays. Get her to shows and then it was more of a random event with her breaking the stays. 

Another person I was thinking about with articles - different breed - had a dog who again, practiced perfectly but was apparently ring smart. He would quit while doing articles. Literally going out there, browsing and then just stopping and looking back at the judge and the owner and waiting for the exercise finished. 

Another person - different breed - who just finally got the UDX had the worst time with signals with her dog. This was something she worked on over 2 years to get that title.

ETA - This is a kinda weird thing that happened at one of the trials last year when we got Jacks' CD - after we sorted out his stays and I dared put him back out there. This person came up to talk to us and really drill into my head that I must not stop at CD with Jacks. She repeated again and again that based on what she saw with us out in the ring that he is a dog who can go very far if I keep going. She said he has the right "mind" for it. While I was joking with my sister afterwards that I thought she was trying to steal my baby boy away she seemed so enamoured with him, I did appreciate somebody giving me that encouragement. I suspect she saw my guy outside the ring looking a little wild-eyed and distracted over the sound of rain outside but went to work when we were inside the ring - and that's what she meant by him having the right mind.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> I don't think I can easily explain what I mean by bidability. In a nutshell what I mean is that some of these dogs thrive despite their handler's poor training. It's the heart and desire that drives. And it isn't about whether or not a dog can do it...sure they can, but the desire and drive not quite the same. (I do not intend to imply the case with all, there are some great exceptions)
> 
> And look at any GRNews. By far the top dogs in agility, obedience, and field are largely dominated by field pedigrees. Ever ask yourself why?


When I look at the stats for obedience and agility, I see a mixture of pedigrees, many if not most of them coming from kennels that specialize in the sports in which they are preforming. Why, because if you want to compete at a national level in obedience you go to Tanbark, High Times, Gaylans or One Ash. But like any other dog activities, high level obedience and agility do not reflect what the breed was intended to do and does reflect to a big extent the skill of the trainer. 

In some cases dogs that have the "style" and "drive" to be standouts in the obedience and agility ring do tip over the edge in terms of emotional stability. They NEED those really great trainers to do what they do. In the hands of a less skilled trainer, they are hard to live with. I know of one very high-style obedience dog with a legend as a trainer who is on the edge of being dog aggressive and I know of two of his sons with good trainers (but not legends) who are dog aggressive. THAT is something we need to avoid--turning Goldens into a breed that only experts can deal with.

I know that to be highly competitive in agility a dog needs to trial nearly every weekend of the year. I do believe that there really isn't time for most people to do it all (some forum members excepted).


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Carolyn - if that's the dog I'm thinking of, I think he gave me and Jacks a heart attack when I made the mistake of sitting next to his crate.  The crate jumped at us. I was disappointed and disgusted to see there was a golden inside.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Selli-Belle said:


> THAT is something we need to avoid--turning Goldens into a breed that only experts can deal with.


I SO agree with this!!!!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> I know that to be highly competitive in agility a dog needs to trial nearly every weekend of the year. I do believe that there really isn't time for most people to do it all (some forum members excepted).


I am not talking about doing it all. Look at the pedigrees. Where do most serious competitors get their goldens and why? The majority of those pedigrees are strong in field, there are a few mixes, very few strong conformation champion pedigrees walking into those higher levels. 

And while I agree some of those field dogs are too high strung, I also agree that some conformation dogs are couch potato mushes. But, either end they all aren't that way. 

I do think this does illustrate a fairly clear breed split. Whether that bothers you or not, or where in the middle you lie on the spectrum is a matter of choice and debate. These are just my observations.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I would disagree that the majority of top obedience goldens are field pedigree. A lot of the big producers in obedience can be traced back to conformation lines that have been refined into obedience specialists. A lot of people looking for an obedience prospect will want to see _some_ field in the line, but the vast majority are combination, not strictly field.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Selli-Belle said:


> When I look at the stats for obedience and agility, I see a mixture of pedigrees, many if not most of them coming from kennels that specialize in the sports in which they are preforming. Why, because if you want to compete at a national level in obedience you go to Tanbark, High Times, Gaylans or One Ash. But like any other dog activities, high level obedience and agility do not reflect what the breed was intended to do and does reflect to a big extent the skill of the trainer.
> 
> In some cases dogs that have the "style" and "drive" to be standouts in the obedience and agility ring do tip over the edge in terms of emotional stability. They NEED those really great trainers to do what they do. In the hands of a less skilled trainer, they are hard to live with. I know of one very high-style obedience dog with a legend as a trainer who is on the edge of being dog aggressive and I know of two of his sons with good trainers (but not legends) who are dog aggressive. THAT is something we need to avoid--turning Goldens into a breed that only experts can deal with.
> 
> ...


