# Failing Clearances ?



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I think it would probably be okay, given the money and resources to continue showing. 

But, I don't necessarily believe conformation showing (alone) is 'the' way to evaluate breeding stock.


----------



## bethlehemgolden (Aug 2, 2014)

Being new, I look at the entire point of "CONFORMATION" is to evaluate breeding stock. Dogs that are evaluated AND who attain titles are picked by judges to be breed correct. Which is why we show. To ensure who breeds will preserve the breed.

Now if you do not have a passing health clearance. I do not believe you should breed with that dog so I would not show that dog. That is why I have done ALL of the clearances & prelims. Thinking that if any do not come back as passing I would stop. Also saving me money. My dog is the breeders pick which is why I show him. I am trying to help her, but again if he failed his health clearance I would stop.

Why would I show my dog in the conformation ring, if he shouldn't be breed. Or why would I spend over $30 and entry, + travel to show a dog that shouldn't be breed, and take away a chance for someone else who has a proper dog to be breed.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I only have a problem when people breed dogs who have failed clearances. Or don't have finals.

Showing in any sport shouldn't necessarily imply intention to breed. I've seen conformation dogs out there who might have excellent hips or whatever... but would never want a puppy from them based on X or Y reason. Same thing with other sports.

At some point if you do something at all - at the core, it should be because you enjoy doing it.

That's all.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

The *original* point of conformation shows was to evaluate breeding stock, just like the *original* point of hunt tests was to evaluate hunting abilities.
Both have strayed so far from their origin that they have become more games than anything else. Which is fine, I enjoy a multitude of dog sports, but I don't think they mean much in terms of what they originally were meant to prove.
So if someone wants to show a dog that doesn't pass all clearances, I have no problems with them playing the game, too, just like I have no problem with people running hunt tests although they don't hunt.
As far as taking wins from *deserving* dogs, that's just plain ludicrous. If my dog can't win, I guess he doesn't deserve to. I always felt that more dogs in the ring was a good thing!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> T. If my dog can't win, I guess he doesn't deserve to. I always felt that more dogs in the ring was a good thing!


That is a good point- and sometimes it is so hard to build substantial majors that every dog helps


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I have always thought it was unfair to the others - in Mass, I did witness people build a major in the English Mastiff ring with at least one dog that could barely walk. They knew that dog would not win, and he normally was not a show dog ( I personally knew his owner). How valid is that major in that case?
But I can see both sides. I am still learning, and do needs lots of practice, not sure what I would have done if my dog did not pass hers. I know I held my breath tight through each test. 

It kind of reminds me of a discussion that I have been involved with in the AKC Juniors forum about whether or not to allow mixed breed dogs in the Junior ring. My opinion is stronger on this, where I feel it should only be AKC purebreds.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

I personally did this with Jinx. Prelims indicated she would not pass on her elbows. Though, I did hope and pray. Finals came back and yes, ED in both. 

I still showed her. 

Why? Because I needed it. I am not a pro handler. I do not have the luxury of many dogs to choose from to hone my skill with. Because I am new and I needed to prove to myself and other that I can title a dog. Also because Jinx loves it and I mean LOVES it. She would go in the ring with every class if she could. No joke she tries to enter with every class if we stand by the gate. And lastly because we could. In Goldens being an armature owner handler is about as tough as it gets. Not every dog can finish this way. 

Would I do it again? No. I would not spend the money again as I have the accomplishment under my belt. I made this choice as I had a very soecific goal in mind.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

No problem with it. Why you show your dog is totally up to you. Not every dog that is shown will, can or should be bred. What's worse, a dog with cataracts showing in the breed ring or a dog with a bad temperament who still gets shown to their CH? One failed a clearance, the other didn't. The show ring is NOT for making breeding decisions.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

> “Conformation” is the official name for “dog shows.” While they may seem glamorous, the true purpose of conformation showing is to evaluate breeding stock. The dog’s conformation—his overall appearance and structure—is an indication of the dog’s ability to produce quality purebred puppies, and that is what is being judged in the ring.


from the AKC and also from the Golden Retriever News article

When my dog failed his clearance absolutely everyone told me do not continue to show him and take points away from dogs who will go on to be the future of the breed. However, with a lot more experience now, I can see reasons for showing a dog who failed clearances, though too I can see the frustration with top dogs shown week after week who failed hips or whatever. It seems elbows are the big lightening rod. If a specific clearance is failed generation after generation, but the dogs are high achieving, it is human nature perhaps to keep breeding them? In my case my dog had multiple issues including a stinky temperament, so I would never have bred him regardless. 

