# Breeding to "improve the breed."



## Kmullen

Yea, the more you know the scarier it is to think about. Breeding to improve...HMM.... for me it would be to improve the bitch or the dog you have. Say, your bitch needs a stronger front, then breeding for a stronger front is looking to improve her. But, IMO if you want one thing, you will lose something else. Give and take.. 

If you want to improve my breeding for better hip production or longevity (which I hope everyone is doing), then that is breeding to "improve."


----------



## TheZ's

Good question. It seems to me like a very subjective goal. One person can truly believe what they're breeding for will improve the breed while someone else can view what they're breeding for as taking away from the breed. Even if a breeder's only goal were improving health and longevity, someone else could question whether what they're doing would accomplish that and whether disregarding all else is in the best interest of the breed.


----------



## CharlieBear80

It means everything and it means nothing. Much like the term "healthy living" IMO.


----------



## DanaRuns

kfayard said:


> Yea, the more you know the scarier it is to think about. Breeding to improve...HMM.... for me it would be to improve the bitch or the dog you have. Say, your bitch needs a stronger front, then breeding for a stronger front is looking to improve her. But, IMO if you want one thing, you will lose something else. Give and take..
> 
> If you want to improve my breeding for better hip production or longevity (which I hope everyone is doing), then that is breeding to "improve."


Well, that's just the thing. I mean, if we only breed dogs with a good clearance history without some red flag disease warning (understanding that there is something wrong in every line), that's a lovely thing. But is it improving the breed? Is getting two pups out of eight that have a stronger front "improving the breed" if you're breeding to a very popular sire and thereby reducing the genetic diversity in the breed?

I'm just kind of confused by all this. It seems to me that people breed for what they _want_ and then they call it improving the breed. Seems arbitrary. Seems like it means whatever you want it to mean on any given day.


----------



## Kmullen

DanaRuns said:


> Well, that's just the thing. I mean, if we only breed dogs with a good clearance history without some red flag disease warning (understanding that there is something wrong in every line), that's a lovely thing. But is it improving the breed? Is getting two pups out of eight that have a stronger front "improving the breed" if you're breeding to a very popular sire and thereby reducing the genetic diversity in the breed?
> 
> I'm just kind of confused by all this. It seems to me that people breed for what they _want_ and then they call it improving the breed. Seems arbitrary. Seems like it means whatever you want it to mean on any given day.


 Yep exactly.


----------



## Swampcollie

Good question! 

Breeding to "Improve The Breed" means to improve upon what you have, one dog and one pairing at a time.

Every breeder should evaluate the dog(s) they have and compare them against the Breed Standard. No dog is a perfect specimen. There are ALWAYS shortcomings. The Breed Standard is the blueprint you should be breeding toward. It is the center line of the pathway that defines the Breed.

You should be selecting mates that help you move toward the center line for the breed.


----------



## CharlieBear80

Swampcollie said:


> Every breeder should evaluate the dog(s) they have and compare them against the Breed Standard. No dog is a perfect specimen. There are ALWAYS shortcomings. The Breed Standard is the blueprint you should be breeding toward. It is the center line of the pathway that defines the Breed.


Does the breed standard say anything about health though? How do you factor in the health problems rampant in the breed? That's what muddies the waters, the way I see it. Not that I have ever bred or intend to breed, I just think it's all very interesting.


----------



## Swampcollie

CharlieBear80 said:


> Does the breed standard say anything about health though? How do you factor in the health problems rampant in the breed? That's what muddies the waters, the way I see it. Not that I have ever bred or intend to breed, I just think it's all very interesting.


Health is a given. It's kind of like saying you have to breed for dogs that possess four legs. It is assumed that health is a priority.


----------



## Claudia M

I have always had trouble with that statement. I had an interesting conversation at a field trial training this past weekend and then continued it on FB yesterday. 
Of course this brought me back to the same statement over and over about "improving" the goldens where now they can hardly make it in field trials anymore. From my point of view that is not an improvement at all. While the labs aptitudes have been increasing in the field the goldens have decreased; therefore the field trials have evolved based on the winners, the labs. Also more labs are bred for the field and with their purpose in mind while less and less goldens are bred with their purpose in mind.


----------



## laprincessa

I'll probably get slapped for saying this, but it seems to be the phrase that's always used to denigrate someone who isn't breeding according to someone else's strict guidelines. If someone comes here and says that they want to get into breeding, and they're following most of the rules but maybe missing one thing, it's always "what are you doing to improve the breed?" 

I don't want an improved Max, I'm pretty happy with the one I've got.


----------



## Megora

My opinion....

1. People who do stuff with their dogs are more likely to be aware of their dogs' shortcomings. Or the shortcomings of their programs. You know people stuck at home or with just friends are going to have a super-inflated opinion of their dogs and their breeding programs. And that super-inflated opinion when challenged turns into a "us against the world" defense mechanism.... I think we've been treated to some sad examples of that on this forum with some breeders who call every word against them lies and slander.... 

2. All dogs have faults. And biggest thing is understanding what those faults are an how costly they are going to be as far as "can you breed them out?"

I've heard of breeders throwing away dogs who have seemingly minor faults - primarily because those faults are terrible to weed out by 8-10 weeks and odds are those puppies are going to inherit all that stuff. Not just the big things like hips and elbows or cataracts or eye cysts..... It's gay tails and stuff like that. 

^ This is not easy to do just from home. Especially if you do not have mentors or friends in the breed who can go over your dog and tell you what you have. It's not just knowing people who will tell you the uncomfortable truth about your dog, but it's also being able to take constructive criticism about your dog. And counting up all the things that are wrong with the dog. 

I know it's probably not as huge a deal with the girls, because you as the breeder are paying others to "fix" your girl's problems. But good luck if you own a stud with a bunch of problems. :uhoh:

My opinion too as a boy dog owner - I would not breed my dog to anything that I would not be interested in keeping a puppy from. So from my perspective, the litters have to be prospectively as good as my dog or stronger. So even "fixing" a girl's problems - that's going to really depend on the problems and my own honesty as far as whether or not my boy's own faults would make things worse. It's not a huge deal to me because - I'm not really thinking about breeding my boy - not right now. But I do cringe when I see experimental litters set up by friends and I have no idea what they are trying to do. It looks way too much like them breeding whatever they can get their hands on.

3. Popular sire - I was thinking about this, particularly as I was going nuts trying to track down any future litters with a boy I really like. You know why popular sires are popular? 

Because of the expense and gamble with going with a unproven boy. A while back, I was sitting with a friend who was telling me about what she was looking for in a "boyfriend" for her girl. And she had a list of things she wanted - particularly a dog who threw good heads, as well as coats. 

I'm gathering the big push for certain studs is because they are throwing good X that all the breeders are looking for. And I can think of one popular stud who I swear everyone used in the past 3 years or so.... he already has puppies getting going in the conformation ring who are everything the breeders were hoping for. 

I guess if you are a breeder who is trying to improve what you have.... using a popular sire is the sure bet.

It's not just conformation. Get into obedience and you have even fewer boys who are the puppy daddies for everyone's up and coming obedience stars. And if they aren't the puppy daddies, then they are the grand-daddies or closely arranged in that pedigree....  The breeders get RESULTS with titles on those puppies, so I would imagine it is all about improving what they have based on what their prerogatives are.


----------



## CharlieBear80

Swampcollie said:


> Health is a given. It's kind of like saying you have to breed for dogs that possess four legs. It is assumed that health is a priority.


Fair enough, but does that trump the standard for conformation and temperament? And I think this goes back to what Dana was asking (not that I mean to speak for her) but if you have to choose between improving on a line with health or improving on a dog's headpiece, which do you choose? Obviously you'd want to get the best of both worlds, but something is always going to have to suffer in the name of improving another aspect of the breed, right? I hope I'm making sense, but I feel like I'm not being terribly clear.


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> I have always had trouble with that statement. I had an interesting conversation at a field trial training this past weekend and then continued it on FB yesterday.
> Of course this brought me back to the same statement over and over about "improving" the goldens where now they can hardly make it in field trials anymore. From my point of view that is not an improvement at all. While the labs aptitudes have been increasing in the field the goldens have decreased; therefore the field trials have evolved based on the winners, the labs. Also more labs are bred for the field and with their purpose in mind while less and less goldens are bred with their purpose in mind.


Question, are goldens intended purpose to be field trial dogs? Are they actually meant to keep up with the field trial labs? I've always read the standard as primary a hunting dog, not necessarily a field trial dog. My males parents were both actively hunted every season and did very well, but would have never kept up at a field trial. IMHO they (in that respect) fit the breed standard still. 

What I am not saying, is that breeding field trial dogs is outside of the standard. I just don't know if all goldens should have to be able to keep up in the field trials in order to be with in the standard. Just wanted to clarify that part.


----------



## DanaRuns

Kate, good points. As one popular sire example everyone knows of and has talked about extensively, and is affecting my thinking right now -- Kirby (but it could be any sire as popular as him for this example) -- people used him like crazy to "improve" their bitches. And I know lots of great dogs came from Kirby. But boy, so many people used him, now it's pretty hard to get away from Kirby (at least in the West). He's ubiquitous. So, while each person may have improved on their bitches by breeding to Kirby, given how prominent he is in pedigrees, did that improve the breed as a whole?

I know that when I breed Ziva, one of the really appealing choices I can make is to breed her to Chaos (Kirby's son). Looking at it, it would be a bold and potentially great breeding, and would give me a lot of what I'm looking for. But by going that way, am I improving the breed? How do I know? Isn't the answer all in how I look at it?

So, very good point you raised. I'm not sure there actually is an answer. Or perhaps it's the answer if I want it to be. I dunno.


----------



## DanaRuns

CharlieBear80 said:


> Fair enough, but does that trump the standard for conformation and temperament? And I think this goes back to what Dana was asking (not that I mean to speak for her) but if you have to choose between improving on a line with health or improving on a dog's headpiece, which do you choose? Obviously you'd want to get the best of both worlds, but something is always going to have to suffer in the name of improving another aspect of the breed, right? I hope I'm making sense, but I feel like I'm not being terribly clear.


Very clear. Exactly what I was asking. 



Eowyn said:


> Question, are goldens intended purpose to be field trial dogs? Are they actually meant to keep up with the field trial labs? I've always read the standard as primary a hunting dog, not necessarily a field trial dog. My males parents were both actively hunted every season and did very well, but would have never kept up at a field trial. IMHO they (in that respect) fit the breed standard still.
> 
> What I am not saying, is that breeding field trial dogs is outside of the standard. I just don't know if all goldens should have to be able to keep up in the field trials in order to be with in the standard. Just wanted to clarify that part.


And further to that, in breeding for something very specific like field trials, does that constitute "improving the breed?" I'm sure in the mind of the person breeding for that quality, it does. But can't that be said for anyone who breeds for any particular quality (perhaps at the expense of others)? In their mind they are improving the breed because they are getting what _they_ want. And if that's the definition of improving the breed, doesn't the phrase become meaningless?


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> Question, are goldens intended purpose to be field trial dogs? Are they actually meant to keep up with the field trial labs? I've always read the standard as primary a hunting dog, not necessarily a field trial dog. My males parents were both actively hunted every season and did very well, but would have never kept up at a field trial. IMHO they (in that respect) fit the breed standard still.
> 
> What I am not saying, is that breeding field trial dogs is outside of the standard. I just don't know if all goldens should have to be able to keep up in the field trials in order to be with in the standard. Just wanted to clarify that part.


If you look at the field trials today and even the hunt tests they have evolved and are different that what they were back in the lets say 1950s. 
One would say well, since goldens can still pass in the hunt tests who cares about the field trials? 
A field trial IS a retriever test just like hunt tests. I am sure that the "standard" will never specify that a golden should be a hunt test as well as a field trial dog just as much as it does not state it in the lab standard. 

I was looking for Hillman videos on youtube and came across this video. 
While it was funny I could not stop feeling sorry for the lady. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6iPe5R_tug


----------



## hotel4dogs

I don't want to improve the breed, we are already suffering the consequences of all of the *improvements*. I want to breed to return it to what it used to be.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't want to improve the breed, we are already suffering the consequences of all of the *improvements*. I want to breed to return it to what it used to be.


EXACTLY!!!

We need to be breeding back toward the center line of the highway.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't want to improve the breed, we are already suffering the consequences of all of the *improvements*. I want to breed to return it to what it used to be.


Barb.... I don't know what that means. I look at pictures of dogs 80 years ago - and I don't want to go back there. Browsing through K9data and looking at a lot of the pictures that are there.... there seemed to be a big variety of looks that won in the conformation rings. To me, this indicated that breed type was not quite set in stone and the breed was still developing. 

I started paying attention during the 90's when goldens (around here) had heavier coats and were bigger dogs and more prone to hip and elbow problems. This was especially before they started screening for elbows. Cataracts too were a bit more common and more of concern that I remember... that may have been colored in a bit more because we had a dog with juvies.

I always semi-accepted (I'm naïve and gullible, I guess) that we have been improving vastly from what we had as kids. My dogs have moderate coats. They are wash and wear. I bathe and blow dry the youngest for shows, but that's spit shine. He dries fast and well on his own and won't get skin infections if he goes swimming and I don't bother bathing and drying him. Burrs slide right out of the coats. And basically these dogs are minimal grooming. They don't matt. They don't shed that much. And most people think they've been groomed 24/7 to look the way they do - this even with me skipping a week as far as brushing them out.

My nearly 7 year old has mild bilateral hip dysplasia - and he is more active than most dogs out there with excellent hips. He's my energizer bunny. My other boy just got all his clearances and even before I got the results - I could see he was going to be fine based on his movement. This dog jumps up to 30" (that I've seen) like it is nothing. <- To me this is the results of clearances and careful breeding behind them. What breeders improved on. 

Where I want the breed to improve is getting to a point where we do not have as much cancer, as much hip/elbow problems, as much eye problems (PU), as much skin and gut issues.... 

Where I want the breed to improve is more obedience titles on conformation dogs. Bare minimum, we should get back to getting CDX's on these dogs. This means these dogs aren't just capable of heeling, but they can jump, retrieve, and have the confidence to remain in the ring out of sight from their owners. I don't know if the split between field and conformation is curable, but I don't feel comfortable about there also being a split between obedience and conformation. 

And I could keep going with my wish list as far as what I personally hope for. This is even somehow breed clubs getting more involved with encouraging pet owners to train for WC's. More outreach and fun based training as opposed to the Cabalas crowd!  

There's a lot of room for improvement of the _good_ things we have now.


----------



## Swampcollie

Eowyn said:


> Question, are goldens intended purpose to be field trial dogs? Are they actually meant to keep up with the field trial labs? I've always read the standard as primary a hunting dog, not necessarily a field trial dog.


Let's look at this a little bit.

The breed standard defines the breeds purpose as a "hunting dog". What does that mean? It means that certain traits and characteristics needed to fulfill the roll of a "hunting dog" are required in a dog to satisfy the Breed Standard.
Desire for birds, desire to please, trainability, courage, visual acuity and intelligence are all necessary traits required for any hunting dog. What's more, they are all traits that are gained or lost in a dog through BREEDING. Those are not trained abilities. A dog has them from birth or it doesn't.
These qualities are a REQUIREMENT for a "Hunting Dog" and they're not negotiable.


A Field Trial or Hunting Test for that matter, are tests designed to measure exactly those qualities.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Claudia M said:


> If you look at the field trials today and even the hunt tests they have evolved and are different that what they were back in the lets say 1950s.
> One would say well, since goldens can still pass in the hunt tests who cares about the field trials?
> A field trial IS a retriever test just like hunt tests. I am sure that the "standard" will never specify that a golden should be a hunt test as well as a field trial dog just as much as it does not state it in the lab standard.
> 
> I was looking for Hillman videos on youtube and came across this video.
> While it was funny I could not stop feeling sorry for the lady.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6iPe5R_tug



It's not all about tests and trials. That was never intended to be the purpose for this breed (or labs for that matter). Goldens were bred to be a hunter's companion in real life, not in front of a judge. I have said it before in these discussions, and will again, you don't have to have a large number of field trial champions to remain true to the purpose of this breed. Some breeders do push for that top degree of instinct, drive, and stamina needed for field trials. Some breeders seem to have forgotten this is supposed to be a sporting breed. And thankfully, most breeders are somewhere between those two (I want to make this more clear. I have no problem with those breeding for field trial caliber dogs. I do take exception with a line of goldens who have no drive to retrieve. I say "thankfully" because I think the middle ground is better suited for most owners' needs). 

I didn't really feel bad for the lady in that video. I did feel a little bad for the dog. She was inconsistent and frequently unclear with a young, impulsive, obviously green dog. It seems they're learning together and I hope she has a good trainer guiding her so that they learn to work together better before one or the other burns out from frustration. But I'm very unclear about what point you were attempting to illustrate with it. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Eowyn

Megora said:


> Barb.... I don't know what that means. I look at pictures of dogs 80 years ago - and I don't want to go back there. Browsing through K9data and looking at a lot of the pictures that are there.... there seemed to be a big variety of looks that won in the conformation rings. To me, this indicated that breed type was not quite set in stone and the breed was still developing.
> 
> I started paying attention during the 90's when goldens (around here) had heavier coats and were bigger dogs and more prone to hip and elbow problems. This was especially before they started screening for elbows. Cataracts too were a bit more common and more of concern that I remember... that may have been colored in a bit more because we had a dog with juvies.
> 
> I always semi-accepted (I'm naïve and gullible, I guess) that we have been improving vastly from what we had as kids. My dogs have moderate coats. They are wash and wear. I bathe and blow dry the youngest for shows, but that's spit shine. He dries fast and well on his own and won't get skin infections if he goes swimming and I don't bother bathing and drying him. Burrs slide right out of the coats. And basically these dogs are minimal grooming. They don't matt. They don't shed that much. And most people think they've been groomed 24/7 to look the way they do - this even with me skipping a week as far as brushing them out.
> 
> My nearly 7 year old has mild bilateral hip dysplasia - and he is more active than most dogs out there with excellent hips. He's my energizer bunny. My other boy just got all his clearances and even before I got the results - I could see he was going to be fine based on his movement. This dog jumps up to 30" (that I've seen) like it is nothing. <- To me this is the results of clearances and careful breeding behind them. What breeders improved on.
> 
> Where I want the breed to improve is getting to a point where we do not have as much cancer, as much hip/elbow problems, as much eye problems (PU), as much skin and gut issues....
> 
> Where I want the breed to improve is more obedience titles on conformation dogs. Bare minimum, we should get back to getting CDX's on these dogs. This means these dogs aren't just capable of heeling, but they can jump, retrieve, and have the confidence to remain in the ring out of sight from their owners. I don't know if the split between field and conformation is curable, but I don't feel comfortable about there also being a split between obedience and conformation.
> 
> And I could keep going with my wish list as far as what I personally hope for. This is even somehow breed clubs getting more involved with encouraging pet owners to train for WC's. More outreach and fun based training as opposed to the Cabalas crowd!
> 
> There's a lot of room for improvement of the _good_ things we have now.