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Here's the pedigree of the top ranked golden for the upcoming NOC. This is a pretty standard type of pedigree for a top obedience dog. One grandparent was a field dog, the others go back to what was basically a lot of conformation dogs with a little field thrown in here and there, and selective breeding leads to what most obedience and agility dogs are made of today.

Pedigree: OTCH Trifecta's Super Cooper UDX11 OGM OBHF


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

And because I had this hour off and I love this kind of stuff, I started checking down the list. It wasn't until I got to the 17th dog down that I found a strictly field pedigree.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Titan1 said:


> Pat and I have had side discussions over the years whether it is the dog or the handler...I have been extremely lucky to have Titan as my 1st dog. I am a one of those less skilled trainers.. actually fairly new to the sport. Titan is not directly from a big name kennel.. He has a wonderful off switch and there is not an aggressive bone in his body. We do not show every weekend but he is incredibly consistant. He is not dog agressive or crate aggressive and most times you will find him sound asleep in his kennel between runs. I have ranked in the Top 25 all breed for the last 5 years without showing every weekend and without having a crazy dog to live with.. There is a balance and I think people give away attitude for drive. Titan has plenty of drive when he needs it. He passed every title in 3 legs accept the UDX.. I think it took a couple extra. He passed his TD cert test with 5 classes with no practice between. (he won't track me if I lay the track..lol) Then 4 months later passed for his TD. This is the tweener I look for. I want a golden to look like a golden and act like one.
> BTW... the breeder I got Titan from... never had a dog in obedience before and I was an unknown..


Titan is the tweener I'm looking for too. 
Michelle, what did you see in the breeding for Titan that you knew this was the one?


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

hollyk said:


> Titan is the tweener I'm looking for too.
> Michelle, what did you see in the breeding for Titan that you knew this was the one?


It was a great pedigree doing alot of different things..
I was able to watch Apollo once.. He was happy to do the work but also content to just stand beside Pat. He was a very nice looking boy with plenty of coat. Pat told me he got his titles very easlily and she was always looking for more things for him to do... 
Goldie had the pedigree I loved and she was on the smaller side.. Her story was what you hear all the time.. The father bought her for his son for field.. son found girls and dumped the dog.. Denise picked her up because she liked the same and got her JH on her
When I met Goldie she was a sweet sweet girl that would turn herself inside out to please.. I went to see the litter at 3 weeks.. 
Titan was the smallest and the most determined to be with the humans.
He made eye contact and then just vibrated with joy..It was love at 1st sight.
I have another Apollo son.. he is a little more with over the top and not quite the desire yet.. it is a work in progress and my next puppy will be from Titan. I love the puppies from his 1st litter and he seemed to pass his drive and attitude like his daddy...let's hope or a certain forum member will never forgive me if I don't give her baby Titan..lol


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Titan1 said:


> It was a great pedigree doing alot of different things..
> I was able to watch Apollo once.. He was happy to do the work but also content to just stand beside Pat. He was a very nice looking boy with plenty of coat. Pat told me he got his titles very easlily and she was always looking for more things for him to do...
> Goldie had the pedigree I loved and she was on the smaller side.. Her story was what you hear all the time.. The father bought her for his son for field.. son found girls and dumped the dog.. Denise picked her up because she liked the same and got her JH on her
> When I met Goldie she was a sweet sweet girl that would turn herself inside out to please.. I went to see the litter at 3 weeks..
> ...


Holy Smokes, I just looked at Titan's 5 generation pedigree!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I need to clarify what I meant by largely field. I pulled the top golden qualifiers from the AKC website and looked at their standard, 3-generation pedigree. I looked for either at least *one* dog with a FC (or AFC), or MH, CH, some field (any kind, WC, MH, FC etc), or both (CH+, didn't have to be the same dog). Out of the 23 dogs:

60.8% had at least one FC
78.3% had at least one MH
34.8% had at least one CH
100% had at least one with some field title (including the dog itself)
34.8% had both CH plus some field title

So when I said field pedigree it was with the idea that the breed is split between two dominant styles--field and show. And my impression was that strong field dogs made a much larger impression. It still is. Without gathering more numbers, I can say too it looked more common for there to be multiple FC in the pedigree than more than one CH.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ok I did the same for agility...albeit it only lists the top 5 but I'll show my tally anyway.