There definitely are good reasons to show a dog beyond their suitability for breeding stock in my mind- like mentioned from LJack to build the experience of the handler. 

It was a very interesting article, with the survey of many opinions included. The opinion of the author was clear that she does not believe dogs should be exhibited who have failed a clearance.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

cubbysan said:


> I have always thought it was unfair to the others - in Mass, I did witness people build a major in the English Mastiff ring with at least one dog that could barely walk. They knew that dog would not win, and he normally was not a show dog ( I personally knew his owner). How valid is that major in that case?
> But I can see both sides. I am still learning, and do needs lots of practice, not sure what I would have done if my dog did not pass hers. I know I held my breath tight through each test.
> 
> It kind of reminds me of a discussion that I have been involved with in the AKC Juniors forum about whether or not to allow mixed breed dogs in the Junior ring. My opinion is stronger on this, where I feel it should only be AKC purebreds.



That is a great point- I never thought of that aspect that a dog might be shown who was not able to walk or see etc- but the judge is meant to dismiss those dogs immediately. I do definitely see what you mean.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

To me, the flaw in that author's thinking is that when a dog earns his CH, he moves on out of the classes. Therefore, he isn't "taking points" from a "more deserving dog" (heck, if the dog were more deserving, he'd WIN!). 
Again, just my personal opinion, but if we stick to the original purpose of conformation shows, the dog either is, or is not, a champion. Period.
The Grand Champion title is (like so many AKC titles) just a way to keep people showing after they have already achieved the title which actually had some purpose, hence lining AKC's coffers. It is a game, to see which dog can rack up the most points, the most wins, whatever, but is no longer about whether or not the dog is correct from a breeding standpoint in terms of conformation. The dog was already certified as "correct" when he earned the CH title.
I am not at all opposed to the GCH title, nor the show ring game. Nor the advanced hunt titles, nor the hunt test game. And so on. They're great fun, and it's awesome to see people doing things with their dogs. But they are not in the spirit of the original purpose of the CH title, to determine whether or not the dog was suitable for breeding from a conformation standpoint. If people want to continue to show their dog to the GCH title, or beyond, it shouldn't matter whether or not they are showing against a dog who doesn't pass all clearances. I stand by what I said before, my dog (or any dog) should win based on his own merits, not because the "better" dogs have been pulled from the ring! The dogs can only be shown in the classes until they earn their CH anyway, and then they move on and no longer "take points from more deserving dogs"! 
As far as stacking the ring with poor dogs in order to take a win, it's done more commonly in UKC where you only need to beat a couple of dogs to win, and get your UCH. It's not feasible in a breed that's as competitive as the Goldens in AKC. 





Ljilly28 said:


> from the AKC and also from the Golden Retriever News article
> 
> When my dog failed his clearance absolutely everyone told me do not continue to show him and take points away from dogs who will go on to be the future of the breed. However, with a lot more experience now, I can see reasons for showing a dog who failed clearances, though too I can see the frustration with top dogs shown week after week who failed hips or whatever. It seems elbows are the big lightening rod. If a specific clearance is failed generation after generation, but the dogs are high achieving, it is human nature perhaps to keep breeding them? In my case my dog had multiple issues including a stinky temperament, so I would never have bred him regardless.
> 
> ...


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> That is a great point- I never thought of that aspect that a dog might be shown who was not able to walk or see etc- but the judge is meant to dismiss those dogs immediately. I do definitely see what you mean.


Maybe barely walk is an exaggeration, but he definitely had some hip issues that made his gait very funny. I could hear people whispering about it in the audience.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> As far as stacking the ring with poor dogs in order to take a win, it's done more commonly in UKC where you only need to beat a couple of dogs to win, and get your UCH. It's not feasible in a breed that's as competitive as the Goldens in AKC.


I don't know if stacking the ring with poor dogs is the issue so much as we might gradually be getting to the point in some areas where breeders may encourage and enter dogs to build majors - like they do in other breeds.

Some other breeds - the whole entry may come down to just 1-2 breeders bringing a bunch of dogs to show. 

A friend of mine whose dog needs his majors now and she's stuck entering shows that she thinks will be majors but turns out they are missing the major by 1 or 2 dogs when the counts come in. 