^^^^^^This


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> I have always had trouble with that statement. I had an interesting conversation at a field trial training this past weekend and then continued it on FB yesterday.
> Of course this brought me back to the same statement over and over about "improving" the goldens where now they can hardly make it in field trials anymore. From my point of view that is not an improvement at all. While the labs aptitudes have been increasing in the field the goldens have decreased; therefore the field trials have evolved based on the winners, the labs. Also more labs are bred for the field and with their purpose in mind while less and less goldens are bred with their purpose in mind.


AKC field trials are not the ultimate measurement of a breed's success. Besides, I would dare say more goldens are running in FTs now than ever before. Unless you have entry statistics that say otherwise, I can't believe that goldens are decreasing in popularity in FTs, or that has anything to do whatsoever with "improving the breed."
We should NEVER use a breed's popularity or success in any competitive venue as a measure of their quality or improvement over the years. We should be looking primarily at health, temperament and longevity. 
To me "improve the breed" means you are perpetuating a quality that is above average and pushing the mean value toward a higher standard. Even those who do not compete with their dogs can "improve the breed" if they consistently select breeding dogs with full clearances and track and select for longevity.


----------



## Claudia M

hahahaah - now this is funny? So why even care if the breeders compete in any venues with their dogs - if it DOES NOT MATTER! Isn't that what most people post here about the "reputable breeders"? They have "proved" their dogs? 

I do not know how to go back and quote but paraphrasing Barb - I want the goldens the way they were....

Funny, I was told that I must really love goldens to try to go into field trials with them. My reply was - Not ALL of them lost those capabilities, they are just not bred for it, they have been "improved".


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> Let's look at this a little bit.
> 
> The breed standard defines the breeds purpose as a "hunting dog". What does that mean? It means that certain traits and characteristics needed to fulfill the roll of a "hunting dog" are required in a dog to satisfy the Breed Standard.
> Desire for birds, desire to please, trainability, courage, visual acuity and intelligence are all necessary traits required for any hunting dog. What's more, they are all traits that are gained or lost in a dog through BREEDING. Those are not trained abilities. A dog has them from birth or it doesn't.
> These qualities are a REQUIREMENT for a "Hunting Dog" and they're not negotiable.
> 
> 
> A Field Trial or Hunting Test for that matter, are tests designed to measure exactly those qualities.


^^^^^^ Thank you!


----------



## K9-Design

The "average" golden retriever probably comes from a pedigree with mostly un-titled dogs and little or no clearances on its parents. It has an average lifespan of 10.5 years. If a breeder takes the necessary steps to improve upon this -- clearances and lifespan -- they are improving the breed and producing "above average" goldens. Competition never comes into it. NO competition judges dogs based on its health or longevity. Those breeders or exhibitors who do compete in addition to clearances are way above average and are already "improving the breed" above the median. We like to think that we're the average golden owner but truth be told those who compete or have dogs from well known pedigrees are GREATLY in the minority when you look at the breed as a whole. Talking about field trials and differences in the breed ring is splitting hairs compared to the work we have done and still have to do to improve on health and longevity.


----------



## Eowyn

Swampcollie said:


> Let's look at this a little bit.
> 
> The breed standard defines the breeds purpose as a "hunting dog". What does that mean? It means that certain traits and characteristics needed to fulfill the roll of a "hunting dog" are required in a dog to satisfy the Breed Standard.
> Desire for birds, desire to please, trainability, courage, visual acuity and intelligence are all necessary traits required for any hunting dog. What's more, they are all traits that are gained or lost in a dog through BREEDING. Those are not trained abilities. A dog has them from birth or it doesn't.
> These qualities are a REQUIREMENT for a "Hunting Dog" and they're not negotiable.
> 
> 
> A Field Trial or Hunting Test for that matter, are tests designed to measure exactly those qualities.


True, but the golden is also supposed to be a family dog, and most field dogs are significantly more dog than the average family can handle. NOT that they aren't great family dogs for their field trial owners. But they are more than the average family can handle. But again that isn't _in_ the standard. It's something that is considered a breed essential, and something I never want to see lost. But it isn't in the standard. 

On the flip side, there is _one_, yes _one_, sentence on the goldens working ability (primary a hunting dog). Compared to 83 sentences on looks, and 4 sentences on temperament. (That is counting section headings as sentences). 

Personally, I like the diversity in our breed. I appreciate that we have dogs competing in the highest level of just about every area of competition. I appreciate that goldens are one of the all time best family dogs. I appreciate that goldens excel as service/assistance dogs. I appreciate that they are active in search and rescue, and sometimes even drug detection. There aren't all what my idea of what I would want to breed for if I had a breeding program, or even what I would want in my goldens, but I still appreciate those goldens. I love our breed!


----------



## DanaRuns

Swampcollie said:


> Health is a given. It's kind of like saying you have to breed for dogs that possess four legs. It is assumed that health is a priority.


If only that were the case.


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> True, but the golden is also supposed to be a family dog, and most field dogs *are significantly more dog than the average family can handle*. NOT that they aren't great family dogs for their field trial owners. But they are more than the average family can handle. But again that isn't _in_ the standard. It's something that is considered a breed essential, and something I never want to see lost. But it isn't in the standard.
> 
> On the flip side, there is _one_, yes one, sentence on the goldens working ability (primary a hunting dog). Compared to 83 sentences on looks, and 4 sentences on temperament. (That is counting section headings as sentences).
> 
> Personally, I like the diversity in our breed. I appreciate that we have dogs competing in the highest level of just about every area of competition. I appreciate that goldens are one of the all time best family dogs. I appreciate that goldens excel as service/assistance dogs. I appreciate that they are active in search and rescue, and sometimes even drug detection. There aren't all what my idea of what I would want to breed for if I had a breeding program, or even what I would want in my goldens, but I still appreciate those goldens. I love our breed!


As I have seen the average family cannot handle puppies in general. And a field golden is just as much a family dog as any other retriever. I have spent time with goldens, labs, chessies and flatties. They are ALL family dogs. 
Rose can be as wild as can be out in the field (sometimes stubborn) and as lovable and cuddly as can be in the house. As a matter of fact so cuddly that sometimes I get pushed off the bed. This past weekend this lab came to me and adopted Rose's position for me to rub his chin. 
And, especially in the winter time I only have Saturdays to train, I am lucky if I get a Sunday in as well.


----------



## LJack

Well, here it goes, my two cents and you all know I am long winded. 

I do not think this is a hard and fast term. It allows for breeders to interpret. I believe it is quite possible and quite common for breeders to differ in their oppinion of this interpretation and speak in their own circles about how what they are doing meets this term, while what others do does not. 

So, here is my oppinion, my definition.
For me a breeder using this term and meeting it would meet each of these 7 criteria.

1. A well defined and articulated goal. 
This could be breeding a Field Trial Champion, a Breed Ring Champion, an 
Obedience Champion, etc. though, it does not have to be that lofty. It could be to 
produce a dog that can earn a CCA, a CD or breed a dog that will live actively and 
healthy until 12-16 years of age. Persoanlly, I think most good breeders have several 
goals they are balancing. What I do not consider a worthy goal for improving is 
producing puppies for production sake. 

2. This goal is tracked an measured.
It is great to have a goal, but if it is not tracked or measured, it is really just a hope or 
wish. In any endeavor, if you are looking to improve, you must know where you were, 
where you are and where you are going. 

3. This goal would be validated by an external organization recognized as the experts in 
their field. 
If I am breeding for a solid hunting dog I should take advantage of organizations that 
offer tests, competitions or certifications. The same would hold true for all other 
disciplines as well as for health. This independent/external evaluation is critical to that 
measurable piece I listed above.

4. The goal would not be contrary to the standard, integrity of the breed or health.
This is the one that everyone likes to argue over. Here from my perspective, I am 
talking about substantial deviations like breeding aggressive guard Goldens or 
knowingly breeding a strain of dogs with a health problem for which their is a test.

5. The breeder is willing and able to remove dogs from the program that are not a step 
forward regardless of time, money, resources, and/or emotions.
Having a goal, measuring it, and all the rest means little if the breeder is unable to 
make the hard decision to put the breed put the breed before their own desires or 
their dogs.

6. Drive to push on to the next goal. 
Once a goal is accomplished, improvement must drive forward. Adding a new goal, 
refining or even adjusting a goal. This also speaks to a breeders growth as well. 
Breeders are not handed a magical tome that holds the collective knowledge of those 
that came before and poof now you are a breeder. As they grow in experience and 
knowledge, it is natural for goals to grow and change as well.

7. Honesty and integrity
To the breed
To the dogs
To their goals
To their buyers 
To themselves

At that point even if it is not a direction I would choose, I have to believe they are breeding to improve the breed. 
I think it would be interesting to ponder if our earliest breeders had such conversations. I bet they did.


----------



## Titan1

Claudia M said:


> If you look at the field trials today and even the hunt tests they have evolved and are different that what they were back in the lets say 1950s.
> 
> 
> I was looking for Hillman videos on youtube and came across this video.
> While it was funny I could not stop feeling sorry for the lady.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6iPe5R_tug


Okay so I was just going to keep my mouth shut but I am not..lol
I happen to know this lady and she is a sweetheart.. She has ALSO has trained to a OTCH MH.. this is her young pup.. I guess if we taped our 1st attempts with a young pup it would not be the best either.. but trust me she knows a lot more about training a golden than I do..


----------



## Titan1

Jersey's Mom said:


> It's not all about tests and trials. That was never intended to be the purpose for this breed (or labs for that matter). Goldens were bred to be a hunter's companion in real life, not in front of a judge. I have said it before in these discussions, and will again, you don't have to have a large number of field trial champions to remain true to the purpose of this breed. Some breeders do push for that top degree of instinct, drive, and stamina needed for field trials. Some breeders seem to have forgotten this is supposed to be a sporting breed. And thankfully, most breeders are somewhere between those two (I want to make this more clear. I have no problem with those breeding for field trial caliber dogs. I do take exception with a line of goldens who have no drive to retrieve. I say "thankfully" because I think the middle ground is better suited for most owners' needs).
> 
> I didn't really feel bad for the lady in that video. I did feel a little bad for the dog. She was inconsistent and frequently unclear with a young, impulsive, obviously green dog. It seems they're learning together and I hope she has a good trainer guiding her so that they learn to work together better before one or the other burns out from frustration. But I'm very unclear about what point you were attempting to illustrate with it.
> 
> Julie and the boys


Julie the lady in the video has an OTCH MH..


----------



## Swampcollie

Eowyn said:


> True, but the golden is also supposed to be a family dog, and most field dogs are significantly more dog than the average family can handle. NOT that they aren't great family dogs for their field trial owners. But they are more than the average family can handle. But again that isn't _in_ the standard. It's something that is considered a breed essential, and something I never want to see lost. But it isn't in the standard.
> 
> On the flip side, there is _one_, yes _one_, sentence on the goldens working ability (primary a hunting dog). Compared to 83 sentences on looks, and 4 sentences on temperament. (That is counting section headings as sentences).
> 
> Personally, I like the diversity in our breed. I appreciate that we have dogs competing in the highest level of just about every area of competition. I appreciate that goldens are one of the all time best family dogs. I appreciate that goldens excel as service/assistance dogs. I appreciate that they are active in search and rescue, and sometimes even drug detection. There aren't all what my idea of what I would want to breed for if I had a breeding program, or even what I would want in my goldens, but I still appreciate those goldens. I love our breed!


Therein lies why there exists a split within the breed.

The breeds purpose is paramount.(That's why it's right there, up front, in the very first paragraph.) It is the prism through which everything else that follows is measured. Without purpose, where does everything else stop? What is moderate and what isn't? How much coat is too much? How much is too little? How much bone is too much? How much is too little? 

Where are the limits?

The breeds Purpose is the defining factor for those limits. If you ignore the Breeds stated purpose, are you really breeding Golden Retrievers? You may be able to produce nice friendly fluffy gold dogs with nice temperaments, but don't call them Golden Retrievers because they don't conform to that breeds stated purpose.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Titan1 said:


> Julie the lady in the video has an OTCH MH..



Thank you for the correction. It may be a sign of how much she expects of her dogs or of my inexperience - probably a combination - but what I was referring to was just that the dog could have perhaps used a little more guidance with a stay command before he got it in his head to run off. Then again, this didn't exactly appear to be a very formal teaching session and she may have just been getting an idea of where he was and what more teaching he needed. No disrespect intended. My main point, though, was much the same as yours - this was obviously a young, green dog and not any sign of some sort of faulty breeding or whatever Claudia was trying to use it to illustrate (she's yet to clarify)

Julie and the boys


----------



## DanaRuns

Swampcollie said:


> Therein lies why there exists a split within the breed.
> 
> The breeds purpose is paramount.(That's why it's right there, up front, in the very first paragraph.) It is the prism through which everything else that follows is measured. Without purpose, where does everything else stop? What is moderate and what isn't? How much coat is too much? How much is too little? How much bone is too much? How much is too little?
> 
> Where are the limits?
> 
> The breeds Purpose is the defining factor for those limits. If you ignore the Breeds stated purpose, are you really breeding Golden Retrievers? You may be able to produce nice friendly fluffy gold dogs with nice temperaments, but don't call them Golden Retrievers because they don't conform to that breeds stated purpose.


I believe this is an extremist position. It's as extremist as one who says Goldens should never be hunting dogs, it's just the other side of that coin. There is a reason that "primarily a hunting dog" is stated in a prepositional phrase.



> A symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. Overall appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts. Faults-Any departure from the described ideal shall be considered faulty to the degree to which it interferes with the breed's purpose or is contrary to breed character. (Emphasis added.)


From a grammar standpoint, "primarily a hunting dog" is the least significant phrase in that paragraph, and simply prepares the reader to understand why the Golden "should be shown in hard working condition."

Yes, we all understand the history and origin of the Golden Retriever. But the prepositional phrase explaining why the Golden is shown in hard working condition is in no way exclaiming "the breed's paramount purpose" or "the prism through which everything else that follows is measured." Indeed, the _only_ measure of that phrase is to explain why the dog is to be shown in "hard working condition." Focusing on the prepositional phrase to the exclusion of all else is just misreading it, period. 

"He" (the Golden), is the subject of the sentence, not "hunting dog," and showing in hard working condition is the object. Remember that a prepositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence. Sometimes a noun within the prepositional phrase seems the logical subject of a verb. Don't fall for that trick!

Look at this sentence: "Primarily a fitness trainer, Bob Harper is always photographed in gym clothes." Logically, this explains why we always see photos of Bob in gym clothes, never a suit. But this isn't about Bob being a fitness trainer, it's about him being photographed. Bob is the _only_ subject of the verb photographed. His job doesn't really matter, locked as it is in the prepositional phrase. Same with the Golden standard. Logically, the prepositional phrase explains why the dog is shown in hard working condition, but "he" is the only subject of the verb "shown." The reason doesn't really matter. It's just an explanation of why he is to be shown in the manner prescribed. Perhaps surprisingly to some, _the sentence is not even about hunting dogs, it's about conformation dog shows_!

Of course, such folks have already made up their minds and no one will ever convince them of any contrary interpretation than they already hold, no matter how grammatically tortured it may be. Which, bringing this back to the thread subject, begs the question: with such extreme and polarized views, can there be any consensus whatsoever on what "breeding to improve the breed" means? At all? In any sense? Can we all agree on _any_ portion of what it means? Or is it, as I first postulated, entirely meaningless, subject entirely to the whims of the speaker of the moment?


----------



## K9-Design

OMG please let's not exhaust ourselves by diagramming sentences! 
The standard is open to opinion and interpretation and that is why "improving the breed" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To me it means improving on the average life expectancy, health and happiness of the puppy you produce and the people who own them! The rest is gravy on top!


----------



## laprincessa

DanaRuns said:


> I believe this is an extremist position. It's as extremist as one who says Goldens should never be hunting dogs, it's just the other side of that coin. There is a reason that "primarily a hunting dog" is stated in a prepositional phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> From a grammar standpoint, "primarily a hunting" is the least significant phrase in that paragraph, and simply prepares the reader to understand why the Golden "should be shown in hard working condition."
> 
> Yes, we all understand the history and origin of the Golden Retriever. But the prepositional phrase explaining why the Golden is shown in hard working condition is in no way exclaiming "the breed's paramount purpose" or "the prism through which everything else that follows is measured." Indeed, the _only_ measure of that phrase is to explain why the dog is to be shown in "hard working condition." Focusing on the prepositional phrase to the exclusion of all else is just misreading it, period.
> 
> "He" (the Golden), is the subject of the sentence, not "hunting dog," and showing in hard working condition is the object. Remember that a prepositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence. Sometimes a noun within the prepositional phrase seems the logical subject of a verb. Don't fall for that trick! You will never find a subject in a prepositional phrase. Look at this sentence: "Along with the other students, Tommy breathed a sigh of relief when the teacher announced that she was postponing the final exam." Logically, more than one student is happy with the news. But Tommy is the _only_ subject of the verb breathed. His classmates don't matter, locked as they are in the prepositional phrase.
> 
> So, just as a person focusing on the first phrase, "A symmetrical, powerful, active dog," to the exclusion of its hunting origin would be wrong, so also is one who focuses myopically on the prepositional phrase that contains the only mention of hunting in the standard -- in almost a throwaway grammatical fashion, as the sentence would still make its point (shown in hard working condition) if the phrase had been excised altogether.
> 
> Of course, such folks have already made up their minds and no one will ever convince them of any contrary interpretation than they already hold, no matter how grammatically tortured it may be. Which, bringing this back to the thread subject, begs the question with such extreme and polarized views, can there be any consensus whatsoever on what "breeding to improve the breed" means? At all? In any sense? Can we all agree on _any_ portion of what it means? Or is it, as I first postulated, entirely meaningless, subject entirely to the whims of the speaker of the moment?



The english major in me absolutely loves this.


----------



## Claudia M

Jersey's Mom said:


> It's not all about tests and trials. That was never intended to be the purpose for this breed (or labs for that matter). Goldens were bred to be a hunter's companion in real life, not in front of a judge. I have said it before in these discussions, and will again, you don't have to have a large number of field trial champions to remain true to the purpose of this breed. Some breeders do push for that top degree of instinct, drive, and stamina needed for field trials. Some breeders seem to have forgotten this is supposed to be a sporting breed. And thankfully, most breeders are somewhere between those two (I want to make this more clear. I have no problem with those breeding for field trial caliber dogs. I do take exception with a line of goldens who have no drive to retrieve. I say "thankfully" because I think the middle ground is better suited for most owners' needs).
> 
> I didn't really feel bad for the lady in that video. I did feel a little bad for the dog. She was inconsistent and frequently unclear with a young, impulsive, obviously green dog. It seems they're learning together and I hope she has a good trainer guiding her so that they learn to work together better before one or the other burns out from frustration. But I'm very unclear about what point you were attempting to illustrate with it.
> 
> Julie and the boys


Doesn't look that young. Maybe the new "improved" coat on the goldens is making the young dogs appear a tad older. 