60% had at least one FC
100% had at least one MH
60% had at least one CH
60% had at least one CH+

...but the sample size is smaller on this one, plus it has the same limits. Just getting an idea out there.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Of the top 25 conformation goldens:

0% had at least a FC
0.04% had at least one MH
100% had at least on CH 
60% had at least one direct ancestor with some field title (WC up included)
60% had at least one CH+ (again, not necessarily same dog)


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

But titles aren't the same as lines. You can have a dog from field or conformation lines without titles. I'd also venture to say once a line has been blended, it would be much more common for the offspring to do field work than to do conformation. So while an obedience dog's pedigree may have more field titles than CH, I still think most of the pedigrees are based more on a higher number of conformation dogs than field dogs.

I really think most goldens being bred for obedience and agility today could be considered a line of their own.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Titan1 said:


> Selli-Belle said:
> 
> 
> > When I look at the stats for obedience and agility, I see a mixture of pedigrees, many if not most of them coming from kennels that specialize in the sports in which they are preforming. Why, because if you want to compete at a national level in obedience you go to Tanbark, High Times, Gaylans or One Ash. But like any other dog activities, high level obedience and agility do not reflect what the breed was intended to do and does reflect to a big extent the skill of the trainer.
> ...


----------



## gold4paws (Mar 29, 2012)

GoldenSail said:


> So when I said field pedigree it was with the idea that the breed is split between two dominant styles--field and show. And my impression was that strong field dogs made a much larger impression. It still is. Without gathering more numbers, I can say too it looked more common for there to be multiple FC in the pedigree than more than one CH.


I agree with this. I still wonder when the "split" began? At one point in time, the breed did not have 2 dominant styles. 

There are well established "field" breeders that do breed to a "show" dog/line now and then. Do we still consider those dogs to be "field" lines? In most cases I would say yes. Not sure what others think.

Also, the other way around. A "show" line, adding in a "field" dog. Would that not still be a "show" line?

Even looking at some of the well known kennels producing "working lines" are they really from show or field lines? or are then from the old time goldens bred for generations that never went into either of the 2 styles mentioned? 

This is not so simple. Taking it a step beyond the 3 (or 5) generation pedigree, the genetic COI is interesting to look at too.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> Here's the pedigree of the top ranked golden for the upcoming NOC. This is a pretty standard type of pedigree for a top obedience dog. One grandparent was a field dog, the others go back to what was basically a lot of conformation dogs with a little field thrown in here and there, and selective breeding leads to what most obedience and agility dogs are made of today.
> 
> Pedigree: OTCH Trifecta's Super Cooper UDX11 OGM OBHF


http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=19082

http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=74894

These dogs belonged to my trainer. The second dog is a son of the first dog. I don't know what qualifies as a "top" obedience dog, but they seem to have done very well and there are a lot of conformation dogs in their pedigree. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

While there is no doubt there is a split in the breed, I think there are several issues that need to be considered when discussing working ability. Maintaining a good work ethic in a conformation line of dogs does not come from obedience titles. These titles are a nice accomplishment but they do not tell you anything about the dog being ‘primarily a hunting dog’. A good obedience foundation is required for a hunting dog and certainly a step in the right direction but these titles do not in any way indicate what a dog will do while in high drive retrieving birds. 



Loisiana said:


> But titles aren't the same as lines. You can have a dog from field or conformation lines without titles. I'd also venture to say *once a line has been blended, it would be much more common for the offspring to do field work than to do conformation. *
> 
> 
> The quote above , along with the stats posted, indicate that the conformation style is so specific that once they are crossed into working lines they will no longer be competitive in the breed ring. People are going to breed for the areas where they can be successful.
> ...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> The bottom line is that there is little incentive for breeders, other than those producing obedience and agility dogs, to cross the field and show dogs.


I think this is sadly true. 

