# Field dog conformation



## gdgli

I really don't know but here are some Buffy puppy pictures:


----------



## gdgli

What I noticed immediately when looking at the litter was shape and size of head, coat, size, and in Buffy's case muscularity and general physique.

I am no conformation expert (obvious) and cannot comment on that but when I looked at the litter I was able to say "No, not like the show dog puppies I have seen."


----------



## EvanG

In a field dog the kind of coat that works for the bench is impractical. Long, heavy coats are not only a magnet for thorns and stickers, but those coats offer an excess of storage for them. In addition, heavy coated dogs weigh about 10 pounds more coming out of the water. Also, heavier bone density adds to the extra effort required just to do a day's work afield.

In case you may think the alternative is, by necessity, an unattractive dog I would tend to disagree. But it's a personal choice.










This is a field coat, as an important part of a very select breeding program at TNT Kennels in Abbotsford BC, Canada. I am not aware of a better field pedigree than this dog has.

Sire: FC AFC OTCH FTCH AFTCH MOTCH *TNT’s Stanley Steamer*, MH, FDHF, OBHF, Am. OTCH, UDX, FDHF, OBHF, OS

Dam: UH HRCH GMH *Doublegold Spitfire* ** MH WCX OD

This is a Golden Retriever bred to work. He weighs 85 pounds and moves very well.



EvanG


----------



## Alaska7133

It would be nice if we could find some photos that compare the angles of a show puppy versus a field pup and see if there is any real difference. Maybe there isn't. Maybe it's bone and coat is really the difference? Shouldn't the shoulder layback and the rear angulation be the same? I'm looking at trying to figure out the best way to evaluate a field litter. We have videos of show litter evaluations, but I've never seen a field litter evaluation video explaining what you are looking for in say the length of the elbow or length of the hock. 

George I have to say that Buffy is about as cute as can be. 

Maybe I'll make it a project at US golden national field trials to get some stacking photos and movement photos of some of the top dogs to evaluate on this forum. It would be interesting to know their medical history for injuries since that might be a reflection on their physical abilities. Any thoughts? Interesting project? Not many true field dogs get stacked in photos.


----------



## solinvictus

Great pictures of Buffy. 

"Maybe I'll make it a project at US golden national field trials to get some stacking photos and movement photos of some of the top dogs to evaluate on this forum."

I would love to see photos and movement photos of those dogs at the national field trials. I hope you do it.


----------



## Megora

@Evan - just tiny thing though. And it's something that I've noticed and discussed with breeders because while I do not do field work with my goldens, we are out going cross country on hikes and we have a very "naturalized" property. 

Type of coat matters more than length of coat. A soft or silky coat (meaning the actual feathering) will be misery with burrs. And it could be kinda short and still be a pain (example ear fluff).

And this is regardless of pedigree. And sometimes that softer "fuzz" around the feathering happens because of spay/neuter, but I think you have some dogs (field bred and conformation bred alike) who just naturally have more of that softer "fuzz" for feathering. 

It can be the difference between just running a slicker brush through the feathering and easily removing burrs and stickers.... or having to sit down with baby oil or whatnot to un-mat the hair tangled around the burr.


----------



## gdgli

Just an aside---because I hunt lots of thick cover in the uplands I tend to favor dogs that are at the smaller end of the spectrum yet still within the breed standard. I typically hunt thick grape tangles and similar cover for grouse. My pheasant strategy also is to hunt the thickest cover adjacent to the fields that everyone else prefers.


----------



## Swampcollie

Angulation, shoulder layback, topline, foot construction, dense firm coat, etc are all important considerations for a field dog. The real difference is they are not bred for excess. They have enough to do the work without the excess needed for the conformation ring.


----------



## Alaska7133

Swampcollie,
Do you have any good stacking photos of dogs with the attributes you are looking for in a puppy?

Also what about feet? Do you like flatter or more rounded? I asked because everyone likes to see "cat paws" in the show ring.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

Kate called it on my dogs. My one dog has silky thin fur (unfortunately she is the one that loves this stuff) and it is a pita to get all of the stuff out of her pants or whatever you call it. My other one has rougher fur and it is a dream to deal with. Nothing sticks to it and really always looks nice and brushed when its not. She can go in the muck and it just kind of slides off of her. She always dries in a third of the time.


----------



## K9-Design

I find evaluating puppies for conformation to be rather tricky in general, but it should not matter at all what "style" golden pup you are looking at. There is one standard and each point of the standard is there because it is important to the working ability of the dog. Where the conformation of the show and field styles differ are the parts of the standard left open for personal interpretation. One person's moderate feathering is another person's lack of coat, for example. The nice thing with 8 week old puppies is the differences are not as extreme between show and field type, as when they are adults. I find the easiest way to evaluate puppies for conformation is just act like they are little adults and judge them as you would in the ring. Write it down and see if you were right in 5 years LOL Structure is structure and type is type -- it should not matter what the dog's pedigree is, they should all approach and be compared to the breed standard.

Evan -- your Stanley son out-weighs my show champion by 10 pounds and my youngest pup who is halfway to his breed CH by 20 pounds....


----------



## Eowyn

Alaska7133 said:


> Maybe I'll make it a project at US golden national field trials to get some stacking photos and movement photos of some of the top dogs to evaluate on this forum. It would be interesting to know their medical history for injuries since that might be a reflection on their physical abilities. Any thoughts? Interesting project? Not many true field dogs get stacked in photos.


I think you would end up offending a lot of people. Many of those dogs (almost all I would venture to say) are people's beloved pets, and I don't think people would be to trilled about their dog being critiqued online be complete strangers. Especially with it being completely open to the public… 

I think just like show breeders, field breeders vary drastically on what they do and don't want to see and what they will and won't compromise on. I do believe conformation affects working ability though.


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> Evan -- your Stanley son out-weighs my show champion by 10 pounds and my youngest pup who is halfway to his breed CH by 20 pounds....


I'd bet he can outrun and out-mark them both as well.  I would also bet he's a bit longer and taller. That will tend to make him perform better in a muddy sticky duck marsh...all day long. He's also one of the finest water dogs I've had in over 30 years. I'll take that too...all day long!

EvanG


----------



## Claudia M

MillionsofPeaches said:


> Kate called it on my dogs. My one dog has silky thin fur (unfortunately she is the one that loves this stuff) and it is a pita to get all of the stuff out of her pants or whatever you call it. My other one has rougher fur and it is a dream to deal with. Nothing sticks to it and really always looks nice and brushed when its not. She can go in the muck and it just kind of slides off of her. She always dries in a third of the time.


WOW, if you told me that three days ago I would have completely agreed. Rose has a rougher coat and until Saturday I had no problems. Not Saturday. Both girls had burrs stuck in their coat, took forever to get it out, good thing they like to get pampered and lay there like princesses for me to get them out. Having a conformation dog helped as I had the Crown Royal Magic Touch spray on hand and it helped a bunch.


----------



## Alaska7133

Eowyn said:


> I think you would end up offending a lot of people. Many of those dogs (almost all I would venture to say) are people's beloved pets, and I don't think people would be to trilled about their dog being critiqued online be complete strangers. Especially with it being completely open to the public…
> 
> I think just like show breeders, field breeders vary drastically on what they do and don't want to see and what they will and won't compromise on. I do believe conformation affects working ability though.


Don't mean to offend anyone. Just discuss structure. We can leave off names of the dogs. I'm really curious if the dogs that are winning field trials are the dogs that have the structural attributes that we appreciate in conformation. I'll pick on something small, how about feet? In the show ring we want to see "cat paw" like feet. Is that a reasonable thing to have in a field trial dog? Or is that something that we might not like to see? Just a one of the things that we see in the show ring that I'd like to know if they are common in field trial dogs.

Last year I had a conformation friend purchase a well bred field trial dog. When she showed him to me, she covered his head with her hands and said: Don't look at his head! And yes he did have a narrow sweet face of a field dog. I thought he was wonderful.

Evan,
Lots of Stanley Steamer pups up here. I think because he lives on the west coast? They almost all have weird eyes (oddly light colored) and very curly fur.


----------



## EvanG

Alaska7133 said:


> Evan,
> Lots of Stanley Steamer pups up here. I think because he lives on the west coast? They almost all have weird eyes (oddly light colored) and very curly fur.