As I can tell from other videos posted the dog does pretty good in the obedience ring but... as was mentioned many times on this forum, you take that same dog in the field and it all falls apart, even alone with no distractions. 

To you later post on this the trainer also does not look like it trying to figure out where they are, the frustration was shown and heard.


----------



## DanaRuns

K9-Design said:


> OMG please let's not exhaust ourselves by diagramming sentences!


I will refrain if folks likewise refrain from declaring any four words therein as paramount above all others. Sound fair? 

I do apologize for my grammatical enthusiasm. It's about the only use there is for my _two_ English degrees (I know, it's hard to believe  ). I lost the essence, which is about whether or not we can have any agreement on what "breeding to improve the breed" means. Sorry!


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> Doesn't look that young. Maybe the new "improved" coat on the goldens is making the young dogs appear a tad older.
> 
> As I can tell from other videos posted the dog does pretty good in the obedience ring but... as was mentioned many times on this forum, you take that same dog in the field and it all falls apart, even alone with no distractions.
> 
> To you later post on this the trainer also does not look like it trying to figure out where they are, the frustration was shown and heard.


I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Since this thread is about breeding, this dog's father and both grandfathers were Master Hunters, along with many other titles in various venues. This dog was bred to compete in field and obedience. I don't know when this was actually filmed, but when it was posted the dog was still under a year old.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Claudia M said:


> Doesn't look that young. Maybe the new "improved" coat on the goldens is making the young dogs appear a tad older.
> 
> As I can tell from other videos posted the dog does pretty good in the obedience ring but... as was mentioned many times on this forum, you take that same dog in the field and it all falls apart, even alone with no distractions.
> 
> To you later post on this the trainer also does not look like it trying to figure out where they are, the frustration was shown and heard.



Since you can apparently tell so much from watching a single video, please enlighten me. Exactly how old is this dog? Can you really tell for certain, just by looking at that dog's coat, whether that dog is 2 years old or 4? How long has he been training in field work and/or specifically on casting? How much history does this talented obedience trainer have in field work? Surely you can infer all of that from this single video as well, right? I agree, I noticed some frustration from the handler at some points during the video. Do you know for a fact that is because she's working with some sort of genetically inferior dog who falls apart in the field? Or perhaps it could be because the dog had nailed it right before the video started. Everyone has had a moment where they try to push one repetition too far and the dog has lost its focus or we are burned out and off our game -- all the more frustrating when one was hoping for a video of their dog's best work. I don't think that's necessarily what happened but it's just as likely as your scenario. Then again, I also heard her very clearly say "Let's see if you figured this out yet," which guided my original guess that she may have just been feeling out where they were progress-wise. You make a lot of assumptions after watching just one video of a dog that appears to be in the early stages of this training, regardless of his age. I wonder what early videos of you training your dog might have led others to believe about her breeding? I wonder if you would have considered any of those assumptions to be fair? And mostly, I wonder what this video has to do with your apparent point that only goldens bred for field trials are upholding the golden retriever standard -- an opinion that many well respected breeders appear to disagree with. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## DanaRuns

I think it's called confirmation bias.


----------



## laprincessa

DanaRuns said:


> I will refrain if folks likewise refrain from declaring any four words therein as paramount above all others. Sound fair?
> 
> I do apologize for my grammatical enthusiasm. It's about the only use there is for my _two_ English degrees (I know, it's hard to believe  ). I lost the essence, which is about whether or not we can have any agreement on what "breeding to improve the breed" means. Sorry!


Two English degrees? I bow before your greatness!

(I only have one in English. The other two are in Accounting. Can we say "right brain, left brain, make up your mind, deary!")


----------



## hotel4dogs

When I say I want to return to the *original* breed, I think of a lot more than physical looks.
While there are always exceptions to every rule, 20 years or more ago we pretty much didn't see Goldens with the temperament problems that are so common now. Skittish, shy, scared dogs? Wasn't happening. Aggressive dogs, either toward humans or other dogs? Virtually unheard of. Dogs dumb as a box of rocks? Nope. Dogs who are so high energy (and/or neurotic) they simply cannot hold still for even a few minutes at a time? No such thing. All of these things are totally incorrect in the breed, yet we see so very much of it these days. Try boarding dogs, rather than seeing only dogs who are trained in some venue, and you (that's a general "you", not directed at anyone in particular) will see what I see in the breed, and it's not a good thing going on.
Overall longevity statistics remain unchanged over time, so have we made any progress? Hip dysplasia is down, but we have some new issues, especially eye issues, that were unheard of just a couple of decades ago. 
Loved the motto from 2012 National:
"In our past, lies our future"


----------



## SheetsSM

hotel4dogs said:


> When I say I want to return to the *original* breed, I think of a lot more than physical looks.
> While there are always exceptions to every rule, 20 years or more ago we pretty much didn't see Goldens with the temperament problems that are so common now. Skittish, shy, scared dogs? Wasn't happening. Aggressive dogs, either toward humans or other dogs? Virtually unheard of. Dogs dumb as a box of rocks? Nope. Dogs who are so high energy (and/or neurotic) they simply cannot hold still for even a few minutes at a time? No such thing. All of these things are totally incorrect in the breed, yet we see so very much of it these days. Try boarding dogs, rather than seeing only dogs who are trained in some venue, and you (that's a general "you", not directed at anyone in particular) will see what I see in the breed, and it's not a good thing going on.
> Overall longevity statistics remain unchanged over time, so have we made any progress? Hip dysplasia is down, but we have some new issues, especially eye issues, that were unheard of just a couple of decades ago.
> Loved the motto from 2012 National:
> "In our past, lies our future"


I also have to wonder though how much has changed vice how much is now known that wasn't in the past? For health testing, the eye issues could have always been there but now symptoms that might be dismissed as "allergies" are now known as actual symptoms of PU? How has the number of dogs increased in the numbers being tested/evaluated as compared to many years ago? Also, how many pet dogs were out in the public as they are now with stores allowing pets & doggie cafes & dog parks? Has pet ownership changed from a pet never really leaving one's property to now being forced to co-exist in public where issues with temperament are more readily apparent? Also, communication has greatly improved (internet, email, forums...), so folks now have a various means to communicate issues they're dealing with.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I don't disagree most of this, although I do think if PU and/or prcd-PRA had been present before we would know have known it, since the symptom is blindness. 
But I also know many veterinarians and/or trainers who have been "in dogs" for 40+ years, and they (the ones I know) universally lament the change they have seen in the temperament of the Golden breed. 




SheetsSM said:


> I also have to wonder though how much has changed vice how much is now known that wasn't in the past? For health testing, the eye issues could have always been there but now symptoms that might be dismissed as "allergies" are now known as actual symptoms of PU? How has the number of dogs increased in the numbers being tested/evaluated as compared to many years ago? Also, how many pet dogs were out in the public as they are now with stores allowing pets & doggie cafes & dog parks? Has pet ownership changed from a pet never really leaving one's property to now being forced to co-exist in public where issues with temperament are more readily apparent? Also, communication has greatly improved (internet, email, forums...), so folks now have a various means to communicate issues they're dealing with.


----------



## Eowyn

K9-Design said:


> To me it means improving on the average life expectancy...


Then have we failed? Because the life expectancy is shorter now than it was before...


----------



## Kmullen

Eowyn said:


> Then have we failed? Because the life expectancy is shorter now than it was before...


 See I have heard different on this. Can someone post a reliable source on this matter.


----------



## Claudia M

Julie, it is hard to spin around! First it was the inexperienced trainer, then the very young dog. 
I have posted my girls videos (good and bad) under their FB page. And I have wrote many a times about the training (good and bad) on this forum. 
That video actually summarizes how goldens are really expected to perform in the field after the "respected breeders" have "improved" them. 
I do not pretend to be a breeder, this issue has been raised for over 50 years. It fell on deaf ears and nothing was done to keep the aptitudes alive. 
As pointed before nowhere in the breed standard does it specify that "only goldens bred for field trials are upholding the golden retriever standard -- an opinion that many well respected breeders appear to disagree with." Actually the breeders seem to have eliminated them from the conformation pool as if the field goldens no longer fit the breed standard. Excuse my inexperience but I believe that is what the conformation is all about. 
I am always happy and rooting for any dog to pass in the field test and take exception with he goldens. Many a times I sit in the working station and hold my fingers crossed while whispering "go go go". But it still pains me to see the difference in style and performance even if the golden does pass the test.


----------



## flatcoated

Eowyn said:


> Then have we failed? Because the life expectancy is shorter now than it was before...



I'd be curious to know whether, on average, life expectancy in all breeds has gone up or down during the course of the last several decades. It's important to be mindful of the fact that most health problems are multi-factorial, and environmental factors that may lie beyond individual control are often highly significant, even in cases of clear genetic linkages. There are undoubtedly genes that lead to higher probabilities of a dog developing one illness or another, but with so many other factors entering into the equation, it is not entirely out of the question that breeders have improved underlying genetic soundness even if the incidence of cancers and other diseases has increased. That's not to say that this is what has happened, but we shouldn't discount the possibility, because there are a whole host of other factors in the mix.


----------



## Megora

Eowyn said:


> Then have we failed? Because the life expectancy is shorter now than it was before...


I dont think this is true. I've spent a lot of time on k9data, and at least for reported dod, the average is not that much changed......

I think other cancers must be more prevalent now too due to environment.... I know with people, there are certain cancers or conditions which did not exist that much back then when my parents were young. But doctors are seeing a lot of cases...


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't disagree most of this, although I do think if PU and/or prcd-PRA had been present before we would know have known it, since the symptom is blindness.
> But I also know many veterinarians and/or trainers who have been "in dogs" for 40+ years, and they (the ones I know) universally lament the change they have seen in the temperament of the Golden breed.


I had the same thoughts as sheets, but additional one too... how have training methods changed in the past 40 years? 

I do agree, Barb, with some of what you are saying. We talked privately about this and in the cases we discussed, I 100% agreed. The fact is that some of the behavior and hyperactivity and temperament issues that I wanted to avoid were tops of my list of concerns when I interviewed breeders and affected what breeders I looked into.

We had a field/obedience/conformation cross growing up who was too much dog for us. And regardless of qualities he had, they went to waste because we have never been hard handed enough as trainers to easily deal wiith a dog who was smart as a whip and followed his own drumbeat even to the extent of us not trusting him off lead until he was 5 or 6.

I think I am more capable now as far as dealing with a dog like that, but I absolutely didnt want to. My opinion, goldens are not supposed to be hard headed and independent. If I were into that, there are a lot of other breeds I could have gotten which are supposed to be like that....


----------



## Macs#1

As a posting novice, but long time Golden owner, I'd like to offer my first hand experiences of owning eight very different Goldens over the last 37 years. First and foremost, with minmal training, these dogs can do more than a creditable job with ducks and doves AND live indoors on the dole for the other 7 months of the year. All have been great family dogs. They have come from a variety of breeders and cancer took 5 of the 8. I guess I'm lucky but we have not had any issues with dysplasia or other genetic issues. The primary purpose of choosing Goldens for our family dogs was to have a working retriever and a dog we could trust around family. NONE have ever exhibited any behavioral trait I would consider abnormal. All have had that Golden sixth sense when it comes to handling toddlers - unless they were eating something desirable and at that point our dogs like to "share", LOL! I strongly agree with the posters above that the tendency among some professional breededs to focus on conformation at the expense of the breed standard is doing a great disservice to our Goldens as a whole. My opinion of the breeders in the local club my wife and I once belonged to soured considerably when we came to realize that most of these folks were only in it for the money and fame they could generate from their litters. Sure, they bred to rid a certain line of dysplasia, bad elbows, heart defects and eye problems but only as a secondary means to end. And that end was the almighty dollar. Happily, some focus has been brought on certain breeders tendency toward large chested, blockhead dogs, who do well in beauty contest but are moving further and further from the conformation standard previously detailed. In the perfect world financial gain is not the driving force to working toward a genetically sound, physically fit, field savy, family dog who our childrens, children will still apreciate for all the Golden can be. I have enjoyed and been educated by this thread.


----------



## Megora

@DixieJim - please don't misunderstand what people have said above. I've talked privately with a few people not necessarily regarding this thread, but an ongoing discussion as far as problems that exist when you have so many splits in the breed and so many people going obstinate about what they see as problems and what they refuse to admit are problems. 

The issue is that it's not just conformation breeders moving aware from the center of the road (so to speak). It's the other guys moving the other way as well. And this is a problem when you have people getting tunnel vision or disparaging other areas of the complete dog.


----------



## Bentman2

Megora said:


> Barb.... I don't know what that means. I look at pictures of dogs 80 years ago - and I don't want to go back there. Browsing through K9data and looking at a lot of the pictures that are there.... there seemed to be a big variety of looks that won in the conformation rings. To me, this indicated that breed type was not quite set in stone and the breed was still developing.
> 
> I started paying attention during the 90's when goldens (around here) had heavier coats and were bigger dogs and more prone to hip and elbow problems. This was especially before they started screening for elbows. Cataracts too were a bit more common and more of concern that I remember... that may have been colored in a bit more because we had a dog with juvies.
> 
> I always semi-accepted (I'm naïve and gullible, I guess) that we have been improving vastly from what we had as kids. My dogs have moderate coats. They are wash and wear. I bathe and blow dry the youngest for shows, but that's spit shine. He dries fast and well on his own and won't get skin infections if he goes swimming and I don't bother bathing and drying him. Burrs slide right out of the coats. And basically these dogs are minimal grooming. They don't matt. They don't shed that much. And most people think they've been groomed 24/7 to look the way they do - this even with me skipping a week as far as brushing them out.
> 
> My nearly 7 year old has mild bilateral hip dysplasia - and he is more active than most dogs out there with excellent hips. He's my energizer bunny. My other boy just got all his clearances and even before I got the results - I could see he was going to be fine based on his movement. This dog jumps up to 30" (that I've seen) like it is nothing. <- To me this is the results of clearances and careful breeding behind them. What breeders improved on.
> 
> Where I want the breed to improve is getting to a point where we do not have as much cancer, as much hip/elbow problems, as much eye problems (PU), as much skin and gut issues....
> 
> Where I want the breed to improve is more obedience titles on conformation dogs. Bare minimum, we should get back to getting CDX's on these dogs. This means these dogs aren't just capable of heeling, but they can jump, retrieve, and have the confidence to remain in the ring out of sight from their owners. I don't know if the split between field and conformation is curable, but I don't feel comfortable about there also being a split between obedience and conformation.
> 
> And I could keep going with my wish list as far as what I personally hope for. This is even somehow breed clubs getting more involved with encouraging pet owners to train for WC's. More outreach and fun based training as opposed to the Cabalas crowd!
> 
> There's a lot of room for improvement of the _good_ things we have now.


 
*"Where I want the breed to improve is getting to a point where we do not have as much cancer, as much hip/elbow problems, as much eye problems (PU), as much skin and gut issues....* "

Yes, I think Megora definition of "improving the breed" is the only "real" improvement that is meaningful to all of us. We tend to measure the health of our dogs in terms of quality of life and length of life. We all tend to look at these areas, especially cancer, as the most pressing issues as things to improve. If breeders, were able to know ahead of time, which of their sires and dams, were going to develop cancer, and these other problems, they could take these dogs out of the pool and reduce the liklihood of continuing that trait in the generations that come. They can, with a great deal of accuracy, determine if elbows, hips, eyes, and heart are going to be a problem with their offsprings, but cancer and others are not known to later in life, of the sire and dam. Yes, I think we have to concentrate on cancer next as the area that can be bred out of the breed.


----------



## K9-Design

Bentman2 said:


> Yes, I think Megora definition of "improving the breed" is the only "real" improvement that is meaningful to all of us. We tend to measure the health of our dogs in terms of quality of life and length of life. We all tend to look at these areas, especially cancer, as the most pressing issues as things to improve. If breeders, were able to know ahead of time, which of their sires and dams, were going to develop cancer, and these other problems, they could take these dogs out of the pool and reduce the liklihood of continuing that trait in the generations that come. They can, with a great deal of accuracy, determine if elbows, hips, eyes, and heart are going to be a problem with their offsprings, but cancer and others are not known to later in life, of the sire and dam. Yes, I think we have to concentrate on cancer next as the area that can be bred out of the breed.



Exactly. At this point in time, cancer is the #1 concern for our breed, and where we need to work the hardest to "improve" it. None of us are going to cure cancer, but we can support research to discover early cues (i.e. DNA markers), environmental triggers (MAF GRLS), and make smart decisions in choosing breeding dogs. A real easy one is to only select sires who are older and have not had cancer. I cringe every time I hear of people using very young sires, for this exact reason.


----------



## Claudia M

Megora said:


> @DixieJim - please don't misunderstand what people have said above. I've talked privately with a few people not necessarily regarding this thread, but an ongoing discussion as far as problems that exist when you have so many splits in the breed and so many people going obstinate about what they see as problems and what they refuse to admit are problems.
> 
> The issue is that it's not just conformation breeders moving aware from the center of the road (so to speak). It's the other guys moving the other way as well. And this is a problem when you have people getting tunnel vision or disparaging other areas of the complete dog.


Unfortunately Kate, when you take the work-ability and tractability out of the dog you cause the original breed to become extinct. You may still call it the same breed in the conformation ring but that does not mean that it remains the same breed. 

And when you lose the stamina, the water attitude, the style etc then you will feel like all eyes are on you when in the field and feel bad about it, but it is nothing that the field people did; it is the fact that it has been indeed bred out of it. 


As far as what Barb brought about the temperament changes of the goldens. I think it is a combination of breeding but also the false expectations of the owners that the golden is just this cuddly ball of fluff that does not need training, and breed specific exercise. 

Darcy was on Xanax because the previous owner said she was too hyper. Well lady, you got a flat coat retriever breed not a couch potato! Amazing how for the past year she has not had any Xanax and any other medications this woman had her on. All Darcy needed was the appropriate amount of exercise and her brains directed in the field.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Claudia M said:


> Julie, it is hard to spin around! First it was the inexperienced trainer, then the very young dog.
> I have posted my girls videos (good and bad) under their FB page. And I have wrote many a times about the training (good and bad) on this forum.
> That video actually summarizes how goldens are really expected to perform in the field after the "respected breeders" have "improved" them.
> I do not pretend to be a breeder, this issue has been raised for over 50 years. It fell on deaf ears and nothing was done to keep the aptitudes alive.
> As pointed before nowhere in the breed standard does it specify that "only goldens bred for field trials are upholding the golden retriever standard -- an opinion that many well respected breeders appear to disagree with." Actually the breeders seem to have eliminated them from the conformation pool as if the field goldens no longer fit the breed standard. Excuse my inexperience but I believe that is what the conformation is all about.
> I am always happy and rooting for any dog to pass in the field test and take exception with he goldens. Many a times I sit in the working station and hold my fingers crossed while whispering "go go go". But it still pains me to see the difference in style and performance even if the golden does pass the test.