I also think that when you look at field dogs - meaning the true field bred ones - there is no incentive for conformation breeders to touch that because they are so far away from what they are looking for in the conformation ring.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

If I were a breeder, this is the style of dog I would be striving to create. This is the kind of look I like in a golden. It is my personal preference over most of what I see in the breed ring. And he has working ability. In today's world he couldn't be a breed champion or a field champion, but he is exactly the style of golden that is close to "perfection" in my mind.

Coppertop's Live Wire


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Loisiana,

I'm curious what it is about that particular dog makes you think he wouldn't or couldn't be a breed champion?


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Loisiana,
Interesting that you brought up Ted! I was at an obedience/rally trial yesterday and the group I was with was talking about Ted. One of the women had a Ted puppy. That puppy is now probably 5 years old and doing very well in obedience and field work. Smaller more field type proportions, beautiful dog, very smart and quick. I agree with you, Ted is an excellent choice for golden progeny.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

The golden who comes close in my mind to the timeless golden is Sabre: AMIGOLD RETRIEVERS.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I almost got a Ted puppy. Now I am hoping for a Ted great grandson!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I think you have to look at dogs like Fisher - as far as ideal. He's a very pretty boy and has done well for himself.... and his kids have been pretty smart as well. And pretty.  

I like the fact that Anney is apparently breeding him to produce well-rounded puppies. 

If I didn't have Bertie incoming, I probably would have been very tempted when Kelli had her puppies....


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

This thread is engaging for me, as I have big decisions ahead in choosing sires. I hope it continues.


----------



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

From his photo, Ted is very handsome. I think another thing to consider is not just what the stud dog himself has done, but does he reproduce himself or better yet does he out reproduce himself? I think of a dog like Talon, himself a breed Ch.. Who produced so many Ch offspring... So if that is the type you are looking for, I would be breeding to a dog like him. Likewise with working ability, you should be looking for dogs that reproduce it...and reproduce it frequently...


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I almost got a Ted puppy. Now I am hoping for a Ted great grandson!


Me too... I hope you do too!


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

Pedigree: UKC CH SHR Cheerio's Seeing Is Believing JH WC

Take a look at this handsome dude


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Oh my-love his pedigree


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> From his photo, Ted is very handsome. I think another thing to consider is not just what the stud dog himself has done, but does he reproduce himself or better yet does he out reproduce himself? I think of a dog like Talon, himself a breed Ch.. Who produced so many Ch offspring... So if that is the type you are looking for, I would be breeding to a dog like him. Likewise with working ability, you should be looking for dogs that reproduce it...and reproduce it frequently...


That is one reason I like older proven dogs. Unlike the "popular sire of the moment" syndrome, where everyone is breeding to the same dog all at once, I would rather use an older dog who has mature offspring on the ground. That gives you a really good idea of what they are producing, the good, the bad and the ugly, and more information about longevity and diseases, and trainability, etc.


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

sterregold said:


> That is one reason I like older proven dogs. Unlike the "popular sire of the moment" syndrome, where everyone is breeding to the same dog all at once, I would rather use an older dog who has mature offspring on the ground. That gives you a really good idea of what they are producing, the good, the bad and the ugly, and more information about longevity and diseases, and trainability, etc.


I couldn't agree more!!! It is so common in the conformation world to do this. I'd rather be in the peanut gallery and wait until something that has proven himself shows up. I like looking at the dogs that aren't used as often, but have proven themselves.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> This thread is engaging for me, as I have big decisions ahead in choosing sires. I hope it continues.


Really, really really study your girl's pedigree. Figure out what you really like about your girl as well and from what parts of the pedigree those traits come through (her breeder and the breeder of the dogs you like in the pedigree should be good resources there). Then rather than looking at the current big winners or big advertisers, I would be looking at those dogs in the pedigree, and relatives of those dogs in the pedigree, and breedings that produced what you like _with_ those dogs. Are there patterns where when bred to a certain sire line, bitches in the pedigree like your girl produced really well? Determine which are the dogs and lines that seem to "nick." Be brutally honest with yourself about what parts of your girl need to be improved. Do those stud dogs throw that trait strongly? Are they phenotypcially consistent with her in the areas in which she is strong (because you do not want to undermine her strengths either!) Consider what the combined pedigree will open or close to you in terms of the next generation breedings as well--it may take several generations to really set a trait you want without losing the ones you already have and like.

It is a really complex puzzle to do a well-thought out breeding that sets the direction for your future breeding program, and you really should be thinking multigenerationally as well.