My wife pointed out Moose's eyes when he reached about 5 months old. She thought they looked a bit like a Chessie. I Never quite saw _that_, but they are different. I noticed that in all Stanley's pups around Vancouver. The Dogs, male and female, are of good size. But none that I've seen were excessively large. Good markers, and with good style. Nice attitudes.

As many of them are good in cold water I would also think you're seeing a fair amount of them in Alaska. The Curly coat is also a common trait in his pups, but that isn't unique.

EvanG


----------



## FTGoldens

Eowyn said:


> I think you would end up offending a lot of people. Many of those dogs (almost all I would venture to say) are people's beloved pets, and I don't think people would be to trilled about their dog being critiqued online be complete strangers. Especially with it being completely open to the public…
> 
> I think just like show breeders, field breeders vary drastically on what they do and don't want to see and what they will and won't compromise on. I do believe conformation affects working ability though.


Not so much a problem, at least for me.
Reason being is that most of us field trialers see "structure" as only one element in what it takes to make a great field trial dog. And as for "type" ... bash me if you like ... I'm not even sure what that means. 
Indeed, if Alaska looked at my pup and says that his ears are too high, his head is too narrow, and his stifle is too straight (that seems like it would be a criticism, but if not let's just pretend that it is for this example), I'd just say "Thank you, would you mind throwing some walking singles for him?"
He would still be my pet, I would still try to beat the Black Dogs with him, and Alaska and I would still be friends.

FTGoldens


----------



## TheZ's

I happened to be looking at the Topbrass website today and saw this article _Evaluating Dogs for Field Work_ which people might be interested in if they haven't seen it. Of interest to me was that there really wasn't anything in it about the dog's conformation. It seemed to mostly relate to willingness to work and endurance.


----------



## FTGoldens

Alaska7133 said:


> I'll pick on something small, how about feet? In the show ring we want to see "cat paw" like feet. Is that a reasonable thing to have in a field trial dog? Or is that something that we might not like to see? Just a one of the things that we see in the show ring that I'd like to know if they are common in field trial dogs.


I don't mean to be caddy, but I couldn't care less about the size if my dog's feet. I do, however, prefer that he have one at the end of each leg. Frankly, I have never even thought of considering the size of my dog's feet ....
Come to think of it, it seems that a field trial dog would be better off with bigger feet for swimming stronger, like putting on fins when scuba diving.
As for working ability and structure, it seems like smaller, tighter feet would put greater stress on that part of the body ... contrary to what we should be striving for, it seems to me. 

FTGoldens


----------



## gdgli

TheZ's said:


> I happened to be looking at the Topbrass website today and saw this article _Evaluating Dogs for Field Work_ which people might be interested in if they haven't seen it. Of interest to me was that there really wasn't anything in it about the dog's conformation. It seemed to mostly relate to willingness to work and endurance.


Nice article.

From the article: "Will he enthusiastically reenter the water on a double retrieve?"

That is important enough that the double retrieve is required on the WCX.


----------



## K9-Design

EvanG said:


> I'd bet he can outrun and out-mark them both as well.  I would also bet he's a bit longer and taller. That will tend to make him perform better in a muddy sticky duck marsh...all day long. He's also one of the finest water dogs I've had in over 30 years. I'll take that too...all day long!
> 
> EvanG



Umm, okay well I didn't say anything degrading about your dog, so not sure why you feel you need to degrade mine, having never seen them in person. I just remarked that he was significantly larger than my "show" dogs (and also much larger than the standard calls for). Most people think field bred goldens are small and this clearly is not the case.


----------



## gdgli

FTGoldens said:


> Not so much a problem, at least for me.
> Reason being is that most of us field trialers see "structure" as only one element in what it takes to make a great field trial dog. And as for "type" ... bash me if you like ... I'm not even sure what that means.
> Indeed, if Alaska looked at my pup and says that his ears are too high, his head is too narrow, and his stifle is too straight (that seems like it would be a criticism, but if not let's just pretend that it is for this example), I'd just say "Thank you, would you mind throwing some walking singles for him?"
> He would still be my pet, I would still try to beat the Black Dogs with him, and Alaska and I would still be friends.
> 
> FTGoldens





FTGoldens said:


> I don't mean to be caddy, but I couldn't care less about the size if my dog's feet. I do, however, prefer that he have one at the end of each leg. Frankly, I have never even thought of considering the size of my dog's feet ....
> Come to think of it, it seems that a field trial dog would be better off with bigger feet for swimming stronger, like putting on fins when scuba diving.
> As for working ability and structure, it seems like smaller, tighter feet would put greater stress on that part of the body ... contrary to what we should be striving for, it seems to me.
> 
> FTGoldens


You are pretty funny today.


----------



## Kmullen

K9-Design said:


> Umm, okay well I didn't say anything degrading about your dog, so not sure why you feel you need to degrade mine, having never seen them in person. I just remarked that he was significantly larger than my "show" dogs (and also much larger than the standard calls for). Most people think field bred goldens are small and this clearly is not the case.


Yes because longer and taller is what the standard calls for.


----------



## Claudia M

FTGoldens said:


> Not so much a problem, at least for me.
> Reason being is that most of us field trialers see "structure" as only one element in what it takes to make a great field trial dog. And as for "type" ... bash me if you like ... I'm not even sure what that means.
> Indeed, if Alaska looked at my pup and says that his ears are too high, his head is too narrow, and his stifle is too straight (that seems like it would be a criticism, but if not let's just pretend that it is for this example), I'd just say "Thank you, would you mind throwing some walking singles for him?"
> He would still be my pet, *I would still try to beat the Black Dogs with him*, and Alaska and I would still be friends.
> 
> FTGoldens


hahaha - LOVE THAT!


----------



## nolefan

Alaska7133 said:


> .... When you look at a field pup, you can't be looking only at birdiness and temperament. You are also looking at physical characteristics. I'm wondering how different those physical characteristics are than a show puppy....




Well, I was hoping for more input but it sounds to me from the responses you've received, that mental characteristics take precedent over anything physical as long as the puppy appears to be put together well enough to perform without breaking down. The only person here who has given specific examples of things they consider to be important physically for a working puppy is Swampcollie. I guess a dog may be able to compensate for physical weakness but if the mental part isn't there, it's not too easy to cover up for long.

I was looking through chapter from a Dr. Chris Zink book on canine athletes and wondering how much would be included on structure and movement. Looks pretty interesting, maybe you'd find some answers there, Stacey. Peak Performance EBook: Coaching the Canine Athlete - Canine Sports Productions, Christine Zink - Google Books


----------



## hotel4dogs

The standard calls for medium sized feet, "cat like" refers to the shape (rounded). Small, tight feet are very incorrect.




FTGoldens said:


> I don't mean to be caddy, but I couldn't care less about the size if my dog's feet. I do, however, prefer that he have one at the end of each leg. Frankly, I have never even thought of considering the size of my dog's feet ....
> Come to think of it, it seems that a field trial dog would be better off with bigger feet for swimming stronger, like putting on fins when scuba diving.
> As for working ability and structure, it seems like smaller, tighter feet would put greater stress on that part of the body ... contrary to what we should be striving for, it seems to me.
> 
> FTGoldens


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> Umm, okay well I didn't say anything degrading about your dog, so not sure why you feel you need to degrade mine, having never seen them in person. I just remarked that he was significantly larger than my "show" dogs (and also much larger than the standard calls for). Most people think field bred goldens are small and this clearly is not the case.


I'm sorry if my remarks appeared to degrade your dogs. For whatever reason, you pointed out a contrast in the weight of our dogs, and I replied with my opinion of why a dog's weight, even it may be above standard, is virtually meaningless to a dog that works for a living, and as long as the dog has ample desire and talent...and the anatomy and physiology that will sustain a stylish day's work afield.

In short, field people value different aspects of the same breeds than do show people. Whether those differences are better or worse is entirely subjective, and are guided by the goals of each owner.

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

Well when you boast that your dog can run and mark better than mine, how is that not degrading? And completely off topic? 