I'm not "spinning" anything. In my first reply I referenced both an inexperienced dog and what I saw to possibly be an inexperienced trainer. I was provided with more information about the woman in question (actual facts, not conjecture), rewatched the video with that new information in mind, and adjusted my opinion. That's what most people do when presented with new evidence. My point isn't that I know exactly what is going on in that video. I don't. Neither do you. That was the point. As evidenced by the fact that you assumed to know this dog's age from looking at his coat yet it turns out he was under 1 year old when that video was posted. I have no idea what you mean when you say, "That video actually summarizes how goldens are really expected to perform in the field after the "respected breeders" have "improved" them." No one expects a well trained golden retriever to blow off a cast. Do you believe this is an innate, instinctual behavior that goldens of yesteryear naturally possessed without need for training? I highly doubt it. I would equally expect a novice lab who is still in the learning stages (and less than a year old) to at times get over excited, break from the line, and grab the nearest bumper (especially when no particular stay command has been used to give the dog guidance). Are you claiming labs don't do that? Ever? Since you freely admit there is some "bad" along the way while you are training your dogs, how can you so readily assume that the bit of "bad" displayed in this video is an example of some sort of deficiency or lack of aptitude from breeding while claiming that your dog hasn't lost the capability. What makes your dog's bad moment superior to this dog's?

I'm starting to think that either you live in a place unique for an over abundance of poorly performing goldens or I have just been lucky to live in multiple areas with exceptional ones. When I am working in the field with Jersey, I just don't see all this inadequacy in the breed that you do. I see passes, failures, great performances, and occasionally some poor ones from ALL breeds competing on any particular day. Perhaps it is, to some extent, that our expectations are different. I do not expect a golden to perform exactly like a lab. I don't expect a poodle to perform exactly like a golden. I don't expect a NSDTR to perform exactly like a poodle. And so on. They are different breeds for a reason. Otherwise, we would only have ever needed, and ever had, a single "retriever" breed. If you prefer the working style of a lab so much, I have to wonder why you would be interested in owning future goldens (perhaps you're not, I don't really know). 

Conformation breeders do not seek out dogs at the farthest extreme of "field bred" (for the most part) because it is not the style of dog they prefer and it is not the style of dog that is likely to be successful in their chosen field of interest. Similarly, breeders primarily focused on field trials generally do not seek out conformation bred dogs for the same reason. Why is one more guilty than the other in your eyes? It does not mean that most conformation breeders have absolutely no interest in preserving the "retriever" in this breed. I never claimed that the standard said that field trials are necessary to uphold breed type. I referenced the fact that you say it every time a discussion remotely similar to this arises. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Claudia M

See Julie, once again we are defending the golden of today instead of going to the golden of yesterday that had the qualities of a RETRIEVER and the looks of a golden retriever in the show ring. 

You keep on asking me why would I still want goldens, why am I critical of the goldens and not just accept them the way they have been "improved". Call me a romantic but I prefer the Golden Retrievers the way they were. 

Frankly because I am tired of them being beat by the back dog. Both in style and performance. Yes, definitely our expectations are different and that is the reason why I will not defend and accept the "new improved" golden retriever.

BTW - this is what IMHO a one year old golden looks like as far as coat goes:


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia M said:


> Unfortunately Kate, when you take the work-ability and tractability out of the dog you cause the original breed to become extinct. You may still call it the same breed in the conformation ring but that does not mean that it remains the same breed.
> 
> And when you lose the stamina, the water attitude, the style etc then you will feel like all eyes are on you when in the field and feel bad about it, but it is nothing that the field people did; it is the fact that it has been indeed bred out of it.
> 
> .


I don't disagree with this, but I would also argue that taking away the hallmark physical characteristics away from a breed also results in the same problem. It is certainly a fine balance....


----------



## HiTideGoldens

As for the original question, since it's gotten a little off topic, improving the breed to me means (as someone else posted) improving on what you have. Prioritizing health, temperament and overall soundness. It can certainly mean different things to different people, as can many things in this hobby. So many breeding decisions end up being made based on where that decision lies within one's personal comfort zone. For me it is making choices that, if questioned later, I would feel comfortable telling a puppy buyer that I did all the research I could and made the best decision I could at the time.


----------



## Ljilly28

To me, breeding to "improve the breed" is a way of saying to set thoughtful high goals, and don't just breed the dog you have because you love her/him as a pet. Breed with a high bar set in your mind rather than lowering your bar to be commensurate with the dog you happen to own who grows up with more limitations than you hoped when selecting a puppy. 

When my show puppy passed elbow prelims but failed finals, well I neutered him though many counciled me to still breed him. When my field bred dog had cripplingly poor conformation, I spayed her. That is what most people also do who love the breed. 

However the ones who make excuses and breed the dog anyway bc they put money and emotional investment and precious training time into it already? Those are the people for whom that phrase was invented, especially when the truth is purposely hidden.

To me, trying to improve the breed is in some ways in the eye of the beholder. However, when people start compromising their own formerly high standards bc they want to breed for breeding's sake, then that is the opposite of the phrase. 

Goldens of the past: I lived every day of my life with multiple goldens, and the goldens of yesterday were my nannies and best friends, went hunting with my grandfather, played ball, slept in my bed - they are not all that different from my current dog Finn. From someone who grew up with responsibly bred, dual bred goldens from a top past breeder, it just isnt true they are so very changed except at the extreme polarities of each sport/ venue.

If a golden is way too long in leg to comply with the breed standard, and long in the loin, then these things are not window dressing meaningless except in the show ring; they keep the field dog from breaking down physically when his mind still has good drive. 
Having owned a golden with amazing prey drive and MH x MH parents, it was heartbreaking when her elbows were set way too loose to her body and she lacked proper angulation in the front, so that her superior drive only served to injure her and worsen her drastic ED. In the ideal world, form and function are equal parts of a whole.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Claudia M said:


> See Julie, once again we are defending the golden of today instead of going to the golden of yesterday that had the qualities of a RETRIEVER and the looks of a golden retriever in the show ring.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on asking me why would I still want goldens, why am I critical of the goldens and not just accept them the way they have been "improved". Call me a romantic but I prefer the Golden Retrievers the way they were.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly because I am tired of them being beat by the back dog. Both in style and performance. Yes, definitely our expectations are different and that is the reason why I will not defend and accept the "new improved" golden retriever.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - this is what IMHO a one year old golden looks like as far as coat goes:



All this talk about what goldens used to be able to do in the field. I've gotten the impression that you are relatively new to working in the field with your dogs. Unless I am completely mistaken, you haven't been out there over the past 50 or however many years to have observed what their style or level of performance used to be. Or what used to be required for a field trial as compared to today. You assume that because their style and performance differs in some ways from that of a lab (or whatever breed) that it is a fundamental change and decline in the golden's style and performance. I'm new to this too. But I hold that those things have always differed between the breeds.... it's fundamentally the reason there ARE different breeds. They were bred for similar, but nonetheless different, purposes. Yes, there is more of a spread between the extremes and less dogs capable of excelling to the absolute top levels in both field and conformation today. There hasn't been a Dual Champion in however many decades. But how many were there ever? Was it ever really the norm? I'm asking honestly, I can't seem to google up the answer. As someone else mentioned, both sides of the spectrum have moved farther apart over the years. Labs have gone through that same spread of extremes. But there is still a ton of middle ground that many responsible breeders fill, focusing on their particular priorities but always keeping an eye toward purpose. I prefer that middle of the road dog. I want a dog with the look I prefer who has a ton of drive in the field but I do not have the interest, the time, or the money to pursue field trials. Which one of us is more right for wanting what we personally desire in a golden? I would say neither. And I don't see it as an entirely negative thing that there is enough variation in the breed to satisfy us both. I agree with you that any breeder who has NO concern for maintaining the working ability in goldens is doing a disservice to the breed. I just don't see that the majority of breeders (excluding mills and BYBs) fit that description. Go for the breed you want. Go for the style within that breed that you prefer. Support breeders whose ideals coincide with yours. Show a modicum of respect to those breeders who are closer to the middle of the road than you. But stop denigrating this entire breed because of the fundamentally flawed argument that goldens once upon a time performed identically to labs. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz

Edited to add: you are welcome to your opinion of what a 1 year old dog should look like. But individual dogs and lines of dogs, just like individual people and families, mature at different rates. Jersey was nearly 3 before he hit full maturity. This dog may have been there at 18 or 20 months. I tried to use a good analogy for people but most of them are less than appetizing - and since I know I often snack while reading posts, I'll refrain from anything unsavory lol. But you get the idea. I know 12 year old boys who practically look like grown men and others who look like babies by comparison. Ever gone to watch a little league game? Those kids can really run the gamut. Dogs are no different.


----------



## DanaRuns

May I make a respectful request that the Israelis and Palestinians take it to another thread for their endless war where they just yell at each other and never even try to understand the other's perspective?

This thread was to discuss what the phrase "breeding to improve the breed" means, if anything. Certainly there is room in that discussion for someone to say that to them it means breeding to win field trials. But once you've said that, give it a rest and let other people chime in with their thoughts, and don't use this thread as an excuse to hijack it for another one of your endless diatribes about how ruined Goldens are. Let's please try to get back somewhere in the same zip code as the topic.

Thanks.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Since I'm perfectly guilty of some of the off topic chatter here, I'll try to bring myself back to the original question. I really like the comments made regarding improving health and longevity while striving to adhere to the standard and, as I think it was Swampcollie put it, focus on veering toward the middle to maintain good looking dogs who maintain their original purpose. I don't have really anything new or interesting to add to what has already been said on those fronts. Great thread, lots of good thoughts -- sorry I got distracted. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Claudia M

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't disagree with this, but I would also argue that taking away the hallmark physical characteristics away from a breed also results in the same problem. It is certainly a fine balance....


Could not agree with you more Michelle! Structure is very very important and not just in the conformation but also in the field. If the dog is out of structure it cannot perform it's job in the field.

This past weekend I went to our first field trial training. As many people here know Rose is out of standard. This girl has given everything she has in the field. Run fast to the marks, 114yds, 185yds and 240yds after the first ABCD marks session of about 400yds (I did not use my range on those marks), figured out how to get thru the fallen tree 240 yds away(something that the labs did not do, they went around the fallen tree but still re-oriented and got the bird). Unfortunately she can run until she drops. And that is not healthy. Also had to consider OSS (ovary sparring spay) for her for the same reason; at her height I cannot afford for her to get overweight which can happen with a regular spay. 

So I am seeing first hand how out of standard and structure can be detrimental not only to the health but also performance. There is no way I could run her in a three day back to back trial. She would probably do it but it would not be good for her health. 

But on the same vein I cannot see the bulky (and I know it is just fluffed up coat), stocky, big pawed goldens in the conformation ring be able to do the same. While I have seen a show style golden pass an MH test it was quite pitiful to watch that dog's style and performance. I really thought he would be dropped just on style. In a way I was glad he passed but on another hand I figured that dog will be bred with "the big achievement" of passing MH tests even though that dog tippy toed to the marks. 

Reason why I call bogus on the statement of "improving the breed".


----------



## Megora

> But on the same vein I cannot see the bulky (and I know it is just fluffed up coat), stocky, big pawed goldens in the conformation ring be able to do the same. While I have seen a show style golden pass an MH test it was quite pitiful to watch that dog's style and performance. I really thought he would be dropped just on style. In a way I was glad he passed but on another hand I figured that dog will be bred with "the big achievement" of passing MH tests even though that dog tippy toed to the marks.


 I have to say this.... stuff like this after the previous comments on Bernadette and her young dog.... it's.... unkind. Particularly all the more since people with conformation dogs are going to feel personally charged here by your critical description here when they would not say anything critical about your dog. And still wouldn't, I hope.

Structure - is very important to me as a dog owner and I'm still learning what exactly "good structure" is from head to tail from back to foot. Me personally without going into a lot of the other stuff (that I'm still learning about), I like balance. I had a judge (she hasn't judged my dog so not a personal comment on my dog) tell me that you know a dog is balanced and there's much wrong with him if he is able to stack himself on his own without having to be trained to stack. 

This was interesting because in obedience you have people who feel you have to stack the dogs to really make sure they are balanced and will stay in place - and _fight_ with the dogs who don't want to stand that way. And one person I know of, she always stacked her girl and kept having her break the stays. One of the times we traded stays in class, I told her to not fuss with the feet and see how her dog would do just putting the feet where she wanted as long as she wasn't falling over. So the dog was put in a stay where her rears were well under her and closer together. The dog held her stays and it worked in the ring too as she got her CD without any points off on the stand. <- This was a champion flatcoat, btw, who has been bred. I honestly am not really saying she had bad structure. But following what judges see when you have dogs not comfortable standing square, it was interesting to note.

ETA - and I brought the structure thing up because it seems a very minute thing as far as "how dogs want to stand" but I filed that right in the same area of my brain that took notes sitting outside the ring and watching a local person working in obedience with her CH/MH/MACH/OTCH German shorthair pointer and thinking the whole time that I wanted a dog whose movement and like moving stands and drops and everything were so effortless. Big thing I noticed with this dog was she is superb physically and structurally and very controlled (meaning controlled as far as how much energy she expends while working). <- I don't know if there is a golden out there who could be all that, but at the time it motivated me to go on and bring up structure and movement and strength when talking to golden breeders after that. 

What that judge said about even little things like the dog being able to stand square comfortably - that hit in the same area because I do believe that structure isn't just for show. You want these dogs to be healthy in every way. It does trickle into how they perform, even in obedience.

My instructor (another flatcoat person) has frequently brought up structure when it comes to stays. She's had a couple dogs who had problems with sits - and this led her to speculate as a flatcoat person if there is something going on with the structure of these specific dogs or if it is the breed even. Her dogs have had adjustments which helped them with the stays - so there may be something there. 

^ This is just talking about sitting and standing and the effects that proper or improper structure have.


----------



## Claudia M

Jersey's Mom said:


> ...........I prefer that middle of the road dog.


So it comes down to sacrificing the entire breed for a middle of the road dog and call it improved? In my book middle of the road equates with mediocrity. I do not think the original intent of Lord Tweedmouth was to create a middle of the road hunting dog. After all he has put so much work, time and dedication into it. 

BTW - I did not think that field trials were breed specific tests. If they were they would be run as specialty tests only for specific retriever breeds. But no worries, they are pretty much there today. 

And before I get jumped on I better put the definition up: mediocrity =

"early 15c., moderation; intermediate state or amount," from Middle French médiocrité and directly from Latin mediocritatem (nominative mediocritas) "a middle state, middling condition, medium," from mediocris (see mediocre ). Neutral at first; disparaging sense began to predominate from late 16c. The meaning "person of mediocre abilities or attainments" is from 1690s. Before the tinge of disparagement crept in, another name for the Golden Mean was golden mediocrity." From Dictionary.com

And no, it is not yelling or fighting, it is just being passionate about a breed we love that despite the numbers f them out there it has not been improved.

Improved to me means keeping its abilities according to the times not diluting them. And with abilities comes performance, health and structure.


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia, I am at a total loss of what you are trying to prove. Now it sounds like you are saying this something is wrong with the dog in the video's breeding because of the amount of coat he has? This is that dog's sire:

Pedigree: OTCH MACH Sunfire's Undeniable VCD3 UDX RAE TDX MH MXC MJB WCX OBHF ADHF ** OS

Yes, he throws thick, beautiful coats. He also throws dogs that can WORK. He has a son that was the first ever OTCH MACH CT MH in the breed, and a second son is one pass away from being the same. 

I really think you chose a bad example of a dog to pick on, because every breeding decision made for generations to create that puppy was based on creating a great working dog who is also a nice physical representation of the breed and with a genuine "golden" temperament. IMO that puppy is what breeders should be striving to create.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> Improved to me means keeping its abilities according to the times not diluting them.


That's not improving, it's maintaining the status quo. Is that good enough?


----------



## Eowyn

> im·prove
> imˈpro͞ov
> verb
> gerund or present participle: improving
> make or become better.
> "we’ve used technology to improve relations with customers"
> synonyms:	make better, better, ameliorate, upgrade, update, refine, enhance, boost, build on, raise, polish, fix (up), amend; More
> antonyms:	worsen, deteriorate, decrease, diminish
> develop or increase in mental capacity by education or experience.
> "I subscribed to two magazines to improve my mind"
> achieve or produce something better than.
> "they are trying to improve on the tired old style"
> synonyms:	surpass, better, do better than, outdo, exceed, beat, top, cap
> "how could anyone improve on his brilliant analysis?"
> 
> Origin
> early 16th century (as emprowe or improwe ): from Anglo-Norman French emprower (based on Old French prou ‘profit,’ ultimately from Latin prodest ‘is of advantage’); -owe was changed to -ove under the influence of prove. The original sense was ‘make a profit, increase the value of’; subsequently ‘make greater in amount or degree.’


^^^Just thought that may help.

I would say it means improving structural soundness, health, temperament, ability, suitability for their purposes, etc.


----------



## golfgal

Wow. Interesting discussion. I am by no means an expert in terms of breeding, show or field trials so I'm staying out of that one. I'm around lots of pure bred goldens, labs and crosses a lot though. As mentioned by a previous posters, goldens have many purposes and everyone should have a goal in mind of what they are trying to achieve in terms of what improving the breed means. Although I'm sure people will disagree on how that is accomplished. 

A little background before I get into my question. Most guide dog organizations are known for the quality of their breeding programs and many well known authors on dogs reference the UK and US programs. One UK stud (lab) has 95% of his get (pure bred & crosses) that have become working dogs which I think is impressive. 

I think it's fair to see they are reputable breeders of dogs, not running puppy mills or BYBs. Oddly enough however, most service dog organizations are cutting down the goldens in their programs if having them at all. Many are moving towards 3/4 crosses 3/4 Lab & 1/4 golden)as the 50/50 cross do not have great track records. What most people say is that it comes down to the temperament. Generally more willful and stubborn.

I find that quite interesting and also disturbing. What message does this send about the breed? What is going on with the temperament? Can't argue that these orgs are trying to breed quality dogs and getting good quality breeding stock. Just curious as to people's thoughts. Apologies if some don't this wasn't along the lines of this thread.


----------



## Kmullen

Why on earth do we do this to each other... We will never change eachother's thoughts because we are all hard headed or have strong opinions for the way we feel. I hate hate pointing fingers and people who are trying to do right by the breed. Whether it be trying to breed for health, structure, work-ability, etc. It is very hard to get it all. So, one may focus a little more on a certain trait first and then go with traits they need.

I just really do not understand all of this cutting at each other. I have seen awesome field Goldens and I have seen plenty of field Goldens not run well. The same goes for conformation style Goldens. We can not lump all into the same boat.


Just because we see one or a few Goldens that have excessive coat or too small or too blocky or no type or run like crap.... Does not mean they are all like that!!

End of rant!