It's a good time to be an owner handler with the numbers are that low!!! But the same time, it's frustrating for people who need to get the majors to finish a dog off without traveling across the country.


----------



## bethlehemgolden (Aug 2, 2014)

Megora said:


> It's a good time to be an owner handler with the numbers are that low!!!


This is where I am right now. trying to find low entry's that are local and I can get some real practice. My heart sinks when I am up against professional handlers every time. I just do not have the confidence yet. 




Megora said:


> But the same time, it's frustrating for people who need to get the majors to finish a dog off without traveling across the country.


 Next year, *after my dog gets his final clearances*. (I personally don't think he should be shown in the conformation ring is he doesn't pass a medical clearance). And if I can put/get more points on my dog I will try and find a *reputable handler.* But if I can't show him and he doesn't achieve any more points, I don't see why a handler would be able to. It shouldn't matter who holds the lead.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I couldn't disagree more.
I put a couple of points on my boy myself, then did ringside pickup with a handler.
Handlers are very good at what they do. They can stack a dog in 3 seconds, whereas 3 minutes later I am still fiddling around with him.
But more importantly, movement is critical with Goldens. I move like a pregnant hippo. There is NO WAY my dog can show what beautiful movement he has when he's trying to adjust to my short, choppy strides. 
As soon as he was with someone who could move around the ring well, he got 3 big majors.
Same dog, different handler. And it had nothing to do with "politics", it was the handler's assistant taking him in the ring.

[/U][/B] But if I can't show him and he doesn't achieve any more points, I don't see why a handler would be able to. It shouldn't matter who holds the lead.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

bethlehemgolden said:


> This is where I am right now. trying to find low entry's that are local and I can get some real practice. My heart sinks when I am up against professional handlers every time. I just do not have the confidence yet.


I think a couple things to consider.... when you are in a small class (2-3 dogs besides your own). You stand out more and there's a bigger chance of winning.... if you make good your time out there and are showing a good dog.

For a lot of judges who are judging golden retrievers... the majority of them are looking for a dog that stacks very well (the dog has a "look at me" stack) and they want to see free and clean movement. <= These are reasons why puppies or young dogs win at a lot of shows. Because some young dogs are just a combination of well put together and well trained/handled. They know how to stand, they know how to do the "food face" while stacked on the side or free stacked in front of the judge, and they move cleanly with confidence.

Now a few thoughts on presentation and training... and why experienced handlers (not always just the pros) have an advantage regardless of the size of the class.

I saw Anney's Bally when he was a puppy - and while the most I remember of the stacking part was the fact that he had a pretty nice free stack with Anney getting out in front and away.... I saw the gaiting part and was impressed with how nicely this young dog moved out there. No pulling. No goofiness. And because of everything else Anney does with her dogs - he did not have conditioning issues which you see with puppies out there. If you are the type who notices toplines - some young dogs out there would make you want to pluck your eyeballs out and burn them to see how much their toplines woggle from side to side when they move! 

With Jill's Mystic.... I've seen him a few times from when he was a puppy and more recently. And he was a very nice dog even early. Just focused and calm - and this was going back as early as when he was between 6 and 9 months old. My first glimpse of him was his handler warming him up right next to my set up - and I saw a very calm and businesslike dog, despite his age. I saw him in the ring that time - and he went up against a young dog who did not move well or stack at all. Compared to the younger dog - he looked like a 2 year old out there. Some of that was him looking like an older dog, but also a lot of it was how well-behaved and polished he was out there. The young dog LOOKED like a puppy who had never been in the show ring ever or even a class. He also was not as physically mature as Mystic. And as I remember the owner of this other dog was somebody who typically brought ungroomed and unprepared dogs for her handlers. So appearance was also affected by the fact that this other dog probably was not as well groomed. And "well groomed" is not necessarily a grooming-machine handler going over the dog with hair spray and hedge trimmers to sculpt out a "winning look". It could simply be a clean dog whose coat is clean and tight around his body like the proverbial "jacket". There's no rumples or signs of hair standing up or out. <= Might add, the other dog was not owner handled. I remember because among else, his owner was cussing up a storm outside the ring when Mystic beat him each time. I remember she and others were mad about the judging and out-of-town handlers coming in to show to buddy-buddy judges, but this was a case where couldn't blame politics for the wins. 