Other topic:
"CAT FEET" is NOT IN THE STANDARD


----------



## Claudia M

nolefan said:


> Well, I was hoping for more input but it sounds to me from the responses you've received, that mental characteristics take precedent over anything physical as long as the puppy appears to be put together well enough to perform without breaking down. The only person here who has given specific examples of things they consider to be important physically for a working puppy is Swampcollie. I guess a dog may be able to compensate for physical weakness but if the mental part isn't there, it's not too easy to cover up for long.
> 
> I was looking through chapter from a Dr. Chris Zink book on canine athletes and wondering how much would be included on structure and movement. Looks pretty interesting, maybe you'd find some answers there, Stacey. Peak Performance EBook: Coaching the Canine Athlete - Canine Sports Productions, Christine Zink - Google Books


Unfortunately Kristy here we go again with the field vs conformation. IMHO the conformation does not allow for the working dog to be in it. It has been diluted to the fancies of the conformation people. Nothing wrong with that per se except that what Stacey is looking for it will be a one in a million in the golden retriever. I feel she is many decades behind in getting that dog. I completely admire her strides into trying. Many field people have already given up. And I do not blame them based on what I see in the conformation ring. I have made a point to look at the golden conformation ring and honestly there is not one dog in that ring so far that I would have ever wanted to have or admired as an example of a golden retriever. 
I guess we should be happy that they come in all sort of shapes and color so to each their own and are happy with what they have. 
One cannot give specific examples because what works in the field vs what now makes it in the conformation ring is hundreds of miles apart. One can look at the standards all they want. It is still subjective of the judge. Most judges, and most of them have never been involved in any field activity think that a big pawed and heavy long coat is a great example of a working dog. Recently I had my flatcoat in a show. I had a nice black German made chain link collar on her (Herm Sprenger Black Stainless Steel Choke Collar) and was told by the judge that it was not a conformation type collar and went on for several minutes how they may be acceptable in the field, agility of other venues but not in conformation. That only shows the quality/experience of the judges and was so inclined to tell her that in field we use e-collars and not pretty black dainty chain collars. I was afraid that she may have fainted in front if me or turned into the Witch of the West and disqualified me - but I was certainly ready to walk out of her ring after that experience. 

It is frustrating especially when you do it yourself and you do not hire a pro or follow the judges all over the country so the more they see your face and you dog the more you hope and pray that you end up with that CH.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Umm, okay well I didn't say anything degrading about your dog, so not sure why you feel you need to degrade mine, having never seen them in person. I just remarked that he was significantly larger than my "show" dogs (*and also much larger than the standard calls for*). Most people think field bred goldens are small and this clearly is not the case.


So you can degrade someone's dog and in your comment? BTW it was nothing about the standard. The comment was all about the outweight for the champion show dog or halfway to champion show dog.

But one cannot bet you on outrunning or out-marking your dog? Since when betting someone is degrading someone's dog unless you do not think they can win!? 

hahah - I would personally like to see how they all stack up in this bet!

Personally, if I had a show champion and master hunter dog I would have welcomed the invitation and saw it as a privilege to run against a pro trainer's dog.


----------



## Kmullen

I definitely saw it as a degrade. Evan mentioned before that coat of show dogs would put more weight on them. I think that is why anney pointed out the weight. And having a taller and longer dog is Not a part of the standard... It just isn't. And the standard states 65-75 pounds, so yes I would say 85 pounds is not to the standard. Does that mean he is not a great dog? No! I am sure he is an awesome dog.

Do I agree that Goldens can have too much coat? Absolutely. But, I would never compare a Dog's ability to another without watching the dog run in a hunt test.... It is just rude.

Don't ever understand how this needed to be some kind of competition.


----------



## Megora

To follow up on what Stacey was asking - you know what would be really cool? 

A lot of field people have their dogs sitting or front view or semi side view running with ducks in the mouth when taking pictures of them. 

It would probably be helpful if as a rule they had some kind of stacked picture to show off these dogs - particularly those who have gotten their CCA's (meaning not over or undersized dogs). Which they could use when these conversations come up and/or if they are talking about the excellent conformation of their dogs.

Without proper pictures.... you can't judge a dog's conformation or have a good idea (no need to critique and set off tempers) how these dogs are put together - particularly those who are getting field titles and are being used for breeding. 

You can't really go back and get these pictures of dogs who have passed on - even while they are still being used for breedings or are prominent in field pedigrees - and that's a shame.



^ Here's an example of what I was suggesting - doesn't have to be anything over the top.


----------



## TrailDogs

Stacey, I don't have stacked photos but here is a sitting photo where you can see some of the dog. This dog has no conformation breeding. She is 62lbs. and 22 inches. In her CCA evaluation she got a 7.5, an 8 and a 9 for 'general appearance'. For breed type she got an 8.5, an 8 and an 8. The only thing that every judge agreed on 100 percent was temperament. They all gave her 10's. Feel free to critique what you see. I have thick skin and will not be offended.

Good structure is good structure no matter what the breeding is. That being said, perfect structure is not my number 1 criteria in puppy selection. Good eye contact, drive, tractability come first as long as the structure is adequate for the rigorous training of a field dog. I can assure you dogs that do advanced field work would not hold up with bad structure. 
I do prefer the field coat. I am also including a picture of her coat with burrs. She literally had thousands of these after retrieving pheasant all day and they combed right out of her.


----------



## Alaska7133

Last year I took photos for my club's CCA. I was told to take a standing side photo and a front sitting photo of the dog. I kick myself now for not taking the time to stack the dog and getting a really great photo that represented the dog at its best. 

So let's talk about a stacking photo. What should be a stack photo? I would think that the dog should be stacked as if it was in the show ring. Meaning the hocks are vertical and the front legs are not posting. The head should be brought up and forward over the chest. Catch me if I'm wrong. The goal would be to show off the dog with the best possible look. I would use bait to keep their attention for the photos and a light show collar to show off the neck as much as possible. The idea of stacking the dogs in the same position so that they are comparable. 

Traildogs, your dogs are sitting, so it's a very hard to tell the shoulder layback or the rear angulation. Good stack photos are hard to get. It takes 2 people, the right light and the right back ground and lots of patience.

I do believe that every dog no matter it's breeding should have good stacking photos as a record of the dog's conformation. It's a record of the dog's structure. I looked at long dead Goldens I've owned, and darn it I don't have one with good stacking photos. So I can't really tell is the dog has a short upper arm, or short hocks, a dip in its back, etc. I think it's good to have that record. Those stacking photos generally only happen for show dogs, not for all the other non-show dogs of the world. 

So now I'm on a mission to take stacking photos of field dogs. To show what a talented hard working dog's conformation really is. When I'm at the US golden national field trial, I will be taking photos of field dogs. I'll have my grooming tools, show collar and leash, and my bait. We will get some good stack photos of field dogs. I think this will be fun!


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> Well when you boast that your dog can run and mark better than mine, how is that not degrading?


I've hunted nearly all my 67 years. One of the fun aspects of it is going to the blind with my buddies, or walking the corn stubble for pheasant, and spending the day ribbing each other over missed shots, and almost constantly jabbing one another that "my dog's better than yours". I suppose it's a matter of how you're wired, but you can't get into a discussion of show dogs and field dogs without somebody's nickers in a wad over something, even though there was no real insult intended. 

The reason we have field games to play was that you can only fire off those shots about one dog being better than another without ending up with a contest to see which is which. That's exactly how field trials began. And they still jab each other today, and then laugh and wish each other well.

For crying out loud get over it and move the discussion along. I've already offered an apology. 

EvanG


----------



## Jige

I have been showing Jige in UKC conformation he has his CH and we are working on his Grand Ch title. My sister took this picture it isn't the best stacking photo.


Right now he weight 76# and he is around 23"


----------



## Claudia M

my all time favorite: Pedigree: Comstocks Steelcity Superman ** MH WCX CCA OS


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> my all time favorite: Pedigree: Comstocks Steelcity Superman ** MH WCX CCA OS


Flip's great grandfather


----------



## hollyk

Claudia M said:


> my all time favorite: Pedigree: Comstocks Steelcity Superman ** MH WCX CCA OS


Just curious, what is it about this one that makes it your favorite?