----------



## K9-Design

golfgal said:


> I think it's fair to see they are reputable breeders of dogs, not running puppy mills or BYBs. Oddly enough however, most service dog organizations are cutting down the goldens in their programs if having them at all. Many are moving towards 3/4 crosses 3/4 Lab & 1/4 golden)as the 50/50 cross do not have great track records. What most people say is that it comes down to the temperament. Generally more willful and stubborn.
> 
> I find that quite interesting and also disturbing. What message does this send about the breed? What is going on with the temperament? Can't argue that these orgs are trying to breed quality dogs and getting good quality breeding stock. Just curious as to people's thoughts. Apologies if some don't this wasn't along the lines of this thread.


Two thoughts :

1) Guide dog programs want to produce a specific type of dog, not a specific breed. It is an honor that our breed is capable of contributing to their gene pool, but it's not a measurement of how good or bad our breed is. An akita or Borzoi is a fine breed in its own right but would make terrible guide dogs. We don't judge them on their abilities to lead the blind, though, we judge them as akitas or borzois. We should do the same for goldens. 

2) We have much to learn from the guide dog breeding programs in terms of statistical analysis and health clearances. They have an amazing track record with reducing genetic disease because they cull dogs from their breeding program, whereas us breeders are emotionally attached to our dogs and tend to make excuses and exceptions in this department. Guide dog organizations also have the luxury of being able to breed a lot of litters, nowadays most breeders keep one or two breeding bitches, tops. It's hard to make short term progress with such a small sample population! Guide dog organizations utilize estimated breeding values which are SOP with livestock production but us hobby dog breeders have been slow to catch on. Cornell recently launched a searchable database for hip and elbow score EBVs and it was really fascinating and valuable -- but got little fanfare from the exact crowd it was meant for because they plain old didn't understand it!!


----------



## cubbysan

I think it is really cool that there are so many styles of golden retrievers, all within the standard, but interpreted differently by each breeder. 

My breeder has a plan in what she thinks the perfect golden retriever is. With Sailor's litter, she said it took quite a few generations of planning to get these puppies to be what she envisioned. I can tell every time she sees Sailor, she is evaluating her and thinking about what future plans we will have with her.

Her dogs do hold conformation titles, but they will never hold field or hunting titles, unless somebody buys a puppy from her goes in that direction. She just has no desire to do that type of stuff with her dogs. Instead, dogs she has bred do therapy, agility, obedience and search and rescue. We might even get Sailor into dance if she continues acting like she is interested in that. These things may not be what Lord Tweedmouth bred to the golden to do, but maybe it is the modern time versions of the skills, athleticism, temperament, and intelligence needed to be the hunting dog and companion dog over a hundred years ago.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Why on earth do we do this to each other... We will never change eachother's thoughts because we are all hard headed or have strong opinions for the way we feel. I hate hate pointing fingers and people who are trying to do right by the breed. Whether it be trying to breed for health, structure, work-ability, etc. It is very hard to get it all. *So, one may focus a little more on a certain trait first and then go with traits they need.
> *
> I just really do not understand all of this cutting at each other. I have seen awesome field Goldens and I have seen plenty of field Goldens not run well. The same goes for conformation style Goldens. We can not lump all into the same boat.
> 
> 
> Just because we see one or a few Goldens that have excessive coat or too small or too blocky or no type or run like crap.... Does not mean they are all like that!!
> 
> End of rant!


Now that is where I am stuck, unless you meant something else.

Breed for the trait you need, that means deviate from the purpose of the dog. The breed was not created to be a service dog or to parade in the show ring. That was not the trait for which this breed was created. 

Work-ability, tractability and performance go hand in hand with health and structure. You cannot achieve the first if you do not have the latter.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Now that is where I am stuck, unless you meant something else.
> 
> Breed for the trait you need, that means deviate from the purpose of the dog. The breed was not created to be a service dog or to parade in the show ring. That was not the trait for which this breed was created.
> 
> Work-ability, tractability and performance go hand in hand with health and structure. You cannot achieve the first if you do not have the latter.


See Claudia, have you ever carefully bred a litter? Did I say confirmation shows?? If you actually read what I wrote, I said Structure. It is extremely hard to get everything that you want in a golden retriever in one generation... Sometimes many more. If you are focusing your breeding program solely on field, you will be losing something. Same goes for breeding solely on structure/coat. No dog is perfect. I think every breeder would like to have it all, but something has to give.

So, I really don't understand where I said anything about service dog or parading around the show ring. You said that. You can think parading around the ring is the stupidest thing, but you do not have to be rude about it. Yes, we all know what your opinion on show Goldens are. 

Again, everyone should be open-minded.


----------



## Kmullen

One can not get structure, temperament, health, and work-ability!! They will be faulted somewhere. If there is a dog out there with all of these great qualities, please show me. I am not saying there are not great dogs out there, just saying you can't have it all.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Claudia M said:


> So it comes down to sacrificing the entire breed for a middle of the road dog and call it improved? In my book middle of the road equates with mediocrity. I do not think the original intent of Lord Tweedmouth was to create a middle of the road hunting dog. After all he has put so much work, time and dedication into it.
> 
> BTW - I did not think that field trials were breed specific tests. If they were they would be run as specialty tests only for specific retriever breeds. But no worries, they are pretty much there today.
> 
> And before I get jumped on I better put the definition up: mediocrity =
> 
> "early 15c., moderation; intermediate state or amount," from Middle French médiocrité and directly from Latin mediocritatem (nominative mediocritas) "a middle state, middling condition, medium," from mediocris (see mediocre ). Neutral at first; disparaging sense began to predominate from late 16c. The meaning "person of mediocre abilities or attainments" is from 1690s. Before the tinge of disparagement crept in, another name for the Golden Mean was golden mediocrity." From Dictionary.com
> 
> And no, it is not yelling or fighting, it is just being passionate about a breed we love that despite the numbers f them out there it has not been improved.
> 
> Improved to me means keeping its abilities according to the times not diluting them. And with abilities comes performance, health and structure.



You're ridiculous. I give up. You want to call my MACH, CDX, JH, etc dog mediocre... Be my guest. You want to call my up and comer with the aptitude to accomplish that and more (especially since I am now not moving every other year and have some basic idea, at least, what I am doing) a waste of Lord Tweedmouth's time... Fine. Just because they are from dual purpose (for lack of a better term) breeding and have a look that tends more toward the conformation side does not make them the genetic failure or inept field dogs you seem to want them to be. Have fun training for field trials with your apparently unsound dog. I'll keep doing my thing, even as my old boy tops 9 years old still going strong. I don't know why everything has to be so extremely black and white for you or why you seem to have absolutely no appreciation or respect for anyone whose goals or preferences vary from yours. Frankly, I don't care. Don't bother responding. Consider yourself officially ignored. I don't have the time, the energy, or the desire to try to engage in a conversation with somebody who is so blatantly closed minded and disrespectful toward the vast majority of this breed. Perhaps you might let these folks get back to the subject at hand now that you won't be drawing any further response from me. Goodbye and good luck with your dogs. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## golfgal

You're correct in terms of size of scale in terms service dog programs. 

So next dumb question (s). How does one address that there is not enough understanding of the importance of the info in the database? Are there too many breeders and perhaps some type of licensing/training is required? Not sure if that would solve the problem though. 

Second cuz I retain stupid amounts of random historical information, I would argue that goldens were not bred to be guide dogs. I believe both goldens and labs were bred around the late 1800s to be working dogs and were also companion dogs to those accredited with the breeds. 

"However, the first systematic attempt to train dogs to aid blind people came around 1780 at 'Les Quinze-Vingts' hospital for the blind in Paris. Shortly afterwards, in 1788, Josef Riesinger, a blind sieve-maker from Vienna, trained a Spitz so well that people often questioned whether he was blind."

International Guide Dog Federation - History

I personally would like to see more working goldens. Although I'm also compelled to add that guide dog trainers says they receive the most compliments on the looks of the Lab/Golden crosses ;-)

Gotta go walk the awakened, impatient beast.


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> Now that is where I am stuck, unless you meant something else.
> 
> Breed for the trait you need, that means deviate from the purpose of the dog. The breed was not created to be a service dog or to parade in the show ring. That was not the trait for which this breed was created.
> 
> Work-ability, tractability and performance go hand in hand with health and structure. You cannot achieve the first if you do not have the latter.


And here we go on the merry go round. "My interpretation is the only right interpretation" is how we all go crazy.:curtain:

I am not going to change anyone's mind. If you are set in your interpretation, great! I will when I get around to it, breed what I feel is meant by the standard. BUT, I will not so backhandedly insult other breeders who have a different interpretation of the standard simply because that is not where I am headed. 

Honestly Claudia, I wish you would become a breeder, the more you see on that side of the glass the harder it gets to see perfect and what you found so perfect before can end up being what you avoid. 

The "parade around the ring" is as insulting as if some one said, "only people stuck in the last century still hunt". Both are wrong, hurtful and not the tools for mature discussion. I get 'it', as you have said many times before, conformation Breeders ruined this breed, and are in your opinion are responsible for evey Ill out there. 

I don't share that opinion nor will I jump on field breeders because they choose to breed to suit their end of the sport spectrum. Only by working together can we make an improvement in the breed. Bickering, belittling, and blame are not the tools that move us forward. Honesty, understanding, education and teamwork are.

If you really want to talk about the split in the breed, here it is as plain as day, it is the people.:doh:

For what it is worth, I do think perserving retrieving instinct and bidability is part of a breeders job. Do I think that means FTCH are necessary, no. And from what I have seen and heard repeatedly, it probably won't matter in every did produce a MH/CH dog because no matter what someone would still question that dog.

This discussion always feels akin to a religious discussion where two different denominations reading the same Holy text are convinced they are right and everyone else is going to burn.


----------



## DanaRuns

It wasn't supposed to turn into a religious discussion.

Claudia, everyone has been very nice to you, but your posts are insulting and mean-spirited in return, not to mention extremely narrow-minded. I don't know if you're just so oblivious and socially awkward that you have no idea what you're doing, or if you're doing it on purpose and just don't care. But three people now have told you that flat out they feel insulted. Please take it to heart.


----------



## Bear Paw

I have two light Goldens and want to bless other people by giving them a healthy predigree dog.


----------



## LJack

Bear Paw said:


> I have two light Goldens and want to bless other people by giving them a healthy predigree dog.


Getting them out to that show I suggested and getting the health testing at the appropriate ages would be a good start. Please let me know if I can help direct you to any resources or vets in our area that do the specialized screenings. We are lucky to have several AVCO Diplomates, a great cardiologist and several good vets for X-Ray submission. We even have clinics that make the certifications more economical.


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is beautiful, thank you. This is exactly what we need more of, instead of people condemning others who want to get into breeding, someone offering very nicely to help and mentor. Kudos!




LJack said:


> Getting them out to that show I suggested and getting the health testing at the appropriate ages would be a good start. Please let me know if I can help direct you to any resources or vets in our area that do the specialized screenings. We are lucky to have several AVCO Diplomates, a great cardiologist and several good vets for X-Ray submission. We even have clinics that make the certifications more economical.


----------



## Bear Paw

Thank you. I just got my prelim back for Gus and he was Good according to OFA. Lots of helpful information on this site.


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> Breed for the trait you need, that means deviate from the purpose of the dog. The breed was not created to be a service dog or to parade in the show ring. That was not the trait for which this breed was created.


So, would you prefer that goldens not be bred to be or even be service/assistance dogs?


----------



## LJack

Bear Paw said:


> Thank you. I just got my prelim back for Gus and he was Good according to OFA. Lots of helpful information on this site.


That is a great start. Now, you just have to wait to get his finals at 2. I have a girl that I have that same prelim rating on and I can't wait to have the adult certification done and over with. Just 3 more months and I will know if she's made it.:crossfing

Eyes can be done annually and usually start mine at 6-8 months. I recently placed a show prospect puppy due to Juvenile Cateracts detected at 7.5 months. Does not affect her vision but an end to a show and breeding career.. Hearts can be done at 12 months. I am thinking if Gus old enough for the prelim, he is likely ready for Heart and Eye too.

I will PM you my email so if you want, I can direct you to those local specialists or answer any questions you might have on the show or anything else. I also know of a training club that if close to you offers Conformation (show), Obeidence, and Rally lessons for just $40 for 6 weeks!


----------



## Claudia M

LJack said:


> ....... BUT, I will not so backhandedly insult other breeders who have *a different interpretation of the standard* simply because that is not where I am headed.
> 
> Honestly Claudia, I wish you would become a breeder, the more you see on that side of the glass the harder it gets to see perfect and what you found so perfect before can end up being what you avoid.
> 
> .........


A standard is a standard. Not really open to interpretation. One can deviate from the standard but the standard is still the same. Just like "primarily a hunting dog" shown in "working condition" is not up for interpretation. Hunting is not irrelevant in this breed as some here want us to believe. The working condition is that of a hunting dog. No matter how stuck in the last century that may seem. 

You say work together. I doubt that can happen as long as the standard is "up for interpretation".

Even as not a breeder one can still see how hard it is to get what one wants in a pup. Have to sacrifice certain dogs in pedigree, COI etc. 

Furthermore, the longevity is also skewed by new medical procedures, new medicine that can help draw every drop of life out of our companions that we can. So while medicine has improved to detect diseases earlier it has also helped keep our dogs longer. So of the average DOD has not changed have we really improved the health of our dogs?
50 years ago your dog had cancer you did not have the possibility of chemo, holistic treatments etc.


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> A standard is a standard. Not really open to interpretation. One can deviate from the standard but the standard is still the same. Just like "primarily a hunting dog" shown in "working condition" is not up for interpretation.


Of course it is! It is a written document and human communication is far from perfect. No matter the text, when read by more than one person, it is interpreted or understood differently. We filter communication through our own opinions, experiences, knowledge and prejudices. Haven't you ever had to clarify a post, a letter or even a verbal conversation point?

"Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition."

You might read that and think well that has to mean all Goldens should be able to win at a field trial, someone else could think it means that the dog can pass the MH test, yet another could think it means passing the WC, yet another could think it means when I throw a ball the dog has a desire and ability to retrieve it and yet another could think it means in breeding evaluation also known as dog shows, the dog should be physically fit.

I am one person and I can find an understand at least 5 different interpretations of just that one sentence in the standard. I don't have to agree with them but understanding and being polite should not be too much to ask.

And as another poster has said, I am done with discussing this with you. I will never change your mind, which is fine but I can step away with the pride that I have tried my best to understand, respect your opinion and be polite.


----------



## goldlover68

Wow! I have seen this all before where 'Conformation People' attack someone who is a 'Field' person! This small group of conformation people are ruthless! If you disagree with them, challenge them with clear comments....they come after you in mass! I know they also contact the MODERATOR and complain in mass!

I see no personal attacks or confrontational comment in this thread from CLAUDIA! Yet, on posts #64, #80... Jersey's Mom, #82 LJack, and #83 Dana I see comments and attacks that are not appropriate based on the conversations from CLAUDIA! It is a clear case of the 'Teapots, calling the kettle black'

I know that the majority of the folks on this site favor Conformation dogs. I get that!
Yet this question and resulting thread was very good, the comments were passionate and interesting. Yet at some point, the three listed above went after CLAUDIA.

I do not like it! I think it is an organized effort to rid the forum of people who disagree with a small group of folks on this site. 

At least that is one persons opinion! CLAUDIA...thanks for your comments and staying the course, I particularly liked your posting....!


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> Wow! I have seen this all before where 'Conformation People' attack someone who is a 'Field' person! This small group of conformation people are ruthless! If you disagree with them, challenge them with clear comments....they come after you in mass! I know they also contact the MODERATOR and complain in mass!
> 
> I see no personal attacks or confrontational comment in this thread from CLAUDIA! Yet, on posts #64, #80... Jersey's Mom, #82 LJack, and #83 Dana I see comments and attacks that are not appropriate based on the conversations from CLAUDIA! It is a clear case of the 'Teapots, calling the kettle black'
> 
> I know that the majority of the folks on this site favor Conformation dogs. I get that!
> Yet this question and resulting thread was very good, the comments were passionate and interesting. Yet at some point, the three listed above went after CLAUDIA.
> 
> I do not like it! I think it is an organized effort to rid the forum of people who disagree with a small group of folks on this site.
> 
> At least that is one persons opinion! CLAUDIA...thanks for your comments and staying the course, I particularly liked your posting....!


You have got to be kidding me right???? So "parading around the right" is not making fun of conformation dogs? 

And who is attacking field-bred dogs? I have not got that from this thread at ALL. When in this thread was a field dog made fun of??


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> But on the same vein I cannot see the bulky (and I know it is just fluffed up coat), stocky, big pawed goldens in the conformation ring be able to do the same. While I have seen a show style golden pass an MH test it was quite pitiful to watch that dog's style and performance. I really thought he would be dropped just on style. In a way I was glad he passed but on another hand I figured that dog will be bred with "the big achievement" of passing MH tests even though that dog tippy toed to the marks. "


 Nope not an insult at all....


----------



## goldlover68

KFAYARD, notice I said "PERSONAL ATTACKS" Which are outlawed on this site! Making a general comment about confirmation dogs, does not come up to this level, if you are offended! 
On posts #64, #80... Jersey's Mom, 
#82 LJack, 
and #83 Dana 

To name a few and these attacks were personal and unnecessary!


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> The breed was not created to be a service dog or to parade in the show ring.


 Nope not again


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> KFAYARD, notice I said "PERSONAL ATTACKS" Which are outlawed on this site! Making a general comment about confirmation dogs, does not come up to this level, if you are offended!
> On posts #64, #80... Jersey's Mom,
> #82 LJack,
> and #83 Dana
> 
> To name a few and these attacks were personal and unnecessary!


 Yes, maybe they were too personal, but when someone pushes and pushes all the time, people will eventually snap!

Yes, because LJack is typically so violent on here...

It is sad that you feel Claudia has done nothing wrong and you see nothing wrong with her posts or her tone. This is why the breed is torn because NO ONE wants to change their habits. 

That is why I made the post for everyone to stop because this never goes anywhere and just gets everyone's blood pressure up! :bowl:


----------



## DanaRuns

"All your dogs are terrible! You have ruined the breed! Your dogs are pitiful and laughable."

"Please be kind and polite, we haven't been mean to you or your dogs."

"Now you're ganging up on me and trying to run me out!"

Good grief. 

:doh: :bowl: :doh: :slap:

:hijacked:

So I guess we're done with the discussion, and now it's the Israeli and Palestinian war of oblivion sideshow? I didn't start this thread as another vehicle for people to insult each other in that tired old way that never, ever gets anywhere. But I guess it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with extremists, so I suppose the devolution was inevitable.

I did learn a lot, here. I guess I'll leave my thread to the Israelis and Palestinians, now, and go find something else interesting to read. Thank you, everyone, for a really interesting discussion, for the most part.



goldlover68 said:


> KFAYARD, notice I said "PERSONAL ATTACKS" Which are outlawed on this site! Making a general comment about confirmation dogs, does not come up to this level, if you are offended!
> On posts #64, #80... Jersey's Mom,
> #82 LJack,
> and #83 Dana
> 
> To name a few and these attacks were personal and unnecessary!