For some people who are very polished and bring seasoned dogs to the ring - they run the table and win every time they are out there. <= I have a friend who went from 0 points at the end of last year and in just 3-4 months this year, she's at 9 points with her dog and hunting for majors. That's really how fast the points go when the dog is ready and the handler is finally polished enough to take advantage of having a dog about 1-2 years older than the others in the ring. 

But the same time - that's just showing in the small rings. 

In the bigger rings, there is an advantage and dis-advantage to keep in mind. Your dog (and you too!) have to be OK with running around the ring ten million times as the judge makes his cuts. And these are the best cases because they are the judges who really are looking at the dogs. And every time you stop in place - you want the dog stacked and working for the judge's attention. <- This is where you can beat a pro or somebody with a more experienced dog. The advantage is you are spending a lot of time in the ring with multiple opportunities to get the judge's attention on your dog. And you get second chances if you weren't happy with the first time you ran around the ring... the judges generally give you a few opportunities to show your dog's best movement to them. You aren't just one strike and you're out like with the small classes. 

The types of judges and shows that you will have a disadvantage at... it's the ones who cut the class pretty quickly - a lot of the time without giving the handlers too much of an opportunity to show them AGAIN how nice their dogs move vs the other dogs in the ring. Some of these judges might not even be looking at movement at all. I think a lot of the time, these judges either are looking for certain things (heads, for example) or they are looking more at the handlers and dogs that they know. <= These are not as common as the other kind though. And you know which judges to avoid after you've seen them once..... 

Bottom line though - most handlers are beatable - if you learn from them. 

And a lot of the people you show against - they're great people. Like around here.... some of the out-of-towners are not the bestest personalities to put it mildly. But most of the people show against each other every show week and all are pretty friendly in general. Big advice I was given by one of these handlers is to really rub elbows and talk to the other handlers in the ring, and loosen up quite a bit. Sometimes that does have an effect on the judge... even the political ones... but it also gives you an opportunity to learn from the other people out there and find friendlies out there. At the very least, it helps eliminate the "me against the world" feeling the newbies get going into the ring with a bunch of pros.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Interesting thread, thanks.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Megora said:


> Showing in any sport shouldn't necessarily imply intention to breed.


By that logic neutered dogs should be allowed in the conformation ring. Dogs being shown in conformation should be considered potential breeding stock. Other dog sports do not require that the dogs remain intact.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

TrailDogs said:


> By that logic neutered dogs should be allowed in the conformation ring. Dogs being shown in conformation should be considered potential breeding stock. Other dog sports do not require that the dogs remain intact.


True. And I'll admit that everyone I've met in conformation has breeding in mind at some point.  

But I balk about people making judgments about other people who may be playing the game without any particular motivation other than bragging points. And to participate well in conformation, you have to have a really nice dog who can beat the competition that you show against. Which not too many people are going to be able to get show prospects unless they've shown willingness and ability to show with prior dogs. Newbies can be a real risk. <= It's not really that much different than being able to purchase a performance dog from a breeder. Many won't sell these puppies to anyone who has never titled a dog before.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

One big quandary the article also addressed is to make the parents OS or OD should clearances matter. It does bring up an interesting dilemma if an OS/ OD is earned , but the kiddos didn't pass their clearances. My gut reaction though is that is two separate issues. I usually have strong opinions about most things but on this topic, I'm of two minds. I don't really mind if people show their dogs for their own reasons, clearances aren't required to enter. On the other hand, the point is well made that other venues don't claim to evaluate breeding stock and thus don't require intact animals. I think many dogs are shown to shine their lights for a program or kennel name, more than specifically to be bred. There is a dog we compete against who is owned by a judge. His mom didn't have all her clearances, and now he doest either, but he wins a lot. It aggravates people, but I feel more like Barb in that my dog can beat him fair and square and when he loses to him oh well he wasn't the best dog on that day.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> His mom didn't have all her clearances, and now he doest either, but he wins a lot.


And what would bother me AGAIN - isn't the fact the dog is being shown, but the breeder breeds dogs who failed clearances and likely will breed this winning dog. That's the behavior that should be a problem. 

This is a heaping coals on head issue because again it's not just conformation dogs or small time breeders who go ahead and repeatedly breed dogs without clearances. Big obedience and field breeder does this. It stinks.