----------



## hotel4dogs

The verbage is not, but the description is:
"Feet -- medium size, round, compact and well knuckled, with thick pads. Excess hair may be trimmed to show natural size and contour. Splayed or hare feet to be faulted..."
that's the shape of a cat foot:
"'cat feet' are the result of short third digital bones. These compact feet require less energy to lift, allowing the dog to conserve energy and increase his endurance in the field." (as versus) "Hare feet are elongated with the two center toes longer than the side toes. Breeds with hare feet include several of the toy breeds, Samoyed, Bedlington Terrier, Skye Terrier, Borzoi, and Greyhound".




K9-Design said:


> Well when you boast that your dog can run and mark better than mine, how is that not degrading? And completely off topic?
> 
> Other topic:
> "CAT FEET" is NOT IN THE STANDARD


----------



## my4goldens

Claudia M said:


> my all time favorite: Pedigree: Comstocks Steelcity Superman ** MH WCX CCA OS


My Raider's Grandpa, love the look of this dog.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Raider is better looking!




my4goldens said:


> My Raider's Grandpa, love the look of this dog.


----------



## my4goldens

hotel4dogs said:


> Raider is better looking!


Ah, thanks ! Hope the dogs were good this past weekend. And they will see you soon.


----------



## EvanG

Alaska7133 said:


> I'm curious about field puppies. When you look at a field pup, you can't be looking only at birdiness and temperament. You are also looking at physical characteristics. I'm wondering how different those physical characteristics are than a show puppy. Anyone know what the differences or similarities might be?


What happened to the field dogs? 

EvanG


----------



## gdgli

Physical characteristics:

I always ask the breeder: within the standard, smaller rather than larger, don't want the fluffy coat, wavy or straight matters not, color is irrelevant.

This is based upon my needs as a hunter. I don't hunt big water, I do lots of upland shooting with very heavy cover. 

I cannot discuss the finer points of conformation.


----------



## Claudia M

my4goldens said:


> My Raider's Grandpa, love the look of this dog.


I have looked at Morningstar dogs and have seen Steeler in many of their pedigree. Very nice pedigree with Sparky, Bow and Poika and it does not have the dogs that I try to avoid (which I shall not name).


----------



## Alaska7133

I think when I get those stack photos we'll get a good idea of what happened to field dogs Evan. I think we'll find that not much has changed. I bet the conformation of field dogs might be a little straighter in the shoulders and rear legs. It might be that show dogs have a bit of an exaggeration in that department. The feet may not be cat paws, they might have longer toes. But I don't know until we really look hard and see. U.S. golden national will be the best place to see a lot of today's great field goldens. Flash, Lucy, Trek, and many others will be there. I think I will see some beautiful dogs. I think we'll see some particular influences of a few field trial dogs over a lot of them, just like we would see dogs like Kirby and Chaos influencing show dogs to a great degree today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Holway Barty had a huge influence in field dogs. That was a few generations ago. Maybe Flash will be the field influence of today and tomorrow.


----------



## TrailDogs

EvanG said:


> What happened to the field dogs?
> 
> EvanG


I'd say nothing happened to the field dogs, they look very similar to the goldens of the past. 
CH Topbrass Delta Dawn CDX

There are many more early breed champions listed on the Topbrass website. They look like field dogs to me.


----------



## EvanG

Alaska7133 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Holway Barty had a huge influence in field dogs. That was a few generations ago. Maybe Flash will be the field influence of today and tomorrow.


Yes he did. And for fieldwork that's a good thing. I'm grateful that FC Windbreaker's Mighty Mo was _not_ bred more than he was. Too lean and fine boned. Great talent, but not much of a physical specimen.

EvanG


----------



## hollyk

I wonder when the first GRCA National was held? 
It might be interesting to get as many stacked photo's of the winners as far back as you can. Do you think if you looked at them side by side year after year you could see the influences of popular dogs and/or trends? You could then look at pedigrees, how they were related and produced. (Yeesh, I already spend way too much time on K9data.)
It might be interesting if going forward the GRCA documented both a head and a stacked shot of the winning performance dogs or do they do this already?

Stacey, your questions and thoughts always make me think.


----------



## Alaska7133

The first GRCA was held 76 years ago in 1938. It was both conformation and field trials, nothing else as far as I can tell. Every year we have both conformation and field trials at every US golden national. The hunt tests, agility, obedience, etc. I believe were added later. Hunt tests have only been at 8 or so US golden nationals. All that information is in the current US golden national premium.

I have received the list of all the DC goldens and FC goldens through 2008. I've been working on putting together links to their k9data into one document. K9data is my only source of photos. That's why I think it's important to document those dogs alive today in photos that really show their conformation. All too often that record on k9data has no photo.


----------



## solinvictus

Golden Retriever Club of America (GRCA) HISTORY: GRCA National Specialty Winners This is a list with the names up to 2007

GRCA-SPECIALTY:GRCA National Specialty Winners:1950 This one has pictures of some of the winners for show.


----------



## Ljilly28

I dont see anything "catty" about not caring about the correct foot, however if breed type is not preserved in its details, why not just breed labs, chessies, and goldens together on their talent for their work? Caring about the details of breed type is a part of caring about preservation of the breed itself in specificity, as opposed to a generic retriever. Do you think there is no functional difference between a hare's foot or a cat's foot, and that golden breed judges only care about this for cosmetic reasons? Front feet support 70 percent of the dog's weight, so splayed feet and flat feet can really curtail the length of a dog's career. The correct foot is functional for a golden, with toes closer to the heel and shorter third digit, they can trot long distances.


----------



## FTGoldens

Ljilly28 said:


> ...if breed type is not preserved in its details, ...


I believe that's what the field folks have been saying ....


----------



## Kmullen

See...Neither dog is Perfect!!! Field lines have things to improve on and so do the conformation lines.....WHY do we always have to degrade eachother...


----------



## FTGoldens

EvanG said:


> Yes he did. And for fieldwork that's a good thing. I'm grateful that FC Windbreaker's Mighty Mo was _not_ bred more than he was. Too lean and fine boned. Great talent, but not much of a physical specimen.
> 
> EvanG


That's interesting ... I never saw Mo in person. But he's got a daughter currently running trials, an FC girl, who is not lean and fine boned. She's a good-sized girl.


----------



## FTGoldens

kfayard said:


> See...Neither dog is Perfect!!! Field lines have things to improve on and so do the conformation lines.....WHY do we always have to degrade eachother...


Agreed! I'm still looking for that perfect Golden!


----------



## TrailDogs

FTGoldens said:


> Agreed! I'm still looking for that perfect Golden!


Not me, mine is perfect!


----------



## Swampcollie

kfayard said:


> See...Neither dog is Perfect!!! Field lines have things to improve on and so do the conformation lines.....WHY do we always have to degrade eachother...


Because each camp find the others dogs to be incorrect. That's why the split in the breed occured in the first place. The conformation of the field dogs is largely unchanged over the last 70 years. In the Conformation ring things have changed a great deal, and the dogs are just not the same anymore. Some Conformation folks believe they have "Improved" the breed. The Field folks don't believe so, too much was given up to acheive those changes. 

So there is a split in the breed and it isn't going to close up anytime soon.


----------



## Ljilly28

kfayard said:


> See...Neither dog is Perfect!!! Field lines have things to improve on and so do the conformation lines.....WHY do we always have to degrade eachother...


Best comment 


I grew up with actively hunted goldens, and my field golden Finn I love with all my heart. The sneering just pushes the humans artificially further and further apart, thus the dogs follow.


----------



## EvanG

FTGoldens said:


> That's interesting ... I never saw Mo in person. But he's got a daughter currently running trials, an FC girl, who is not lean and fine boned. She's a good-sized girl.


It's been quite a while since I've seen any Mo pups. He's been gone for a long time. But when I was still training pro and running trials a number of Midwestern trial people bred a variety of bitches to him. They were physically pretty uniform. Slim and small boned. Stylish and good markers, so-so water dogs, and on the small end of standard weight. Obviously there are always exceptions.

A lot of folks in this discussion seem almost eager to be offended about one school or another. If you're show-inclined you have that preference. If you're field-inclined you have those preferences. Why is that not okay? Each demographic values different attributes. Great! Why must we necessarily exist in acrimony about it? 

I think all that was asked about was what the OP was "..._wondering how different those physical characteristics (of field bred pups) are than a show puppy. Anyone know what the differences or similarities might be?_" It appears only a handful can discuss it without feeling "degraded" or "insulted". Good luck finding middle ground. 