----------



## fourlakes (Feb 16, 2013)

MaddieMagoo said:


> Pedigree: UKC CH SHR Cheerio's Seeing Is Believing JH WC
> 
> Take a look at this handsome dude


I think I recognize this boy from somewhere -- wait, Abby's bro!


----------



## MaddieMagoo (Aug 14, 2007)

fourlakes said:


> I think I recognize this boy from somewhere -- wait, Abby's bro!


He's a lovely boy! I'd like to see some more pictures of him


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

One interesting thing about the grammar/writing in the standard, is that the phrase "primarily a hunting dog" is supporting why the dog should be shown in hard working condition, rather than a point in itself about the dog's purpose. 

I think this sentence is read incorrectly sometimes, with too much emphasis on a clause and too little on the main idea- the condition of the dog when shown: 

*Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition.* Over-all appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts.

The next sentence continues to speak of the dog's appearance. The main idea is not that this is a hunting dog, but that because it is a hunting dog it should be in really great condition when shown. I agree it is there- that this is a huntong dog, but no where near as strongly as is sometimes quoted.


----------



## coaraujo (Nov 2, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> One interesting thing about the grammar/writing in the standard, is that the phrase "primarily a hunting dog" is supporting why the dog should be shown in hard working condition, rather than a point in itself about the dog's purpose.
> 
> I think this sentence is read incorrectly sometimes, with too much emphasis on a clause and too little on the main idea- the condition of the dog when shown:
> 
> ...


Really interesting point! I think that line creates the "perfect" golden. While a golden is *primarily a hunting dog*, not too much emphasis needs necessarily be put on hunting - basic instinct and skills are needed and an active fit hard working condition. At the same time, when being shown, the golden should be *shown in hard working condition* - which (in my newb opinion) is not what the fluffballs in the ring are right now (I don't mean that in a negative way at all  I just don't think any of them look like they're ready to up and retrieve a bird unless its a stuffed one on the couch). I think if you combine these two things you get a great balance. You will always have deviations on either end, but I think if this line was followed more often we'd have a more bell shaped distribution of goldens instead of a bimodel one with a large number of "field" goldens, a large number of "conformation" goldens and not so many in between.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think it will be a very sad when you go to a dog show and none of the sporting dogs can hunt, none of the herding dogs can herd, none of the working dogs can work, etc. I just can't understand the point of breeding and discussing about the structure of a dog and how those qualities make the dog better at its job when *the dog never does any of it*. Sometimes I don't think we are far from that point when you look at other breeds with similar problems. What will things look like 20, 30, 40 years from now if no one cares? Or if not enough people do?


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

I think LJilly was bring up a rather technical issue about the meaning of that particular sentence rather than a philosophical issue about what we should be breeding. It is a very interesting point.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

But what is the point? The only point I have gotten (correct me if I am wrong) is that maybe the actual hunting abilities of the golden are not as important as others emphasize. Or maybe that the standard is written about physical attributes. Doesn't matter either way, because most of the physical attributes of the golden were designed around its functionality as a hunting dog, not vice versa.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I do think it is interesting. And while I support and participate in field training, for some reason when I read ljillys post I was reminded of my bridge Dalmatian whose breed was originally used as carriage dogs. Obviously there isn't a big market for carriage dogs these days, but people still have dals. How do they show their breed can perform the function for which they were bred? I can't help but wonder if they have the push and pull regarding their breed's primary purpose like we do. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> *Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition.* Over-all appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts.
> 
> The next sentence continues to speak of the dog's appearance. The main idea is not that this is a hunting dog, but that because it is a hunting dog it should be in really great condition when shown. I agree it is there- that this is a huntong dog, but no where near as strongly as is sometimes quoted.


 
This post illustrates WHY the breed is split.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm not sure I follow. So the fact that some choose to use a portion of a sentence from the standard versus the whole sentence is why the breed is split? Or because it was pointed out is why the breed is split? I think there is fault on both sides of the spectrum, it is not only the "non hunters" who have caused the split.

Fwiw, I do some field training so I'm probably Switzerland in this debate, but I do find it interesting that only a portion of the sentence is quoted regularly. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I don't agree that the second part of the sentence diminishes the first. It's either a hunting dog, or its not. No....I'm not implying that you must hunt to own or show a Golden. I'm only giving my interpretation of the sentence as written. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Ljilly never said it diminished the first part of the sentence. I don't think she is arguing that Goldens aren't hunting dogs, at least that wasn't how I read her post.