Mine (#83) was a last plea for politeness. I didn't insult Claudia or her dogs or field dogs, or those ugly, scrawny, poorly tempered...you get the idea...like I could have. I refrained, as did everyone else. But whatever. I'm outta here.


----------



## TrailDogs

Goldlover68, that is common on here. 
Perhaps a better topic of conversation would be 'what is the purpose of a golden retriever'. That, to me, is the one piece of this breed that has been glossed over and ignored because it doesn't suit the agenda of some breeders.
I considered starting a thread but decided against it. It would just be a reiteration of the this thread and the COE thread.


----------



## Loisiana

when someone posts a personal video of someone training a dog to show what made them laugh, I find that to be a personal attack


----------



## Kmullen

It really really saddens me that "field" people feel ganged up on by "conformation" people. We should all be working together. 

"Field" people will always think that "conformation" people are ruining the breed. Nothing will change that.

"Conformation" people will always think that "field" people are ruining the breed because lack of breed type and breeding too small and agile.

Does everyone believe that? No, but a lot of people only see it one-sided. The positive thing is that there are breeders out there that are trying to focus on both. But, breeders that are breeding CCA/CH dogs with JH/SH dogs with a RN/RA are not going to be good enough because they are not breeding for field trial dogs.

I have faith that there are many breeders that are going in the right direction. Not all "conformation" and "field" breeders are bad.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Originally Posted by Claudia M View Post
> But on the same vein I cannot see the bulky (and I know it is just fluffed up coat), stocky, big pawed goldens in the conformation ring be able to do the same. While I have seen a show style golden pass an MH test it was quite pitiful to watch that dog's style and performance. I really thought he would be dropped just on style. In a way I was glad he passed but on another hand I figured that dog will be bred with "the big achievement" of passing MH tests even though that dog tippy toed to the marks. "
> 
> Nope not an insult at all....


How is that an insult? Now one cannot discuss what the performance in the field is like? How would one even think of "improving" the breed if one gets insulted at the mere mention of A poor performance and less desirable style. 

"parading around the ring" - I can see that. And my apologies. I was boiling after a personal attack on previous page and the world events from yesterday. Not a good excuse and therefore I have to apologize for it.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> It really really saddens me that "field" people feel ganged up on by "conformation" people. We should all be working together.
> 
> "Field" people will always think that "conformation" people are ruining the breed. Nothing will change that.
> 
> "Conformation" people will always think that "field" people are ruining the breed because lack of breed type and breeding too small and agile.
> 
> Does everyone believe that? No, but a lot of people only see it one-sided. The positive thing is that there are breeders out there that are trying to focus on both. But, breeders that are breeding CCA/CH dogs with JH/SH dogs with a RN/RA are not going to be good enough because they are not breeding for field trial dogs.
> 
> I have faith that there are many breeders that are going in the right direction. Not all "conformation" and "field" breeders are bad.


Very well said. So now lets discuss the differences. If we are to work together we should also be able to discuss the differences. If we keep shush and feel insulted at every mention of it no one can work together. 

Small and agile is necessary in the field (and it does not matter regular hunt, hunt tests or field trials). I have explained couple pages back how out of standard in Rose is impacting her performance and therefore health. There is no way I could enter her in back to back long tests. She could not run for example a SH and MH test over a period of three days in the same weekend. Even if she would do it I could not push her that far. And I would not be pleased if she passed her test by tippy toeing to her marks.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> How is that an insult? Now one cannot discuss what the performance in the field is like? How would one even think of "improving" the breed if one gets insulted at the mere mention of A poor performance and less desirable style.
> 
> "parading around the ring" - I can see that. And my apologies. I was boiling after a personal attack on previous page and the world events from yesterday. Not a good excuse and therefore I have to apologize for it.


 Again, this is just how many of us interpreted this. Conformation dog can't run because they are fluffy and have big paws. It was an attack (to me) on the handler of that dog. It is not a simple JH test. Who knows what happened to the dog or how the handler trained the dog. The fact is that the dog passed (no matter if it was slow or whatever). I am grateful for breeders that are trying to do it all. I don't make fun of them or laugh at them or degrade them. This is why previously, in other threads, conformation people feel that they get made fun of by field people. This is an example right here.

My boy is a rocket and the day he failed his JH leg number 3, he was not running like his normal self. I could see it even getting out of the car. I could here judges and people talking about his performance. I was upset because I knew that is not how he normally ran. Sunday, it was a completely different story. He was back to his old self and judges told me what a nice dog he was. Dogs are dogs.

MH is not an easy task.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Very well said. So now lets discuss the differences. If we are to work together we should also be able to discuss the differences. If we keep shush and feel insulted at every mention of it no one can work together.
> 
> Small and agile is necessary in the field (and it does not matter regular hunt, hunt tests or field trials). I have explained couple pages back how out of standard in Rose is impacting her performance and therefore health. There is no way I could enter her in back to back long tests. She could not run for example a SH and MH test over a period of three days in the same weekend. Even if she would do it I could not push her that far. And I would not be pleased if she passed her test by tippy toeing to her marks.


 Small and agile is fine...as long as it is within the standard. A 45 pound golden retriever is not within the standard.


----------



## goldlover68

"Mine (#83) was a last plea for politeness. I didn't insult Claudia or her dogs or field dogs,* or those ugly, scrawny, poorly tempered*...you get the idea...like I could have. I refrained, as did everyone else. But whatever. I'm outta here.[/QUOTE]"

So you are saying you had no personal attacks on Claudia...so I add you quote with highlights below?

Not to mention the attack on her dogs you 'cuttingly inserted above' I am not sure what you problem is but is it real odd that you continue this attack!:doh:

Dodge and dance as you might, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, then it is a......'you got it' duck!

"Claudia, everyone has been very nice to you, but your posts are* insulting and mean-spirited* in return, not to mention *extremely narrow-minded*. I don't know if you're just so *oblivious and socially awkward* that you have no idea what you're doing, or if you're *doing it on purpose and just don't care. *But three people now have told you that flat out they feel insulted. Please take it to heart."


----------



## Ljilly28

Claudia M said:


> Breed for the trait you need, that means deviate from the purpose of the dog. The breed was not created to be a service dog or to parade in the show ring. That was not the trait for which this breed was created.
> 
> Work-ability, tractability and performance go hand in hand with health and structure. You cannot achieve the first if you do not have the latter.


I do agree with some of this, however to say the show ring is a parade is to insult wholecloth all the experienced dog men and women who judge the breeds, some of whom have spent fifty years plus studying dogs.

Another thing is that breeding with the original purpose in mind is not identical to going out and performing the dogs' original purpose. For example, the Cane Corso was bred to hunt wild large animals. Some responsible breeders DO hunt large wild hogs , but most Cane Corso do not literally hunt big game. The Rhodesian Ridgeback was designed to hunt lions, but all responsible breeders who value the original purpose of the breed do not literally kill lions anymore. It is possible to get too pedantic and literal about this.

For the retriever to retrieve, the Bernese to pull, the Parsons Russell to barn hunt, the collie to herd- all important and fulfilling for the dog and crucial info for the breeder; however the purpose of the conformation ring is to safeguard the dogs' structure so he can do all these things without injury based on structural flaws and to do all these things to optimum excellence based on breed type. The venues are not natural enemies but natural friends, until human politics spiral out of control and the human-nature love of winning naturally leads to deviation from the standard over time in all venues in which traits that win are emphasized out of balance over traits that the original breed standard proscribed. 

I agree the 85 lb golden with a ballgown coat who won't swim is incorrect and the 45 lb golden long in the loin and long in the leg retriever is also incorrect. However, out and about, there are far more goldens who represent some kind of a middle ground when they are bred and owned by serious fanciers even if they lean one way or another.


----------



## Claudia M

Kelli - If I count the times I have felt out of place with my "white" golden I would crawl in a hole and never come out. 

When a trainer saw her enter the water and remarked: She doesn't do it because she wants to she does it because she l*oves you*" and the tone on the bolded words was not very nice, I wanted to crawl again. Yeah I knew she has had a long and bad recovery from the surgery but I still wanted to crawl in a hole. Until another trainer told to get what I have (she loves to please me) and build from there. 

But that chip on my shoulder should not impede me from moving forward. Nor should that stop me from being able to talk about performance and style or feel insulted at the mere mention of it.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Small and agile is fine...as long as it is within the standard. A 45 pound golden retriever is not within the standard.


I agree - 45 lbs is not within standard just like my 68 lbs is not within standard. Same with height. 

Now would you completely take that dog out of the pool or would you try to improve the height/weight thru breeding? How many breeding would you try before saying, this is not working the way I wanted it to work?


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> "Mine (#83) was a last plea for politeness. I didn't insult Claudia or her dogs or field dogs,* or those ugly, scrawny, poorly tempered*...you get the idea...like I could have. I refrained, as did everyone else. But whatever. I'm outta here.


"

So you are saying you had no personal attacks on Claudia...so I add you quote with highlights below?

Not to mention the attack on her dogs you 'cuttingly inserted above' I am not sure what you problem is but is it real odd that you continue this attack!:doh:

Dodge and dance as you might, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, then it is a......'you got it' duck!

"Claudia, everyone has been very nice to you, but your posts are* insulting and mean-spirited* in return, not to mention *extremely narrow-minded*. I don't know if you're just so *oblivious and socially awkward* that you have no idea what you're doing, or if you're *doing it on purpose and just don't care. *But three people now have told you that flat out they feel insulted. Please take it to heart."[/QUOTE]

I think the insults are coming from both sides, don't you? Or do you think it is just the "conformation people." If you notice at the beginning, the thread was on the right track. I don't think it is people being ugly who have different views. We all do. It is about the way it is written and perceived.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> I agree - 45 lbs is not within standard just like my 68 lbs is not within standard. Same with height.
> 
> Now would you completely take that dog out of the pool or would you try to improve the height/weight thru breeding? How many breeding would you try before saying, this is not working the way I wanted it to work?


 Well there are a lot of a variables to be taken in when assessing one dog. How tall is she? How big or tall are the littermates? The parents? The pedigree behind the bitch? (this is where the gray area comes in). If the bitch is small, but everything behind her and littermates are average, then I wouldn't think twice to breeding her. If there are a few littermates that are on the small size, I would try to find a male that is producing a little bit bigger (height). If the litter is still small, I would not breed again. Everyone has different comfort levels.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Kelli - If I count the times I have felt out of place with my "white" golden I would crawl in a hole and never come out.
> 
> When a trainer saw her enter the water and remarked: She doesn't do it because she wants to she does it because she l*oves you*" and the tone on the bolded words was not very nice, I wanted to crawl again. Yeah I knew she has had a long and bad recovery from the surgery but I still wanted to crawl in a hole. Until another trainer told to get what I have (she loves to please me) and build from there.
> 
> But that chip on my shoulder should not impede me from moving forward. Nor should that stop me from being able to talk about performance and style or feel insulted at the mere mention of it.


 
And the insult should not impede anyone from going forward, but what it does is make the person uncomfortable. I just don't understand the insulting comments from either side. It does no good. The "conformation" people think that "field" people are rude and vice versa.

I hate the terms "field" and "conformation" people. It should be "Golden" people. But, instead we are clawing eachother's eyes out. :uhoh:


----------



## goldlover68

*KFayard....from your comment above.....*

"Claudia, everyone has been very nice to you, but your posts are* insulting and mean-spirited* in return, not to mention *extremely narrow-minded*. I don't know if you're just so *oblivious and socially awkward* that you have no idea what you're doing, or if you're *doing it on purpose and just don't care. *But three people now have told you that flat out they feel insulted. Please take it to heart."[/QUOTE]

I think the insults are coming from both sides, don't you? Or do you think it is just the "conformation people." If you notice at the beginning, the thread was on the right track. I don't think it is people being ugly who have different views. We all do. It is about the way it is written and perceived.[/QUOTE]

*MY COMMENT AND QUESTION:*

I don't recall using the word "insults", that is to abstract of a word for this discussion. I used the word personal attacks, and I was speaking of posts on this thread, of which I noted 3. On your request I did list specific quotes from your post (above). Insulting and mean spirited is a personal attack in my mind. As is "obviously awkward" and suggesting someone is "doing it on purpose, just don't care"

These are your words, and you are questioning me saying you do not understand how I think you are "insulting" Claudia?????:yuck:

As for comments in this thread that you claim she made in this thread "coming from both sides"....I did completely read over this thread, and I saw nothing that could be construed as a personal attack! 

If I missed it please tell me where it is! Let's not confuse disagreeing with someone as an attack, it is using words that attack someone personally!


----------



## goldlover68

TrailDogs said:


> Goldlover68, that is common on here.
> Perhaps a better topic of conversation would be 'what is the purpose of a golden retriever'. That, to me, is the one piece of this breed that has been glossed over and ignored because it doesn't suit the agenda of some breeders.
> I considered starting a thread but decided against it. It would just be a reiteration of the this thread and the COE thread.


*TrailDog.....thanks for the comments and I love your (Red) Golden....my newest girl is our first Red, boy is she fun....*


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Personally, I think we should leave whether or not something violates the forum rules to the moderators. 

Maybe we can get back to the subject at hand??? I will try  

One thing that is interesting to realize is that every improvement is a baby step. I'm not sure I realized that before I started making breeding decisions that actually resulted in puppies. While a breeder may have a long term goal, one generation may not make that goal obvious to a casual observer. So the improvement may not be seen until 2-3 generations later.


----------



## Claudia M

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Personally, I think we should leave whether or not something violates the forum rules to the moderators.
> 
> Maybe we can get back to the subject at hand??? I will try
> 
> One thing that is interesting to realize is that every improvement is a baby step. I'm not sure I realized that before I started making breeding decisions that actually resulted in puppies. *While a breeder may have a long term goal, one generation may not make that goal obvious to a casual observer. So the improvement may not be seen until 2-3 generations later*.


Can you explain why you think it will take this long? Isn't it too late after the first or second generation? 

I understand not all puppy owners will do health clearances on their dogs; not all puppy owners will compete with their dogs etc... 

So maybe this would only apply to the breeders who breed puppies as pets and not for performance households? Even though I would say that in every litter you will never have all pups as performance pups. So work-ability, tractability, performance and style can be seen by no later than the pup's age of 3 years. 

Cancer and PU I assume can be seen in the first generation maybe second generation.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia M said:


> Can you explain why you think it will take this long? Isn't it too late after the first or second generation?
> 
> I understand not all puppy owners will do health clearances on their dogs; not all puppy owners will compete with their dogs etc...
> 
> So maybe this would only apply to the breeders who breed puppies as pets and not for performance households? Even though I would say that in every litter you will never have all pups as performance pups. So work-ability, tractability, performance and style can be seen by no later than the pup's age of 3 years.
> 
> Cancer and PU I assume can be seen in the first generation maybe second generation.


Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. For example, if you have a lovely bitch but you want to improve pigment, and shoulder layback. (I'm using random examples.) Well with one breeding you may be able to improve the shoulder layback, as compared with the prior generation, but maybe not the pigment as much as you would have liked. Or maybe by breeding to the dog with great shoulders and great pigment, you lost something else....maybe ear set. It could be anything. So the next generation you could focus on something else. My point was, if you have goals in your breeding program it's not going to happen with one miraculous breeding. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant. Of course if you are trying to breed away from health issues you would know in the first generation if you were successful.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

goldlover68 said:


> Wow! I have seen this all before where 'Conformation People' attack someone who is a 'Field' person! This small group of conformation people are ruthless! If you disagree with them, challenge them with clear comments....they come after you in mass! I know they also contact the MODERATOR and complain in mass!
> 
> I see no personal attacks or confrontational comment in this thread from CLAUDIA! Yet, on posts #64, #80... Jersey's Mom, #82 LJack, and #83 Dana I see comments and attacks that are not appropriate based on the conversations from CLAUDIA! It is a clear case of the 'Teapots, calling the kettle black'
> 
> I know that the majority of the folks on this site favor Conformation dogs. I get that!
> Yet this question and resulting thread was very good, the comments were passionate and interesting. Yet at some point, the three listed above went after CLAUDIA.
> 
> I do not like it! I think it is an organized effort to rid the forum of people who disagree with a small group of folks on this site.
> 
> At least that is one persons opinion! CLAUDIA...thanks for your comments and staying the course, I particularly liked your posting....!



I know I'll regret this, and most of you should probably just skip by this post... But I have to respond here. 

Post 80 I will give you. I stand behind every word I said, unkind or not. But it's not a personal attack. It's self defense. After multiple attempts at trying to have a civilized discussion in this thread and plenty of others over the past few years only to be met with sarcasm, insults, and snark there is only so much a person can take. The straw that finally broke this camel's back -- someone is going to call my dogs mediocre? An attack doesn't get any more personal than that. I only entered this thread to defend an anonymous woman whose video Claudia posted to illustrate how "amusing" it was and to claim that any dog outside of her ideal can't possibly have any drive or talent in the field. How do you think that woman would feel if she were a member of this forum or otherwise stumbled across this thread? Do you think she would feel personally attacked? I sure do. And I think it is wrong to mock somebody with absolutely no factual or contextual knowledge beyond a single videoEspecially when they do not even have the opportunity to defend themself. So, fine, I concede on post 80. But please - pretty, pretty please - show me where you see any hint of a personal attack in post number 64. Here it is again for your reference: 


Jersey's Mom said:


> All this talk about what goldens used to be able to do in the field. I've gotten the impression that you are relatively new to working in the field with your dogs. Unless I am completely mistaken, you haven't been out there over the past 50 or however many years to have observed what their style or level of performance used to be. Or what used to be required for a field trial as compared to today. You assume that because their style and performance differs in some ways from that of a lab (or whatever breed) that it is a fundamental change and decline in the golden's style and performance. I'm new to this too. But I hold that those things have always differed between the breeds.... it's fundamentally the reason there ARE different breeds. They were bred for similar, but nonetheless different, purposes. Yes, there is more of a spread between the extremes and less dogs capable of excelling to the absolute top levels in both field and conformation today. There hasn't been a Dual Champion in however many decades. But how many were there ever? Was it ever really the norm? I'm asking honestly, I can't seem to google up the answer. As someone else mentioned, both sides of the spectrum have moved farther apart over the years. Labs have gone through that same spread of extremes. But there is still a ton of middle ground that many responsible breeders fill, focusing on their particular priorities but always keeping an eye toward purpose. I prefer that middle of the road dog. I want a dog with the look I prefer who has a ton of drive in the field but I do not have the interest, the time, or the money to pursue field trials. Which one of us is more right for wanting what we personally desire in a golden? I would say neither. And I don't see it as an entirely negative thing that there is enough variation in the breed to satisfy us both. I agree with you that any breeder who has NO concern for maintaining the working ability in goldens is doing a disservice to the breed. I just don't see that the majority of breeders (excluding mills and BYBs) fit that description. Go for the breed you want. Go for the style within that breed that you prefer. Support breeders whose ideals coincide with yours. Show a modicum of respect to those breeders who are closer to the middle of the road than you. But stop denigrating this entire breed because of the fundamentally flawed argument that goldens once upon a time performed identically to labs.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz
> 
> Edited to add: you are welcome to your opinion of what a 1 year old dog should look like. But individual dogs and lines of dogs, just like individual people and families, mature at different rates. Jersey was nearly 3 before he hit full maturity. This dog may have been there at 18 or 20 months. I tried to use a good analogy for people but most of them are less than appetizing - and since I know I often snack while reading posts, I'll refrain from anything unsavory lol. But you get the idea. I know 12 year old boys who practically look like grown men and others who look like babies by comparison. Ever gone to watch a little league game? Those kids can really run the gamut. Dogs are no different.