EvanG


----------



## nolefan

Have you examined the GRCA's CCA requirements? Do you see any value in it? Do you think that the HRC and AKC higher level hunt test requirements do enough to help maintain correct instincts in the breed? 

I prefer more moderate and athletic looking dogs. I sure don't want them to lose the best mental characteristics (or physical) that made them so special since day one. it does bother me that I don't see more field leaning people talking more about correct structure. Maybe they do and I don't see it.....



Swampcollie said:


> So there is a split in the breed and it isn't going to close up anytime soon.


----------



## nolefan

EvanG said:


> ...........
> I think all that was asked about was what the OP was "..._wondering how different those physical characteristics (of field bred pups) are than a show puppy. Anyone know what the differences or similarities might be?_" It appears only a handful can discuss it without feeling "degraded" or "insulted". Good luck finding middle ground.
> 
> EvanG


Same question.... Have you examined the GRCA's CCA requirements? Do you see any value in it? Do you think that the HRC and AKC higher level hunt test requirements do enough to help maintain correct instincts in the breed?


----------



## TrailDogs

nolefan said:


> it does bother me that I don't see more field leaning people talking more about correct structure. Maybe they do and I don't see it.....


The population of this forum leans more towards conformation so there is less discussion of field dogs. 
The field people I know, myself included, are more concerned with what's between the dogs ears then having perfect structure and coat. 
I do believe it is just different priorities. And there is truth to the statement 'form follows function'. The structure of the field dogs, which hasn't changed much since the breed first came to this country, still works so why change it?


----------



## Alaska7133

Nolefan,
I think the CCA is a wonderful thing. I was our club photographer for our CCA last year. I do wonder why I wasn't asked to take stack photos, not just nice photos of the dog with the owner. I think stacking should have been done to really have a record for the CCA of what the dog passed with. I think the CCA is an important thing to have. I should review my DVD of how to judge a CCA again. There is one available on the GRCA website. Oh and the CCA for Canada is the same as the US.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

is there anything that needs to be done to prepare for a CCA? We have ours in March. I know totally off topic...*hiding*

And for the record I want a dog of each side of the fence


----------



## K9-Design

Swampcollie said:


> Because each camp find the others dogs to be incorrect. That's why the split in the breed occured in the first place. The conformation of the field dogs is largely unchanged over the last 70 years. In the Conformation ring things have changed a great deal, and the dogs are just not the same anymore. Some Conformation folks believe they have "Improved" the breed. The Field folks don't believe so, too much was given up to acheive those changes.
> 
> So there is a split in the breed and it isn't going to close up anytime soon.


The conformation of the field dog may have not changed perceptively over the decades, but that is because they are not judged on their conformation. The show dog IS. The field dog is judged on his mental capacities as played out in an athletic endeavor. Would you say that the MENTAL characteristics of the field trial bred golden has changed or improved over the years? Do you think dogs of today are better markers, more trainable, more focused, more biddable than dogs of 50 years ago? I think the answer is a resounding yes. The level of difficulty of the modern field trial is a testament that dogs are improving and changing. If they weren't, we could still stump them with a field trial setup from the 50s. (Yes -- training techniques have changed as well.) Much like the show goldens have evolved to fit the nature of the game we play. I don't necessarily think this is bad. 

Then again, I may have show goldens but I do NOT think that field trial bred dogs are incorrect! I embrace the diversity in our breed. Something for everyone while still being typey, functional, healthy and sound.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> The field people I know, myself included, are more concerned with what's between the dogs ears then having perfect structure and coat.


I truly believe this is the case for most. Which I guess is OK - but breeding primarily based on drive (which I think a lot of conformation goldens are truly lacking) vs looks.... it does layer on the big or small faults that would make the dogs unacceptable for breeding back to conformation where a more typey dog is preferred. 

You look at that screenshow that Solinvictus shared on this thread and looking at older pics on K9data, the conformation line golden has not changed very much in structure since the 70's. 

Prior to the late 60's and early 70's - it seemed like you had all kinds of different looks. Some I liked, some I pretty much did not like.... but did not regulate or become more typey until the 70's. After which point you saw differences in head and coat, but the overall look of the dog seemed to remain the same. 

Even now - you have the same differences in the conformation ring. More coat here, more head there, more size here, more color there.... but overall look of the dog is very standard. Or seems to be from my naïve opinion. :curtain:


----------



## flatcoated

MillionsofPeaches said:


> And for the record I want a dog of each side of the fence



What about the elusive CH/MH? Realize that's a tough row to hoe these days, but anyone who tries should be celebrated. And those who achieve it ought to be remembered and emulated.

ETA: And yes, I do realize Anney has one. HUGE accomplishment, so much bigger than either title on its own.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> The structure of the field dogs, which hasn't changed much since the breed first came to this country, still works so why change it?


I keep hearing this. Can you elaborate or provide support for that statement, please?

To my eyes and ears, early Goldens were all over the place in terms of structure. So, I don't know how you make that statement unless you pick a particular dog or set of dogs, exclude the others, and say, "See? That's how they have always been." Seems to me that Goldens of the past were a whole bunch of different structures. The earlier dogs do have some things in common that are different from modern conformation dogs, but as for structure, seems to me there are no universalities.

Also, it seems to me that saying they haven't changed much from the first ones might not necessarily be a great thing. Anything that hasn't improved in a hundred years is probably not so great these days. Even human athletes have improved substantially in that time.

So, I guess this is a long way of saying I keep hearing that field dog structure is just like the original Goldens, while conformation dogs have ruined the breed (or words to that effect -- indeed, earlier in this thread it was said that not a single conformation dog on earth is a good example of a Golden Retriever, an inflammatory comment if ever there was one), but I've not seen that in my many hours of researching dogs from the distant past (I'm a total K9data geek  ). Instead, back then I see dogs that have a very wide range of structures, and some of them not necessarily good. So, how is it that "the structure of the [modern] field dogs . . . hasn't changed much since the breed first came to this country?" I either don't see it or don't understand what you mean by it. Unless you just mean that dogs from the past had less bone, leaner builds and shorter coats. If that's all you mean, well, yeah.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

Claudia, no, I Mean in the looks category. I truly like the looks of both types. I can't choose!
And as far as temperament it goes the same, I like the high strung ones as well as the mellower types. I talk to George about this all the time


----------



## Alaska7133

MOP,
you can buy the CCA video from GRCA online: Conformation Certificate Video


----------



## FTGoldens

K9-Design said:


> The conformation of the field dog may have not changed perceptively over the decades, but that is because they are not judged on their conformation. The show dog IS. The field dog is judged on his mental capacities as played out in an athletic endeavor. Would you say that the MENTAL characteristics of the field trial bred golden has changed or improved over the years? Do you think dogs of today are better markers, more trainable, more focused, more biddable than dogs of 50 years ago? I think the answer is a resounding yes. The level of difficulty of the modern field trial is a testament that dogs are improving and changing. If they weren't, we could still stump them with a field trial setup from the 50s. (Yes -- training techniques have changed as well.) Much like the show goldens have evolved to fit the nature of the game we play. I don't necessarily think this is bad.
> 
> Then again, I may have show goldens but I do NOT think that field trial bred dogs are incorrect! I embrace the diversity in our breed. Something for everyone while still being typey, functional, healthy and sound.


K9-DESIGN, 
Very well stated! 
It's no secret that I speak only from the field side; hence, I appreciate your perceptions from somewhere closer to the middle.
We mustn't forget that the field trial Goldens must beat the Labradors to reach the highest level of success (i.e., the FC title); you identified many of the evolving characteristics (I'd add a couple others, but you hit some main ones). It's quite challenging ... on an annual basis, on average only 1 - 2 Goldens earn the FC title. 
As for structure, I believe that one of the conformation judges who visited the field trial commented positively on the structure of most of the field trial dogs. I'll just have to take her word for it.
We CAN be one big happy non-acrimonious family!
FTGoldens


----------



## nolefan

TrailDogs said:


> The population of this forum leans more towards conformation so there is less discussion of field dogs.
> The field people I know, myself included, are more concerned with what's between the dogs ears then having perfect structure and coat.
> I do believe it is just different priorities. And there is truth to the statement 'form follows function'. The structure of the field dogs, which hasn't changed much since the breed first came to this country, still works so why change it?