I do find it very interesting that the first part is quoted regularly though, without the context of the remainder of the sentence.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I do think it is interesting. And while I support and participate in field training, for some reason when I read ljillys post I was reminded of my bridge Dalmatian whose breed was originally used as carriage dogs. Obviously there isn't a big market for carriage dogs these days, but people still have dals. How do they show their breed can perform the function for which they were bred? I can't help but wonder if they have the push and pull regarding their breed's primary purpose like we do.


Actually it appears some dalmatian owners do think working ability is an important part of their breed and they want to preserve it:

Home - BCDS


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Actually I don't interpret the second sentence to be only about the dog's appearance. On second look, 'purpose' jumps out to me. Purpose would be working ability, which would be hunting skills. And that should be emphasized in addition to overall appearance, balance, and gait.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Actually it appears some dalmatian owners do think working ability is an important part of their breed and they want to preserve it:
> 
> Home - BCDS


I don't doubt those exist here and there for other breeds. I was more wondering (and didn't articulate very well) if under the parent breed club they have the same type of split, with carriage-users and non-carriage users. Like we have the hunters and non-hunters in goldens. It seems unlikely given the minimal use of carriages in modern society  

I wasn't really trying to be snarky, I just had the thought when the "primary" purpose was mentioned again....some breeds do evolve like dals have. I'm not saying goldens need to or have, it just is a fact that the purpose of some breeds is not always preserved for logistical reasons. Clearly people hunt with their goldens and I like field training with mine (I'm getting smooch out for the first time in a couple of weeks  ) although hunting is not a hobby of mine.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Goldenjack,

I assumed that the reason you were doing field training was to prove the breed's stated purpose in your lines. Considering you're a non-hunter I think that's great. 

While I have hunted several times, I don't consider myself an avid hunter. Bella's immediate ancestors don't list any performance or field accomplishments on K9 Data, although I suspect some of that may be due to lack of data input from a certain breeder out West. Several generations back, there are many. I may try field training just to see if she can do it. It will depend on whether I have the time, since the summer and fall is my busiest time, and I don't want to slack off on her obedience training. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Nairb said:


> Goldenjack,
> 
> I assumed that the reason you were doing field training was to prove the breed's stated purpose in your lines. Considering you're a non-hunter I think that's great.
> 
> ...


Thanks, and yes, it's because I think it's important. But in all honesty, I am a field training wimp. I wear gloves when handling the birds, cover my eyes when the live flyers are shot and when working the launcher, got physically ill after observing the condition of one of the birds. (In all fairness though, my launcher buddy also got sick once he noticed it...and he's a hunter. We decided that "what happens in the blind stays in the blind" to avoid ruining his street cred with the other guys. lol) So while I try, I know I'm not exactly the hunting type. I do think it's important to show working ability though. It's just not my top top top priority because hunting is not my hobby. 

I am hoping to run Smooch in the WC at the upcoming western regional or at the national this year though, depending on how she does in a couple of weeks. She has so much natural ability (impressive for a dog with minimal field titles in her pedigree) and is very biddable. If a field wimp and novice like me can train her, she's a pretty good dog.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't doubt those exist here and there for other breeds. I was more wondering (and didn't articulate very well) if under the parent breed club they have the same type of split, with carriage-users and non-carriage users. Like we have the hunters and non-hunters in goldens. It seems unlikely given the minimal use of carriages in modern society


I don't know every breed is different. In general, it appears the more popular breeds that have function that still applies today are more prone to breed splits. I believe this is because competition can drive toward the extremes in a population and when you have a larger pool it tends to do that. Whether this is a concern or not I guess is up for debate. Personally, I favor the functional golden. Structurally sound but also a fantastic field dog. I want it all. I also believe the traits that made it a great gun dog are what has made it so poplar today and why goldens generally excel in multiple venues. But, if you lose that you can lose the wonderful qualities about them. JMO.

I've even heard some people outside goldens perceive that field and show goldens 'look and act nothing alike.'