Also, since I am apparently being lumped in with some supposed group of conformation people who are trying to run all the field people off this forum, allow me to clarify a few things. 1. I have never competed in conformation. It's not really an area I am all that interested in pursuing. 2. I do compete in obedience, agility, and hunt tests. 3. I have repeatedly stated - in this thread and elsewhere - that I have a problem with any breeder who does not strive to maintain the drive, focus, structure and instinct necessary to remain true to the intended purpose of this breed. (Hey, how about that, there's a perfect example quoted above. There's at least one more earlier in this thread) 4. It is obviously important to me personally to seek out dogs with the necessary traits to perform well in the field as it is an area in which I actively participate (to a small degree with my current dog and plans, now that I am settled, to go much farther with my newest addition). I find it insulting that no matter how many times I say that, someone feels the need to turn my words around and suggest that because the particular style of dog I prefer differs from theirs that I would readily support tossing the purpose of this breed out the window. 5. I have never seen any of the people you claim are attacking in this thread call someone else's dog pitiful or mediocre. I have never seen them refer to field dogs as a whole as being (fill in the blank) and therefore genetic defects. I used fill in the blank there because the last time someone attempted to show you what the flip side of Claudia's comments would look like, you accused them of having meant the insult. So, fill in the blank it is to avoid any further confusion. 6. There are very many more conformation/obedience/agility/whatever minded people on this forum who have been intimidated out of participating in the field/hunt section of this forum than the other way around. There was a thread about a year ago that did a lot of good to mend that split and I hope more people have joined in the discussion there... but nonetheless, it has been the experience of many that some differing opinions in that particular area can be met with terse, sometimes harsh replies and criticism. So perhaps we should revisit that whole thing about the pot and the tea kettle. 

The worst part of this to me is that pretty much everyone in this thread, Claudia included, agrees about much more than they disagree. Unfortunately, the person you are defending repeatedly and persistently chose to twist people's words, insult the dogs of forum members and strangers alike, and hold tight to an extreme opinion rather than allow that there may be some room for others to experience a gray area. And not just over the course of the past few days or in this one thread. Over the course of the past few years. That's what brings along posts like #80. That's what causes people to act in self defense. If the moderators take issue with anything I have posted, if they choose to level any sort of discipline, I'm okay with that. If that is their choice, it will be because they feel it is their job to do so in enforcing the rules of this forum.... Not to call someone out while defending the truly abhorrent behavior of another. I will still stand by every word I have typed in this thread, proudly. 

I hope the rest of you skipped right past this. If you got caught up reading it, I'm sorry for your wasted minutes. But it's not in my nature to let an attack go without defending myself. Blame my dad for that.... I'm pretty sure that's where I get most of the hardheadedness displayed here, in addition to my appreciation for this breed. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## TrailDogs

kfayard said:


> It really really saddens me that "field" people feel ganged up on by "conformation" people. We should all be working together.


In an ideal world yes, but this forum is not an ideal world. The conformation folks rally round their wagons and attack field dogs pretty regularly. The comments made on here about field dogs calling them red coyotes, poor structure, hard headed, collie noses, aggressive etc. often appear in threads discussing the field/show split. And the silence is deafening. In fact the posts get thanked by the same people over and over again.
This makes it a little difficult to accept that these people want to work together.


----------



## gdgli

kfayard said:


> It really really saddens me that "field" people feel ganged up on by "conformation" people. We should all be working together.
> 
> "Field" people will always think that "conformation" people are ruining the breed. Nothing will change that.
> 
> "Conformation" people will always think that "field" people are ruining the breed because lack of breed type and breeding too small and agile.
> 
> Does everyone believe that? No, but a lot of people only see it one-sided. The positive thing is that there are breeders out there that are trying to focus on both. But, breeders that are breeding CCA/CH dogs with JH/SH dogs with a RN/RA are not going to be good enough because they are not breeding for field trial dogs.
> 
> I have faith that there are many breeders that are going in the right direction. Not all "conformation" and "field" breeders are bad.


Excuse me but...

I have been told that my dog is not a Golden by a conformation person who has champion dogs

I have been told by a conformation person that my dog is not a pet, that I had to train her to be a pet.

I swear I heard one person tell her Golden to stay away from Buffy, she is not our kind. (Maybe in jest but revealed true feelings.)

I heard a conformation person say that her champion dog is what a Golden should be. Then in the next breath she said that she couldn't understand why no field people would breed to him. (Hello?)

Soooo, there is a reason why we field people have a sore spot.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> In an ideal world yes, but this forum is not an ideal world. The conformation folks rally round their wagons and attack field dogs pretty regularly. The comments made on here about field dogs calling them red coyotes, poor structure, hard headed, collie noses, aggressive etc. often appear in threads discussing the field/show split. And the silence is deafening.


I will leave the physical appearance attacks to other people. And hopefully elsewhere. On this thread - I think people mentioned structure by the way of addressing something that frequently is a weakness - regardless of what the dogs have been bred to do. I agree with Kelli that it is tough for a lot of breeders to get the whole dog right. I think there have been discussions on show forums picking apart the fronts and rears of dogs and also addressing balance (where dogs may have a better rear than front, etc). It's eye-opening and goes well beyond those various splits in the breed. 

I did make a comment on hard-headedness. I (thankfully) haven't seen as much outright aggression first hand. But hardheadedness - I have seen. Not really just field goldens. I train around 3 different clubs (and have been to 2 others as well) and seen a lot of goldens who are trained to go-go-go and aren't always affected by gentle or soft handling. This is concerning to me because while I do use corrections, I'm very soft spoken and gentle-handed with my dogs. I'm not going to put the fear of God in them to make them listen.

The Kiowa/Asterling cross boy we had back in the 90's - that dog was awesome. But he was a lot of dog and very hard headed. It was not fun. And I definitely chatted to breeders about this before I got my Jacks and Bertie. Bertie's breeder was an obedience person before she got into conformation, so it was gratifying to talk to somebody about this issue and have them know exactly what I was talking about and get a lot of specific feedback about the dogs she breeds on that basis. 

I think a dog should be functional and the reason I have golden retrievers is because they are fun to train and "want" to please. There are a ton of really great breeds out there to pick and choose from if you want a purebred dog for X purpose. Goldens have a lot of qualities which those other breeds do not have. When you consider how many people go to this breed because they want to do STUFF, you know the quality of the breed is right there.

I was grinning today.... just came back from an obedience fun match. Got to see a lot of people I don't normally see too often. One lady especially came out with her Sunfire puppy. She got him the same time Jodie got her boy, though different litter. 

That pup is big, blond, and gorgeous. I didn't get to see him work (I was in the ring with Bertie I think), but I got to meet him and he seemed very sweet. Was actually way calmer than my Bertie who was jumping around like he had springs on his toes (we had just come in and he was very happy to be there).


----------



## gdgli

Megora

IMO, hardheaded means that the trainer hasn't been successful with his methods.
Crossover trainer speaking.


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> In an ideal world yes, but this forum is not an ideal world. The conformation folks rally round their wagons and attack field dogs pretty regularly. The comments made on here about field dogs calling them red coyotes, poor structure, hard headed, collie noses, aggressive etc. often appear in threads discussing the field/show split. And the silence is deafening. In fact the posts get thanked by the same people over and over again.
> This makes it a little difficult to accept that these people want to work together.


I think Kelli has tried hard to be the mediator both in life and on this thread between the breed splits. 
I go back to what I said in several posts before, this has been going on for over 70 years. It has gotten worse because you have a limited pool on both sides of the split therefore also not much you can improve on (from all aspects combined, structure, health, temperament, work-ability etc). Maybe you have a higher pool in the show goldens but the field golden pool is becoming lower and lower. 

I was asked by someone if there is a way to go back to original. Honestly I do not think so. And personally I dread the day that field and show lines will be combined in order to save the breed. 
Does that mean we should start now before it is too late. I do not know and do not think I would personally want a mix line bred pup. Maybe only if no other alternatives and that was the only way to save the breed before it becomes extinct.


----------



## Megora

> I swear I heard one person tell her Golden to stay away from Buffy, she is not our kind. (Maybe in jest but revealed true feelings.)


 It probably was in jest?

There's somebody I train with who has Tanbark and Wynwood goldens. And they are very little and red. <- Very cute too. She knows I like them and she knows my dogs worship her (they know golden people). But a lot of the time, she'll tell her girls who are squealing to come visit that my boys are not her kind or that I don't like her kind. I don't take it personally.  And yes, I go visit. Her one girl twitters when excited - this is something that only my first boy did. Takes me back hearing that. 

*** IMO, hardheaded means that the trainer hasn't been successful with his methods.
- It does come down to methods you have to use with the dogs. Yes.


----------



## lhowemt

TrailDogs said:


> The comments made on here about field dogs calling them red coyotes, poor structure, hard headed, collie noses, aggressive etc.


I have been here for a year and a half and have never seen such talk. I usually read those threads, I find the controversy entertaining much of the time. Maybe some structure talk but not the other insults.


----------



## Kmullen

gdgli said:


> Excuse me but...
> 
> I have been told that my dog is not a Golden by a conformation person who has champion dogs
> 
> I have been told by a conformation person that my dog is not a pet, that I had to train her to be a pet
> 
> I have been told that Goldens were never meant to be trial dogs but instead "companion hunting dogs". What in Hades is that? I have seen that term only recently.
> 
> I swear I heard one person tell her Golden to stay away from Buffy, she is not our kind. (Maybe in jest but revealed true feelings.)
> 
> I heard a conformation person say that her champion dog is what a Golden should be. Then in the next breath she said that she couldn't understand why no field people would breed to him. (Hello?)
> 
> Soooo, there is a reason why we field people have a sore spot.


If you go back and read what I wrote... I said it works both ways!! I know "mean conformation" people, so I have no doubt that you were told that and my apologies for that.

But, you can not dismiss the fact that "field" people aren't the nicest either. 

I know for one I dont consider myself a "conformation" person, I love to do everything with my dogs. But, if my dogs just get their JH, some obedience, agility titles... I will get criticized (maybe silently) for not breeding upper level hunt test or field trials.

I do try and breed for it all, will I get it all? Probably not, but I want my dogs to hunt, pick up my doves and ducks.


----------



## Kmullen

TrailDogs said:


> In an ideal world yes, but this forum is not an ideal world. The conformation folks rally round their wagons and attack field dogs pretty regularly. The comments made on here about field dogs calling them red coyotes, poor structure, hard headed, collie noses, aggressive etc. often appear in threads discussing the field/show split. And the silence is deafening. In fact the posts get thanked by the same people over and over again.
> This makes it a little difficult to accept that these people want to work together.


Wow... "These people". Do you not realize that the majority of this thread has been talking about "conformation" Goldens not being able to hunt?

I do not think all field people are angels either.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

TrailDogs said:


> In an ideal world yes, but this forum is not an ideal world. The conformation folks rally round their wagons and attack field dogs pretty regularly. The comments made on here about field dogs calling them red coyotes, poor structure, hard headed, collie noses, aggressive etc. often appear in threads discussing the field/show split. And the silence is deafening. In fact the posts get thanked by the same people over and over again.
> 
> This makes it a little difficult to accept that these people want to work together.



Just for the record: forum searches for the terms "red coyote" and "collie nose" return only one result, your post (I guess it would be two posts now). The other terms are used so diffusely and in so many contexts/subjects, it becomes a lot more difficult to confirm whether these terms are frequently used to describe field dogs in these field/conformation split threads -- and while I may be procrastinating at the moment, I really do need to finish up some paperwork soon. But honestly, in all my years on this forum I can't recall ever seeing some large number of conformation breeders/enthusiasts gathering to launch attacks at field lines. I'm not trying to dismiss the way you feel, I sincerely believe that you feel you and your dogs have been attacked. I know how that feels. It sucks. I just have to wonder whether a few comments from a few rude posters (perhaps in addition to some less than pleasant real life experiences, which may explain the terms that you referenced that do not appear to have been used on the forum) at one time or another may have tainted how you feel and in some ways colors the things you read. I didn't see anybody here on this thread, despite the constant provocation, choose to attack field lines. And I've never seen the posters accused of attacking in this thread say anything disrespectful about field bred dogs as a whole in any way, nevermind to the extent that conformation style dogs have been put down by at least one poster here and elsewhere on the forum. I also can't help but wonder how many of those comments that hurt you were the result of someone like myself who lashed out when they could no longer stand the references to the overgrown, fluffy, big-footed dogs who are only good at prancing around a ring and could never perform adequately as a retriever. (Although please note that despite the fact that I snapped, I never once made any sweeping, insulting generalizations about field lines. I directed my anger where it belonged while repeatedly stressing the fact that I believe retaining the ability to perform in the field is an important aspect of a responsible breeder. But I can see the temptation to trade tit for tat and instead return with like insults). 

As I said in my last comment, I honestly believe that the vast majority of people in this thread agree more than they disagree. There appears to be mass agreement that health and temperament are vitally important aspects to consider when breeding. I think pretty much everybody stated in one way or another that retaining the characteristics necessary to perform retrieving work should be a top priority, even if we vary on how to best measure that ability (real hunting, hunt tests, WC, etc). Nobody's answer to the original question seemed to be bigger heads, heavier bone, longer coats, or (with one exception) working actively to spread to even further extremes between styles. I truly appreciated and took to heart Swampcollie's posts about seeking moderation to some extent while always keeping an eye toward the standard. It's a shame that this thread took the turn it did and I take responsibility for whatever part I played in it, but if you really look at the posts in here that are on topic, there's a lot of hope that the two sides aren't as far apart as they seem. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Claudia M

Kate - I wonder if it is indeed hard-headedness. And also I wonder if indeed it will need a hard-hand. 
Rose is somewhat like that because she is independent and honestly I think she wants to figure out what I want before I get to tell her what I want. But hard-handed does not work for her. If I get frustrated I better hang it up for the day or it will only get worse so we have to end with a small success even if that is a sit or heel back into the house, whatever. Have to be creative, and I just love her even more for that. The successes mean a lot more and the failures mean challenges which lead to different tactics. 

Haha - just this morning we worked on a blind, I thought she locked on it and sent her, little did I know she locked on the squirrel behind the bumper (which I did not see). The look on her face was finally I get permission to chase the squirrel. Had to whistle sit her followed by a loud WHOA. As she stopped I said not the squirrel, the bumper! As she looked back in the direction of the squirrel I could only think we will end the 5 min morning with a failure; started walking towards her when she finally jumped on the bumper and brought it back. Semi-failure!


----------



## Kmullen

So, I have a question what are the requirements for breeding? Do you only breed a field trial bitch to improve golden retrievers? How do we improve? What do the field Goldens have to work on? I think we all know what conformation Goldens have to work on (as it seems to be a lot)?

I, know, I will say that it is hard to be a breeder and try to do everything right and have time to train like I want with a full time job. I have 4 Goldens right now and it is hard to get everything done, so I understand why people co-own.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Wow... "These people". Do you not realize that the majority of this thread has been talking about "conformation" Goldens not being able to hunt?
> 
> I do not think all field people are angels either.


But we would not have those discussions AT ALL if conformation dogs could hunt and field dogs could still have a place in the show ring. 

And frankly those discussions are necessary if we are even pretending to improve the breed. Or in my view improved back to what it was.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> But we would not have those discussions AT ALL if conformation dogs could hunt and field dogs could still have a place in the show ring.
> 
> And frankly those discussions are necessary if we are even pretending to improve the breed. Or in my view improved back to what it was.




I don't think we will ever be able to go back 40 years ago, but I do feel somethings have to change. Everything has changed though. People have changed, technology has changed, just about everything has changed. I think people have changed for the worse. We use cellphones and computers more to communicate (as I am sitting here doing right now ). 

But, Claudia, I have to ask because maybe I am interpreting your reply in the wrong way. So, conformation Goldens need to learn how to hunt (so they have to do that) and field Goldens (do not need to improve on anything, the show ring does)? Is that what you meant?


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia, why don't you encourage people who own field dogs you feel are excellent representations of the standard to enter their dogs in conformation? There's nothing keeping them from entering, if more "field style" dogs were entered then judges would get used to seeing it more and they wouldn't seem so out of place.


----------



## gdgli

I have deleted my post.


----------



## gdgli

Loisiana said:


> Claudia, why don't you encourage people who own field dogs you feel are excellent representations of the standard to enter their dogs in conformation? There's nothing keeping them from entering, if more "field style" dogs were entered then judges would get used to seeing it more and they wouldn't seem so out of place.


That's OK if the judge selection committee will select judges who are not prejudiced in their judging. I have sat in on meetings and know what goes on. Judges are selected based upon what dogs they like.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> Claudia, why don't you encourage people who own field dogs you feel are excellent representations of the standard to enter their dogs in conformation? There's nothing keeping them from entering, if more "field style" dogs were entered then judges would get used to seeing it more and they wouldn't seem so out of place.


OK I am going to lump in here a response to both Jodie and Kelli:


No I did not say all field goldens do not have to do anything. But if a field goldens passes a CCA should definitely be able to compete in the show ring. I doubt a smaller than minimum standard would pass a CCA. 

Jodie, I am hoping to just do that. And I certainly hope that I can see more field goldens in the ring. 

Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder but I do wonder what looks I will get with a field golden in the ring.  Will let you know!


----------



## tippykayak

Claudia M said:


> No I did not say all field goldens do not have to do anything. But if a field goldens passes a CCA should definitely be able to compete in the show ring. I doubt a smaller than minimum standard would pass a CCA.


Just as a point of fact, lots of dogs with very strong working credentials, including "field" credentials, have CCAs. I personally like seeing CCAs on working parents because it tells me the dogs are within standard. Like most people in this thread, I like a dog with lots of drive, intelligence, ability, and breed type. For me, that means I tend to like Goldens with a minimum of some working titles to prove ability and a minimum of a CCA to demonstrate breed type. Or a mix of the two on both sides of the pedigree.

As another point of fact, size can absolutely cause a dog not to get a CCA. They measure the dogs before judging and use the same rules as the standard. I have a tall and a short dog, so if Jax had been an inch or so shorter or Comet an inch or so taller (I don't remember exactly how close they were to the outside limits), they would have been excused.