I guess it's all about perception, because to be honest I have always thought that it was a fairly equal split with the people who tend to be most outspoken here, especially if you think of field people along with other performance areas like agility. 

I absolutely agree that field people tend to be place higher priority on the mental than the physical. And certainly it is different priorities, although the more I learn about structure and condition the more I am beginning to understand about why some of the way a Golden Retriever is put together is so important for doing the work efficiently and without being injury prone.


----------



## nolefan

Alaska7133 said:


> Nolefan,
> I think the CCA is a wonderful thing. I was our club photographer for our CCA last year. I do wonder why I wasn't asked to take stack photos, not just nice photos of the dog with the owner. I think stacking should have been done to really have a record for the CCA of what the dog passed with. I think the CCA is an important thing to have. I should review my DVD of how to judge a CCA again. There is one available on the GRCA website. Oh and the CCA for Canada is the same as the US.


Stacey, maybe next year you should suggest it


----------



## nolefan

FTGoldens said:


> .....you identified many of the evolving characteristics (I'd add a couple others, but you hit some main ones)...


She mentioned "better markers, more trainable, more focused, more biddable"
I would love for you to add your additions to this list.... Love this conversation


----------



## hotel4dogs

This could be an interesting discussion for an entire thread.
In my opinion, a resounding NO. You can get a MH on a dog without the dog ever touching a live bird. You can get a MH on a dog without ever knowing if the dog knows how to find a bird, work the wind, work the cover, etc. You can get a MH on a dog without ever learning if the dog has the courage and persistence to track down a crippled bird that has run for a long distance. 
Those are the correct instincts. Hunt tests are wonderful, and tons of fun, but they bear little resemblance to real hunting. While it will never happen, I would love to see the upland portion brought back to the hunt tests. (And the use of live birds in Canada). 
"Primarily a hunting dog...."


----------



## K9-Design

hotel4dogs said:


> This could be an interesting discussion for an entire thread.
> In my opinion, a resounding NO. You can get a MH on a dog without the dog ever touching a live bird. You can get a MH on a dog without ever knowing if the dog knows how to find a bird, work the wind, work the cover, etc. You can get a MH on a dog without ever learning if the dog has the courage and persistence to track down a crippled bird that has run for a long distance.
> Those are the correct instincts. Hunt tests are wonderful, and tons of fun, but they bear little resemblance to real hunting. While it will never happen, I would love to see the upland portion brought back to the hunt tests. (And the use of live birds in Canada).
> "Primarily a hunting dog...."


Barb, I honestly do not know a MH who hasn't done all of the above. I would recommend running some retriever Master tests yourself before passing such judgment. If a retriever MH isn't good enough to gauge the hunting value of a golden retriever, what standardized test is?


----------



## Loisiana

The field breeders I know do care about structure and looks. They try to breed dogs that meet the standard. They don't really care if the dog could be successful in the show ring, but they are striving to breed "golden retrievers" that for the most part could pass a CCA.

These are hunt test people though, I don't really know field trial people.


----------



## flatcoated

MillionsofPeaches said:


> Claudia, no, I Mean in the looks category. I truly like the looks of both types. I can't choose!
> And as far as temperament it goes the same, I like the high strung ones as well as the mellower types. I talk to George about this all the time



Oops, not Claudia, don't want to confuse anyone (assuming you were actually referencing my post).

Totally understand the appeal of both types. I was just trying to point out that promotion of dual purpose dogs is something worth pursuing and celebrating. A superbly constructed field dog with enough type to excel in the breed ring has something of great value to contribute in both directions.


----------



## hollyk

solinvictus said:


> Golden Retriever Club of America (GRCA) HISTORY: GRCA National Specialty Winners This is a list with the names up to 2007
> 
> GRCA-SPECIALTY:GRCA National Specialty Winners:1950 This one has pictures of some of the winners for show.


I didn't realize that was on the GRCA website. Thanks!


----------



## Claudia M

flatcoated said:


> Oops, not Claudia, don't want to confuse anyone (assuming you were actually referencing my post).
> 
> Totally understand the appeal of both types. I was just trying to point out that promotion of dual purpose dogs is something worth pursuing and celebrating. A superbly constructed field dog with enough type to excel in the breed ring has something of great value to contribute in both directions.


But that is exactly where the split of the Golden Retriever is causing problems. This split started well before the fifties and as time went on the field people have completely given up on it. And what is more sad is that also field trainers have given up on the goldens.


----------



## hollyk

Claudia M said:


> But that is exactly where the split of the Golden Retriever is causing problems. This split started well before the fifties and as time went on the field people have completely given up on it. And what is more sad is that also field trainers have given up on the goldens.


Not all is lost, after all this guy is tied for 2nd on the Derby List.

:wavey:Pedigree: Topbrass Hawks Blackhawk ** WC


----------



## K9-Design

hollyk said:


> Not all is lost, after all this guy is tied for 2nd on the Derby List.
> 
> :wavey:Pedigree: Topbrass Hawks Blackhawk ** WC



Hey that's my buddy Ernie's dog  SUPER nice guy 
And guess what -- he wants a show dog -- to try to build a dual champion....


----------



## hotel4dogs

I do. I know people who "test shop" or "club shop" before running tests. Not unlike the breed ring. Although the difficulty of getting into tests now may eliminate the shopping.
I think the MH tests are very hard, and I'm not saying they're not. I think they show a very high degree if intelligence and trainability. We are training at that level, and I know what it entails. But I don't think they necessarily show hunting instinct, as they don't even resemble hunting.
I don't think any standardized test does.

edit to add....I don't mean to imply at all that all MH dogs don't have hunting instincts, nor that all people (or even a majority) who get a MH are test shopping, any more than I would say that people who got a CH are judge shopping. Just that it can, and does, happen. What I'm trying to say is that, while it's the only yardstick we have, it doesn't say for sure whether or not a dog has hunting instinct, only that they are very trainable. By the same token, having a CH before the name doesn't automatically mean the dog possesses the physical attributes required in a hunting dog. Heck there are some CH dogs who aren't even to the Golden standard. And as we well know, there's also a huge difference between a dog who goes and lives with a pro for 3 years and takes 20 attempts to get the MH, versus one who is owner trained and handled, and gets a MH in just a few attempts. So the MH title doesn't tell you everything you need to know if you are looking to see if the dog in question maintains the qualities needed to make a good hunting dog. And Anney, I was NOT implying anything about your dogs. You know I think your dogs are amazing. Your reply sounded almost like you took it personally, and it wasn't intended that way.



K9-Design said:


> Barb, I honestly do not know a MH who hasn't done all of the above. I would recommend running some retriever Master tests yourself before passing such judgment. If a retriever MH isn't good enough to gauge the hunting value of a golden retriever, what standardized test is?


----------



## FTGoldens

Loisiana said:


> The field breeders I know do care about structure and looks. They try to breed dogs that meet the standard. They don't really care if the dog could be successful in the show ring, but they are striving to breed "golden retrievers" that for the most part could pass a CCA.
> 
> These are hunt test people though, I don't really know field trial people.


If you come to the Specialty ... let's say the Cheraw venue ... I can probably get you in touch with just a few field trial people so you can get to know some! :wavey: 
Most of them aren't too bad. (Just ask Alaska ... she met a few of them last year.)

FTGoldens


----------



## FTGoldens

hollyk said:


> Not all is lost, after all this guy is tied for 2nd on the Derby List.
> 
> :wavey:Pedigree: Topbrass Hawks Blackhawk ** WC



Nice dog! Nice guy!


----------



## FTGoldens

Claudia M said:


> And what is more sad is that also field trainers have given up on the goldens.


HEY! :no: 
I resemble that remark! 

FTGoldens


----------



## Kmullen

But see, here is the thing, Field people might have given up on Goldens....but is that really breeders fault? 

Goldens were never intended to be LABS!!! We are trying hard to make them that way.

Do I agree that "show breeders" should focus a little more on Field work? Yes, but I hate when people compare labs to Goldens, like they are supposed to be the same breed.

If we are going to keep comparing labs to goldens, of course we are going to get upset because the majority of labs are better at Field than goldens. I just don't understand why we always have to compare and try to do what labs do....