Border collies are an interesting example. They fought tooth and nail to prevent AKC from recognizing their breed for conformation and they lost. Now you have ABCA which refuses to register any dog that is registered with a registry that competes in conformation.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

I think this sentence in the standard is also often overlooked, and does reinforce the importance of the working aspect of the dog: "Over-all appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts." And in faults: "Any departure from the described ideal shall be considered faulty to the degree to which it interferes with the breed's purpose or is contrary to breed character."

Overall balance and fitness to perform its designed purpose is to be at the forefront. Unfortunately, human nature means that we tend to want to win at what we have chosen to do, and as each venue has grown increasingly competitive (show, obed, FT, etc), venue success has come more and more into play in breeding decisions. The tweener dogs trying to keep that balance in perspective are not going to win Open Ft's, or be Top 10 all-breeds conf dogs, because it does take an extreme for top level success in each now. We have a living Dual CH, AFTCH OTCH (CKC does not have an official recognition for a Triple CH) in Canada in Push, but only because competition in both the breed ring and our field trials is not to the extreme it is at in AKC. If he had been on a big-name pros truck in the US he might have been able to get the FC part of it (since some of his relatives have), but the conf CH would have been the bigger hurdle. And with Sabre, he got his conf Ch, but Terri had to take him out of training and field work for the time he was pursuing it, and then he was never able to perform to the level needed to get an Open win against the black dogs.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Ah Shelly, thanks for the post. You are so often the voice of reason.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> I
> I've even heard some people outside goldens perceive that field and show goldens 'look and act nothing alike.'


I just realized that this type of statement (not saying you are saying it, but I just had an epiphany) is why I get my panties in a bunch when this subject comes up. I HATE generalizations and think it's unfair to those of us (even me as a newbie, but obviously I recognize others have spent WAY more time on this than me) who are actually trying to keep the balance. I don't like being lumped in with "all" of anything.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I just realized that this type of statement (not saying you are saying it, but I just had an epiphany) is why I get my panties in a bunch when this subject comes up. I HATE generalizations and think it's unfair to those of us (even me as a newbie, but obviously I recognize others have spent WAY more time on this than me) who are actually trying to keep the balance. I don't like being lumped in with "all" of anything.


Oh I hate it too! It bothers me to hear other people who do not have goldens have this perception. It is a serious question I ask myself when I hear this--why do these people think that? Is there any validity to it?


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Actually I don't interpret the second sentence to be only about the dog's appearance. On second look, 'purpose' jumps out to me. Purpose would be working ability, which would be hunting skills. And that should be emphasized in addition to overall appearance, balance, and gait.


I believe at the time the standard was written, the hunting part of the breed was assumed since the breed had yet to become a popular pet of show dog. Therefore it came from the idea that of course the Golden was a hunting dog, it was so obvious that you did not even need to state it, but because it was a hunting dog, it needs to be in hard working condition.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Selli-Belle said:


> I believe at the time the standard was written, the hunting part of the breed was assumed since the breed had yet to become a popular pet of show dog. Therefore it came from the idea that of course the Golden was a hunting dog, it was so obvious that you did not even need to state it, but because it was a hunting dog, it needs to be in hard working condition.


Has the standard ever been changed and if so how recently and why?


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Oh I hate it too! It bothers me to hear other people who do not have goldens have this perception. It is a serious question I ask myself when I hear this--why do these people think that? Is there any validity to it?


I think they perceive this because the extremes of the variations are what stand out most--they are the outliers. So when you see them side by side it is the difference that is noticed, whereas those of us with more tweener or moderate dogs just kind of blend in to the middle! Take an intense, dark red Firemark field dog with a white blaze on its chest and put it beside this year's top conformation dog, and you are going to notice the differences first, despite the fact that both possess breed type.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

The first paragraph of the GRCA bylaws:
Objects of the club shall be;
To recognize that the Golden Retriever is a *gun dog* and to encourage
the members to perfect, by selective breeding, Golden Retrievers that
possess the appearance, soundness, temperament, natural ability and
personality that is reflected in the standard of the breed, and to do all
possible to advance and promote the perfection of these qualities;

No, I don't believe this has been overstated and I, for one, will be forever grateful
that there are breeders that take this seriously.


----------



## gold4paws (Mar 29, 2012)

TrailDogs said:


> The first paragraph of the GRCA bylaws:
> 
> Objects of the club shall be;
> 
> ...


I believe responsible breeders should make breeding selections which support maintaining the purpose of the breed.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Here is an interesting take on the issue from the herding group:


----------