----------



## Christen113 (Dec 3, 2014)

It's hard to know what I would do if Cooper failed his clearances-thankfully his prelims are good and he's passed eyes and heart...but as I was waiting for those results I was wondering what I would do....until we move, my husband really doesn't want to add another puppy to the mix so Cooper is the only show dog I have-Ryleigh is spayed and far too tall anyways-amongst other faults. I clearly still need practice and I'm still learning-so I'm inclined to think I would have still wanted to practice with him in the ring so that I'd be better for my next show dog. That said, even showing yourself starts to add up and I'm not 100% sure I would have wanted to make the investment had he failed clearances. I am pretty confident that I would do everything myself had he failed and not invest in handlers. It almost seems like if you want to make passing clearances a must in order to show, that puppies shouldn't be in the ring since we don't know if they'll clear yet. Otherwise to me, it seems fairly hypocritical.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

A very good point!



Christen113 said:


> It almost seems like if you want to make passing clearances a must in order to show, that puppies shouldn't be in the ring since we don't know if they'll clear yet. Otherwise to me, it seems fairly hypocritical.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Christen113 said:


> It almost seems like if you want to make passing clearances a must in order to show, that puppies shouldn't be in the ring since we don't know if they'll clear yet. Otherwise to me, it seems fairly hypocritical.


That is a great point. I work my tail feathers off with each puppy so they love to show and show like little professionals, and finish from puppy class or 12-18. This is bc I have so many other things I want to do with them. Mystic got his big showing done, so now we did our CD together and out TDI so we can visit kids in the hospital- stuff like that. However, if someone failed a prelim I wouldn't show- would go directly to CD/ TDI and stiff like that. Sayer has both major and 14 points now. The minute she finishes, we will start obedience.


----------



## MicheleMartin (Jul 18, 2016)

I don't make my breeding decision solely based on the titles at both end of a dog. To me I have look fores. 1- must be of the type and structure I like. 2- must have an excellent temperament. 3- must have health clearances 4- compatible pedigree, look at COI 5-Am I able to go meet him or have people I trust advise me on him., 6-what is his movement like 7-does not need titles but added bonus if they do. So as you see titles are not the first thing I look for.
My number one is important to me because I strive for a certain look. I've added dogs to my breeding program that have not met this type but I can see what they can add to the weaknesses in my type. 
To me if a person doesn't have a look in mind it shows in their breeding programs and they will never have stud dogs that are strong at throwing a type. No matter how many titles that dog has.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

MicheleMartin said:


> My number one is important to me because I strive for a certain look. I've added dogs to my breeding program that have not met this type but I can see what they can add to the weaknesses in my type.
> To me if a person doesn't have a look in mind it shows in their breeding programs and they will never have stud dogs that are strong at throwing a type. No matter how many titles that dog has.


I do agree with this, and think it is a goal people arrive at 1o years in and not right away( usually unless very well mentored). 

It is important to me a stud dog( bitch) possesses depth of quality in pedigree- I don't want the pricesssa in a litter of generic janes. The look of the dog is its style- and identifiable styles from major lines- are easy to identify with a glance- a Summit Dog, A Rush Hill dog, A Nautilus dog, A Hillock dog, A Pebwin dog, a Faera dog. . . I am still back where I want a dog of tremendous breed type, structure,and movement- can pick one and can breed one, but I don't have one style that is a thumbprint saying mine. I do have a five, ten, and fifteen year detailed plan, so we will see.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

MicheleMartin,
Did you breed this dog?
Pedigree: Thompsons Tempting Taffeta CD

I knew her, if you did...


----------



## MicheleMartin (Jul 18, 2016)

Times have changed. I prefer an honest breeder who shows as many dogs from a litter as possible. Why? Because it proves how strong the parents are at throwing type and correct structure. It gives me an idea too how many have passed in a litter. If they did fail one test which one. If I have lines that are weak at heart clearances and that's what the one dog failed in the litter I might choose not to add that line to my pedigrees. It goes much deeper than just being able to title one dog with all clearances. I want to see siblings, offsprings and relatives. I trust a breeder that is not ashamed of showing everything about their dogs. Warts and all. I don't trust breeders who don't post in k9data dogs that have failed, died, or have affected DNA test. Hiding thing shows dishonesty. Don't be ashamed be proud. Trust me if the dog has better structure than the dog that cleared everything and you have his siblings at home that are cleared and just as nice I will choose them.


----------



## MicheleMartin (Jul 18, 2016)

I own Blackpool Goldens in Canada.


----------