I don't want a lab, I want a golden retriever.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

Do you think that the majority of labs are better at field AND hunt over goldens? I think labs are awesome but honestly I like the way goldens think. they aren't as robotic as labs from my limited experience.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I think it would depend on what type of hunting you are talking about.



MillionsofPeaches said:


> Do you think that the majority of labs are better at field AND hunt over goldens? I think labs are awesome but honestly I like the way goldens think. they aren't as robotic as labs from my limited experience.


----------



## K9-Design

Hi Barb thanks for the clarification and don't worry I wasn't taking it personally! Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's fine, you and I just see a MH title differently. I think it is few and far between that a dog with an MH title was simply "trained" to respond to the test and didn't have the joy or natural instincts to make him want to do the work and be a good hunter. I can't imagine the amount of training involved to produce a MH out of a dog who didn't have it. It's hard enough with those who DO!  I don't think test, judge or venue shopping is anywhere near as rampant in hunt tests as it is the show ring. The dog either does it or he doesn't. Now are there some sorry-azz dogs running in MH? Yup. Because their owners are determined. And even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. So it's certainly not the be-all end-all. Kristy asked if the upper level HTs or any sort of FT was enough of a gauge to "prove" a golden's hunting ability, you said a resounding NO, and I have to disagree. And that's OK


----------



## Swampcollie

nolefan said:


> Have you examined the GRCA's CCA requirements? Do you see any value in it? Do you think that the HRC and AKC higher level hunt test requirements do enough to help maintain correct instincts in the breed?
> 
> I prefer more moderate and athletic looking dogs. I sure don't want them to lose the best mental characteristics (or physical) that made them so special since day one. it does bother me that I don't see more field leaning people talking more about correct structure. Maybe they do and I don't see it.....


The vast majority of Field bred dogs that undertake the CCA, Pass the CCA. (and no, I don't place a lot of value in it at this point in time.)

I do think the AKC Hunt Test Program is a good tool to demonstrate that the necessary raw materials needed for a good working dog are in fact present in a dog. (It could be even better. There is room for improvement.) 

Moderation is really the heart of the matter. "Who" decides what "moderate" is? Who decides what is "too much" or "too little", and by what criteria is that decision made?

The breed standard defines the purpose of the breed (a working hunting dog). When deciding what "moderate" is it should be viewed through the prism of the stated purpose for the breed. Too much of something is just as bad as too little.


----------



## FTGoldens

kfayard said:


> 1. I just don't understand why we always have to compare and try to do what labs do....
> 2. I don't want a lab, I want a golden retriever.


1. I compare the two breeds because that's what FT judges do at every trial I've been to (well, except for the Specialty  ). They even compare each dog within both breeds (and maybe even compare a Chessie every now and then).

2. Me too!!! That's why I show up a FTs with my gold (and red) dogs, with the intent to kick some lab butt.

FTGoldens


----------



## hotel4dogs

I guess I just interpreted it differently because Kristy specifically asked about "instinct", and I don't think (you're right, it's only my opinion and we can agree to disagree) the hunt tests really test instinct. Ability, yes. Instinct, no. Heck, I spend most of the time training for HTs to get him to do things that are totally contrary to what his instincts tell him to do!!!
As far as how I see the MH, I see it after your dogs' names....not after my dog's name!




K9-Design said:


> Hi Barb thanks for the clarification and don't worry I wasn't taking it personally! Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's fine, you and I just see a MH title differently. I think it is few and far between that a dog with an MH title was simply "trained" to respond to the test and didn't have the joy or natural instincts to make him want to do the work and be a good hunter. I can't imagine the amount of training involved to produce a MH out of a dog who didn't have it. It's hard enough with those who DO!  I don't think test, judge or venue shopping is anywhere near as rampant in hunt tests as it is the show ring. The dog either does it or he doesn't. Now are there some sorry-azz dogs running in MH? Yup. Because their owners are determined. And even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. So it's certainly not the be-all end-all. Kristy asked if the upper level HTs or any sort of FT was enough of a gauge to "prove" a golden's hunting ability, you said a resounding NO, and I have to disagree. And that's OK


----------



## Swampcollie

Anney, Barb is correct that it is possible in some areas to get an MH without ever seeing a live bird. Some areas in the northeast prohibit the use of flyers and live ammunition. So if a dog were only run in those areas it would never see a flyer.

Barb, the rules still allow upland work in AKC Retriever Hunt Tests. It is simply a matter of numbers that prevents most judges from doing an upland test design. Upland tests burn up a lot of time. Trying to run 160 master dogs through a upland test in addition to the other required elements could take a couple of extra days to complete.


----------



## Swampcollie

MillionsofPeaches said:


> Do you think that the majority of labs are better at field AND hunt over goldens? I think labs are awesome but honestly I like the way goldens think. they aren't as robotic as labs from my limited experience.


Statistically speaking the Goldens outperform the Labs. More Labs earn field titles because there are FAR more Labs playing the games.


----------



## EvanG

MillionsofPeaches said:


> Do you think that the majority of labs are better at field AND hunt over goldens? I think labs are awesome but honestly I like the way goldens think. they aren't as robotic as labs from my limited experience.


My experience has been opposite. But it's still a matter of which dogs we're evaluating. There surely have been some interesting perceptions in this discussion. I think the two factions in the Labrador breed are much further apart than among Goldens. I have to assume that means Golden breeders have generally done a bit better job with balance. The Show vs Field Lab folks appear to be far more polarized.










Above is the AKC example for Labradors.









Example of show-type Lab.









Fairly typical example of a field-bred Lab.

The field-bred Labs vary quite a bit more, in my opinion, than field-bred Goldens. I've only observed a few thousand of them, and most have been non-show. But some show-bred Labs have been brought to my seminars, and some have had great desire to work. But their bodies could not take the stress for very long. I don't think either one matches the AKC example.

EvanG


----------



## Alaska7133

Lately I've been hanging out with a lot of lab people. They are SHOW lab people. You think we've had a split in the breed? Try labs. Not only have the labs split, but the people too. The field lab people do not hang out with show lab people. Those show lab people are ostracized by the field lab people (at least up here anyway). I really feel sorry for the show lab people and how they are treated within their breed. So I train with them and we have fun. Their dogs are fat yes, but they are birdy and some have a lot of drive. Some of those show labs could be pretty incredible in the field if their owners fed them a little less! I've learned I have to be a little careful when talking to show lab people about their dogs being a little, shall we say, FAT! But fat is in their breed standard actually. 

What I don't want to see if the same rift in lab owners happen in golden owners. Right now I think most of us can hang out together and enjoy our dogs together. I worry about animosity happening in goldens. When I ran my girl earlier this year in a derby, I worried that the field golden people would be asking me why the hell am I here? Instead we had fun together and I was very comfortable. But lab people don't seem to be that way. They don't mix together. I would hate to see our breed come to that.


----------



## Megora

Through obedience classes - I've seen a "nice" middle-ground between the show and field labs. 

While we can argue all day about what people see when they look at a show bred golden.... you can use mine as an example since majority of goldens his age in the rings around here have the same amount of coats and same weights (between 65 and 75 pounds)

I do prefer a more in-between style of lab.... where you have big boned and big headed labs with more leg and less weight. Like in the AKC depiction... as opposed to what is shown in the rings.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

I know and have trained with two people with show labs. The one is super fat and very slow but the other one she is a good trainer and takes it seriously. She keeps hers pretty lean but of course they are bulky and not sleek like the field labs, which I adore their look. 

I get a LOT Of slack on my dog being too thin but not by the field people. The thing is I've noticed when she even puts on a little weight (like five pounds) it is just too hard on her to train harder. She is already a tall girl and I think pretty stocky (but I'm not good with the terminology) She has so much more energy and drive with a leaner body, she is definitely more fit acting. She weighs in around 63 to 65 pounds and is considered thin to conformation types when they look at her even though she is on the very high end of the standard for a bitch. I think that the more weight on the conformation line is starting to gain speed around here. I've seen dogs that I would consider fat in the field win in the ring. 

That is one of the reasons I would like to get a field golden next time, I really do prefer the leaner body in the field but I know this is just personal preference. I just don't like seeing the big dumpy conformation dogs (labs or goldens and honestly that is why I'm not a fan of chessies they all look big to me) trudging along to get a bird because they are already tired by the time they get half way out there. Now, I'm not saying all conformation goldens are like this, obviously not, I'm just talking about SOME of the ones I've seen.


----------



## Kmullen

Stacey, yes and there is a huge divide with the Labrador Club of America and a ton of drama with it. Do I think show labs really represent what a lab was bred to do? Not the majority of them.

Do I feel that the show Golden retrievers have too much coat? Yes, many do, but not all.

There are good versatile breeders that want it all. We have to start working together, we should be supporting one another and not downgrading every dog's ability (without even putting hands on the dog and watching it). This works both ways.


----------



## Kmullen

I, for one, don't expect my dog to be a top field or hunt dog. I do expect that he/she will hunt with me.

I am posted my friend's lab that was finished extremely quickly. She is a very nice bitch. She has a ton of drive and she is not overdone and has good leg on her. Her show friends tell her that she is too skinny... Yea...Ok!

Luckily, she listened to me and it did not hurt her at all in the show ring. It is also up to judges to stop putting up "Crappy dogs." JMHO


----------



## TrailDogs

Swampcollie said:


> Anney, Barb is correct that it is possible in some areas to get an MH without ever seeing a live bird. Some areas in the northeast prohibit the use of flyers and live ammunition. So if a dog were only run in those areas it would never see a flyer.
> .


I live in the Northeast and run tests here and Master always gets a flier, often two fliers. In fact all of the JH tests I ran had fliers, some had two. I would be disappointed to spend $80 and get all dead birds.
In addition, most MH judges here will not call a 'no bird' on a flier. The dog has to get it regardless of where it lands or which direction it goes. 
You must be talking about a very specific area. 

Some of the NAHRA tests I have run did not use flers but the entry fees are also a lot lower.


----------



## K9-Design

The only place I know you can't use flyers is Hambden in OH. I've run many a test there but not because of that! I happen to have friends who live within an hour of the grounds so, hey, free room and board. Plus it's beautiful in the summer.


----------



## Alaska7133

We talked about no longer having live fliers up here at our tests/trials. We don't have farming in Alaska of that type and all our birds have to be brought up at a huge expense. We bring up approximately 1,000 live birds every spring. A local non-profit that helps injured birds houses them until we need them for a test. We only have one live flyer per dog per test. I have been at a test where we ran out and had to use all dead birds. The spaniel club raises their own quail and they have to plan ahead to have enough.

I do believe in versatile breeding. Our golden retrievers are very adept at so many different dog sports and activities. We are lucky to have invested our time into such a wonderful breed with so many possibilities.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Not if they ran the upland FIRST : (kidding of course)



Swampcollie said:


> Anney, Barb is correct that it is possible in some areas to get an MH without ever seeing a live bird. Some areas in the northeast prohibit the use of flyers and live ammunition. So if a dog were only run in those areas it would never see a flyer.
> 
> Barb, the rules still allow upland work in AKC Retriever Hunt Tests. It is simply a matter of numbers that prevents most judges from doing an upland test design. Upland tests burn up a lot of time. Trying to run 160 master dogs through a upland test in addition to the other required elements could take a couple of extra days to complete.


----------



## nolefan

Swampcollie said:


> The vast majority of Field bred dogs that undertake the CCA, Pass the CCA. (and no, I don't place a lot of value in it at this point in time.)
> 
> I do think the AKC Hunt Test Program is a good tool to demonstrate that the necessary raw materials needed for a good working dog are in fact present in a dog. (It could be even better. There is room for improvement.) .......


Just curious, do you think the CCA ought to be more stringent? I have watched a CCA evaluation and understand the basic premise, I know they are not offered everywhere. I like the idea if it means something. I will do it with my dog at some point for the learning experience. 

It makes me glad to hear that you think that hunt tests are useful. I have never hunted a day in my life and probably won't, but there is something about that retrieving work that makes Ellie happy like no other activity. I would hate for her to not have that need fulfilled. 

Being new, I'd love to hear your view on improving those hunt tests. Same changes at all levels? Are time constraints the reasons there aren't people pushing for changes? Do the UKC tests need changes as well?


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> Anney, Barb is correct that it is possible in some areas to get an MH* without ever seeing a live bird*. Some areas in the northeast prohibit the use of flyers and live ammunition. So if a dog were only run in those areas it would never see a flyer.
> 
> Barb, the rules still allow upland work in AKC Retriever Hunt Tests. It is simply a matter of numbers that prevents most judges from doing an upland test design. Upland tests burn up a lot of time. Trying to run 160 master dogs through a upland test in addition to the other required elements could take a couple of extra days to complete.


Since my dog loves the live birds I wish they were all live birds on every test. I love it how aggressive she is to catch it and how gentle mouthed she is once caught to bring it back the same way as she caught it.


----------



## EvanG

Claudia M said:


> Since my dog loves the live birds I wish they were all live birds on every test. I love it how aggressive she is to catch it and how gentle mouthed she is once caught to bring it back the same way as she caught it.


I'm with you! Every bird retrieved while hunting is a fresh shot flyer.

EvanG


----------



## TrailDogs

nolefan said:


> Just curious, do you think the CCA ought to be more stringent? I have watched a CCA evaluation and understand the basic premise, I know they are not offered everywhere. I like the idea if it means something. I will do it with my dog at some point for the learning experience.


The CCA is valuable and the reason that most field dogs pass is because they meet the standard, have breed type, and no disqualifying faults. Dogs that do not favor the current show ring interpretation of the standard have no other way to be evaluated.


----------



## PalouseDogs

Alaska7133 said:


> I've gained a little bit of knowledge about looking at show puppies at 7-8 weeks to determine what they will look like as adults and whether they might be show quality. I'm absolutely no expert or able to make a call that "yes that's a show puppy", but I kind of know what I'm looking for. I'm curious about field puppies. When you look at a field pup, you can't be looking only at birdiness and temperament. You are also looking at physical characteristics. I'm wondering how different those physical characteristics are than a show puppy. Anyone know what the differences or similarities might be?
> 
> When I look at a field pup, I do notice that their heads can be far narrower than a show pup, since the narrowness doesn't effect ability to retrieve. I know that certain things are more helpful to a field pup, but less helpful to a show pup, such as a shorter coat. What about paws, length of legs, turn of stifle, etc.?


If you are looking for a performance dog (hunting, obedience, herding, whatever), the best predictor of ability isn't the size of its feet or the length of its ears. It's the parents' ability. You can tell very little about a puppy's capabilities at 8 weeks. 

There are so many things that have to come together in a pup to make a good field dog, for example: Excellent eyesight, a good nose, enough bravery to be far away from the owner and not lose heart in tough terrain, enough biddibility to be far from the owner and still want to please, fondness for swimming, a strong desire to retrieve, lack of gun-shyness, ability to focus on a task for long periods of time, the ability to remember the location of a 4th mark, even after 3 long swims for the first 3 marks, etc. etc. Whether a pups feet are a little flat or a little tight or its tail is straight or curved or its nose is black or a bit brownish, all that outward physical stuff is kind of trivial. 

Yeah, sure, it's useful if the pup has 4 legs instead of 3 and they should all be about the same length. But the angle of the stifle or shoulder? Worrying about stuff like that is like a building inspector conducting an inspection by only walking aroung the outside of the buildling. He could see whether the facade was more or less straight, but he couldn't tell whether the plumbing worked.

You see a lot of variation in performance dogs because most physical traits are a compromise between conflicting requirements. A little bit more angle might help in certain areas, but will be a detriment in others. More rear leg angulation might give more drive, but decrease stability and strength. So some animals might have a little more or a little less. Too much bidability in dog might also create a dog that is too dependent on the owner; too much independence might help give the dog courage away from the owner, but little desire to do what the owner wants. 

So, you close your eyes, grab a pup from the pile of pups from a good breeding and hope for the best. (Actually, I DO like to pick my own pup, based mostly on whether I find the pup appealing to me in some way, but I am perfectly aware that every pup is a roll of the dice when it comes to performance.)


----------



## Claudia M

Since we are talking performance - find this interesting and informational: 

How breeding the best to the best can be worse - The Institute of Canine Biology


----------