If you're interested, the comments on Jax include "Degree of breed type: Moderate" and "Athletic. Working type. Masculine." Jax would probably be called a "field dog" in this thread and has no CH dogs in his recent ancestry and only one CCA. He does have several JH/SH/MH/CDX/WCX. (If anybody notices that the lack of CCAs in Jax's recent ancestry is as odds with what I said above, be aware that he came to me under special circumstances).

Comet, who has some CHs in his grandparent and great grandparents on one side but mostly comes from dogs with field/obedience/agility credentials, several with CCAs, was called "Athletic. Working type."

Both of these dogs easily passed the CCA, but neither would ever beat a conformation dog in the ring, and with good reason. Comet has a little less pigment than ideal, has a slightly steep croup, and his hocks twist in the rear slightly when he moves; Jax has big color faults, lacks enough rib spring, and his loin is a little too long. 

I love these dogs. They are the truest companions and the toughest athletes. I would not exchange them for the world, just as I would not have exchanged my beloved dog who died at 6 with his brother who is still going strong at 12. Nonetheless, I worry that the structural issues might cause injuries or wear and tear that will catch up to them in their old age. Their structure is _good_ overall, but it is not _excellent_ as that of many (most, probably) CH dogs.


----------



## gdgli

This type of thread always get ugly. I just visited, now I'm out. I don't want to contribute to hard feelings.


----------



## 2golddogs

I just finished our hunt test season with my lovely conformation dog. For his last senior hunt test the judges told me he was the only dog to have perfect scores and was the nicest dog running the test that day. Half the dogs were labs. I'm very proud of him.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> So, I have a question what are the requirements for breeding? Do you only breed a field trial bitch to improve golden retrievers? How do we improve? What do the field Goldens have to work on? I think we all know what conformation Goldens have to work on (as it seems to be a lot)?
> 
> I, know, I will say that it is hard to be a breeder and try to do everything right and have time to train like I want with a full time job. I have 4 Goldens right now and it is hard to get everything done, so I understand why people co-own.


I am not a breeder and as I told some privately I have yet to see a small 40 lbs golden in person. 
Darcy (flatcoat) who is I would say 22 inches (have not measured her - just as comparison with Rose at 24) is 58lbs. When you put your hands on her it is all muscle; she has put on 5 lbs of muscle just by working in the field. I will try to stack them side by side. The pics I have on this computer are not representative of what I am trying to say.

So I do wonder if it is a perception of the small field golden out there. 

If I would ever breed a dog my first criteria is performance/style/stamina. 
The way I look at any test is not only to win the test/title but at how that is won. I feel that in any retriever test we go with our dogs we represent the breed. Therefore the performance and style reflects on the breed. 

The next is health. But you cannot have that without the first.

Then it is structure/size/proportionality. And once again you cannot have that without the first. 
More than likely I would not consider a tall girl for breeding, way too hard to find a suitable stud. I would consider a smaller girl for breeding as you could have room for improvement in structure.

But personally I like the structure and proportionality of a field golden. Unfortunately because of the slender body they look too leggy. 

Even Darcy would look too leggy in a golden competition. And I disagree. 

The color, sorry, would not do anything about that. 

And I agree with Jodie, maybe we need more "leggy" field goldens in the ring. Too many have quit showing and I assume it has become a waste of time and money. Or maybe there are other reasons which I do not know.


----------



## Claudia M

2golddogs said:


> I just finished our hunt test season with my lovely conformation dog. For his last senior hunt test the judges told me he was the only dog to have perfect scores and was the nicest dog running the test that day. Half the dogs were labs. I'm very proud of him.


And that was a very hard test and he is a very strict judge! It is a HUGE compliment coming from him. Only 12 out of 25 present dogs passed. 

Your dog has wonderful attitude, style, structure and proportions. I sure hope to see a CH in front of his name!


----------



## Loisiana

I'd love to see more field dogs in the conformation ring. However, people need to be honest and objective, and not say just because they think their dog is handsome that it should do well in the ring. Set field dogs up in a stack and really evaluate their structure. If the dog has great structure, great movement, meets the standard well, just isn't conformation "style", I'd love to see it in the ring. Get more dogs like that in the ring and start changing people's perspective.


----------



## Megora

Loisiana said:


> I'd love to see more field dogs in the conformation ring. However, people need to be honest and objective, and not say just because they think their dog is handsome that it should do well in the ring. Set field dogs up in a stack and really evaluate their structure. If the dog has great structure, great movement, meets the standard well, just isn't conformation "style", I'd love to see it in the ring. Get more dogs like that in the ring and start changing people's perspective.


I don't really care with the goldens beyond hoping to see more goldens out there so it's easier to get more points for people without having to travel out of state! 

But I kinda would like to see this happen with labs. Which is a breed I like and I just don't like what I see in the ring. The people in conformation are actually as bad as George seems to think Golden people are. I've seen comments on them w/regards to dogs with leaner/athletic bodies - it's a very derisive "You have pet dog, keep him at home" type of thing. 

I'm not saying I like really fieldy looking labs. I like the heads and bone of a well bred lab. But I wish the ones in the conformation ring were leaner and athletic - and didn't look crossed with bulldogs or something. 

I know what goldens look like in the conformation ring, because I've showing for a year now. I'm gathering my perspective is skewed because of that. Movement is something that a lot of judges look for - especially the ones who aren't "handler judges". So you still have a lot of dogs in the ring who are built to move. 

Goldens are also a very difficult ring over here (might be different other places around the country) because you don't have people showing whatever they have. Like with other breeds sometimes. Those people are in UKC, not so much AKC. If AKC - they are sending out with handlers who have their own advantage. 

A lot of this is why you have people so selective as far as what goes into their conformation programs. And I imagine it is why you don't see too many field line goldens in the conformation ring.

I wish the more moderate ones felt more encouraged... but the very least, I know of people who are doing something about getting out there, even though not with the dogs they have currently.

When down in OH for a show - I set up next to somebody who primarily did/does obedience and some field (WC-MH titles on her dogs). If she can, she also shows her dogs.

She has a Topbrass dog who for all I know has not seen the inside of the show ring, probably because her owner knows what can go out there or not. The dog's structure isn't there, she lacks bone, her eyes are too light, and her head lacks stop. This dog has a MH and probably will get obedience titles too as some point.

She has had other dogs in the past who came very close to being MH/CH/CDX dogs. The one I'm thinking of died of cancer before that could happen. <- Which goes back to you can put whatever titles on your dogs and consider them "improved", but what do you have if they die early to cancer? 

But back to my point, it was fun setting up next to her and her co-breeder and listening to them talking about future litters. The co-breeder breeds more fieldy goldens and was excited about puppies from the other's grand champion (who also is a JH). Her hope is for more moderate (from a field perspective) dogs who could do it all. More than that, this lady was fussing over the dogs - all of them, like she truly loves the breed. There was none of that lording over her own dogs and giving other dogs shark eyes over the shoulder. Which I honestly think of when I read these threads or listen to some people talk.

My thing is people like that are out there. You read these conversations and you would think that there are absolutely no breeders in field thinking about conformation and no breeders in conformation thinking about field.


----------



## goldlover68

kfayard said:


> If you go back and read what I wrote... I said it works both ways!! I know "mean conformation" people, so I have no doubt that you were told that and my apologies for that.
> 
> But, you can not dismiss the fact that "field" people aren't the nicest either.
> 
> I know for one I dont consider myself a "conformation" person, I love to do everything with my dogs. But, if my dogs just get their JH, some obedience, agility titles... I will get criticized (maybe silently) for not breeding upper level hunt test or field trials.
> 
> I do try and breed for it all, will I get it all? Probably not, but I want my dogs to hunt, pick up my doves and ducks.


*So, you are saying if one group does something mean then it is ok for you to do something mean? :doh: I see that as flawed logic.....! Both parties are wrong, period!*


----------



## laprincessa

goldlover68 said:


> *So, you are saying if one group does something mean then it is ok for you to do something mean? :doh: I see that as flawed logic.....! Both parties are wrong, period!*



Why are you yelling?
I've read this thread, knowing nothing about either conformation or field, and tried to learn something from it. There's no need for this attitude.


----------



## goldlover68

Jersey's Mom,
I read your long post and took some time to reflect on your comments. To keep this short, since you 'conceded' that your post #80 included personal attacks on Claudia, I also concede that your post # 64 did not.

We both share a passion for Golden's as do most on this site. I generally very much enjoy reading the topics and posting on areas of interest. As I have mentioned as a strictly field person, I have had a few bad experiences on this site and I feel as others have indicated that some Conformation people would like us to leave.

That being said, I think my purpose on this topic is done, as I wanted to publically address what I saw as 'bullying' by a few. It was not important that people agree with me, only that this perspective was out so that other could comment. 

I hope it was not a 'Pandora's box' but maybe a new level of awareness for some.

By the way, you dogs look really neat and the titles are special also....

Good Luck...


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> *So, you are saying if one group does something mean then it is ok for you to do something mean? :doh: I see that as flawed logic.....! Both parties are wrong, period!*


 And that is exactly my point!! Geez!! I have said that in like 3 different comments, so I don't understand where you are coming up with this!
I could have sworn the quote that you just quoted says it works BOTH ways! I never implied that either was right. Why such animosity in your post and bolded? You just said what I was saying.


----------



## goldlover68

laprincessa said:


> Why are you yelling?
> I've read this thread, knowing nothing about either conformation or field, and tried to learn something from it. There's no need for this attitude.


There you go again, I was not yelling, only trying to separate my comments for the original post. Sorry you took it that way. 

My point was simple, and not confrontational in any way. 'two wrongs do not make a right!'

People sometimes think that by saying something like, "well the reason I said that was because she said it to me first!

That is a perfect case of flawed logic in that 'two wrongs do not make a right!'

That was my only point here...


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> Jersey's Mom,
> I read your long post and took some time to reflect on your comments. To keep this short, since you 'conceded' that your post #80 included personal attacks on Claudia, I also concede that your post # 64 did not.
> 
> We both share a passion for Golden's as do most on this site. I generally very much enjoy reading the topics and posting on areas of interest. As I have mentioned as a strictly field person, I have had a few bad experiences on this site and I feel as others have indicated that some Conformation people would like us to leave.
> 
> That being said, I think my purpose on this topic is done, as I wanted to publically address what I saw as 'bullying' by a few. It was not important that people agree with me, only that this perspective was out so that other could comment.
> 
> I hope it was not a 'Pandora's box' but maybe a new level of awareness for some.
> 
> By the way, you dogs look really neat and the titles are special also....
> 
> Good Luck...


 I do not understand where you feel Conformation people want field people to leave? I have not even seen this in this thread? I am so confused!! I know, I certainly do not want field people to leave and frankly I would hate to see anybody leave.


----------



## goldlover68

kfayard said:


> And that is exactly my point!! Geez!! I have said that in like 3 different comments, so I don't understand where you are coming up with this!
> I could have sworn the quote that you just quoted says it works BOTH ways! I never implied that either was right. Why such animosity in your post and bolded? You just said what I was saying.


Sorry, do not take this critically as it was not meant that way...but when someone says that it works both ways, they are in effect saying if they did it to me, then that justifies me doing it to them...

In fact it does not, it doesn't work both ways unless you concede that both are wrong! If that is understood then why not say we both are wrong! That is more definitive, and clear....otherwise it comes across as an excuse to continue...

that was my only point on this! Nothing more....


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> There you go again, I was not yelling, only trying to separate my comments for the original post. Sorry you took it that way.
> 
> My point was simple, and not confrontational in any way. 'two wrongs do not make a right!'
> 
> People sometimes think that by saying something like, "well the reason I said that was because she said it to me first!
> 
> That is a perfect case of flawed logic in that 'two wrongs do not make a right!'
> 
> That was my only point here...


 Where did I say two wrongs make a right since you said my statement was flawed logic. I never once said, oh because field people were mean to me, I am going to be mean back! If you go back and read my post, I never once said ANYTHING bad about field people or dogs.


----------



## Kmullen

Both parties are at fault, not just one.


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> Sorry, do not take this critically as it was not meant that way...but when someone says that it works both ways, they are in effect saying if they did it to me, then that justifies me doing it to them...
> 
> In fact it does not, it doesn't work both ways unless you concede that both are wrong! If that is understood then why not say we both are wrong! That is more definitive, and clear....otherwise it comes across as an excuse to continue...
> 
> that was my only point on this! Nothing more....


 It works both ways to me means that there are mean field people just like there are mean conformation people. Meanness happens on both sides not just one side.


----------



## goldlover68

kfayard said:


> It works both ways to me means that there are mean field people just like there are mean conformation people. Meanness happens on both sides not just one side.


I can see you are not 'getting my point', no matter...

If you look back to my original post #95, I did not mention you as one of the postings that were offensive to me. You jumped into the fray on your own. 

So let's move on ... I have nothing added to offer

If you do want to see if other field people, feel as I do...reading back through this post you will see others who have the same impression I do.

Good luck


----------



## Kmullen

Did you not say or another posters say that conformation people are rude and mean to field people? So, it is okay for someone to have their opinion on conformation people, but not the other way around?


I guess, I am just too stupid to understand where you were going with that, so I will leave it alone.


----------



## Kmullen

goldlover68 said:


> *So, you are saying if one group does something mean then it is ok for you to do something mean? :doh: I see that as flawed logic.....! Both parties are wrong, period!*


 If you were talking about the post 95 were you stated personal attacks then that is different than what I was posting about. I was not stating about any comments on the forum! 

Yes, if there were talking about personal faults, then it still doesn't make it right. But, I think I said why some people snapped and so did Jersey's mom.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

It seems as this thread has gotten really off track. It's clear from reading posts (and personal experience) that many people, including people who participate in conformation, field, agility, etc, have experienced rudeness from other competitors. I think we can all agree that just because it happens doesn't mean it is right to do to other people. 

To get back to the subject at hand, I do find it interesting that the subjective component of "improving the breed" can make one breeder's goals very different than another breeder's. Admittedly, I don't talk pedigrees with many performance breeders, but I do wonder how a performance breeder's goals compare and contrast to a breeder who is more focused on conformation. 

I find it interesting to note that a large majority of the standard is dedicated to physical appearance. However, even with all those words describing the "ideal" golden there is still a subjective component to interpreting what the words mean. The AKC does not have an illustrated breed standard, although the Blue Book has somewhat become an unofficial version. However, it seems to me that regardless of the competitive activity one chooses to compete in, all breeders would benefit from having a dog that is sound and put together well enough to work all day in the field - even if the dog isn't in the field one day in its life. All breeders would benefit from having a dog that is biddable and willing to work for its owner - again, even if the dog isn't in the field one day in its life. And we all can agree that a golden expression and headpiece is one of the hallmarks of the breed, making it something we expect to see when we look at a golden. There is certainly room for subjectivity in there, but for the most part a breeder wants to have something they like to look at when they look at their companions. At least I do. 

Although it may be a subject for another thread, I would be interested to explore this subject further - to compare and contrast goals for litters or breeding programs depending on the competitive venue(s) of the breeder. It could be really interesting and may show us that we aren't as far apart as we think.


----------



## Claudia M

OK. I believe this year has been an effort on some on both sides of the isle to come together. There are still misinterpretations on both sides. But I personally see those discussions, regardless that some tend to get ugly, as an improvement. I personally see a different tone from the majority even if the opinions are "still" different. 

As goldlover68 stated, there is still a small group that both gets insulted quickly and then resort to insults. Hopefully that will change as well and the conversations will become more lucrative. 

I personally do not see any insults towards the dog in the public video off youtube. If someone cannot find the dog amusing, I will just keep quiet :x. I could see my flatcoat in that video to a T. I admit, I assumed based on the coat a much older golden; closer to a beautiful 3 years old boy - which would explain the frustration.

As far as someone stating that a search for terms used for field goldens yield no results. I would personally assume (again) that many of those posts have been either deleted or edited. The other day I went onto a thread that supposedly sparks controversy. I could not see it because by the time I read it both sides have edited their responses. 

In the end I hope that we can discuss freely and nicely because only when such happens can we really concentrate on improving the breed that everyone here is so passionate about.


----------



## Vhuynh2

I am new to goldens and Molly is my first dog. I got her as a pet and through this forum, I learned about hunt training and I was really intrigued by it. But, based on everything I had read about show Goldens in the field on this forum, I really thought Molly wouldn't be able to do any of it. I thought that I might not even be able to get her started, that she might just turn her nose up at a bird. When a trainer asked if I was interested in hunting or hunt tests, I couldn't even answer and said well, let's just see if Molly has any instinct whatsoever. I assumed she was going to fail, before she was even given a shot. Now, she is training for Senior and my trainer believes she can go beyond that (maybe a different owner/handler is in order for that one). 

I have heard many things said about the field dogs too. I don't know about field dog owners and how they react to the insults, but I don't lament about the fact that my show golden doesn't run like the field Goldens. So what if she doesn't zoom back in like the field dogs? Others can say what they want about it but it doesn't matter to me. Someone at an HRC training day looked at my dog and said his dogs were bred for hunting and don't have all that unnecessary coat. It didn't even bother me one bit that he said that. I smiled and said, "oh really?" I don't care what he thinks. I'm in this sport to have fun with my dog. Really, all that matters to me is that Molly is having fun, even if she does a terrible job on a blind or a mark. I really don't care what others think and I don't compare her to other dogs. Where's the fun in that?

I'm so glad I'm not a breeder. I don't have the weight of the breed on my shoulders. I can just have fun with my dogs.


----------



## Claudia M

Tippy, I had a nice semi-lengthy response to you this morning but then my dogs started typing as I was getting into their morning time and lost it. And I was right at about finishing writing how I like the looks of your dogs. I guess my girls got jealous!

I can see as far as Comet's hock. As far as "leggy" I would say both your dogs are way better proportioned than what I see winning in the ring. And any dog that is in the high end of the standard will "show" more leg. I do not think that the standard has a proportion of leg to height, only length to height. So the "leggy" part is really IMHO up to the judge's interpretation. 

I do not see color faults from your sig pic. To my knowledge the color faults are white patches other than graying from age. 

And since we have opened up (I think) I would like to see other than eliminating 40lbs field goldens what would the conformation people (Sorry Kelli I have to still split the people in the dog category) like to see in the field kids in the ring.


----------



## Megora

> I would like to see - other than eliminating 40lbs field goldens - what would the conformation people - like to see in the field kids


 I don't think anyone has actually said we should eliminate 40lb field goldens... I'll be honest, the 40lb dogs I immediately think of are not necessarily field bred, but performance bred and owned by obedience people on this forum. And I don't think they should be made to feel like their dogs should not exist or their type needs to be eliminated on the basis of a sport that they do not play. 

Other thing too is don't be confused by the illusion of coat and fur on dogs as far as what attributes they have. Plenty of leggy dogs in conformation. People have seen enough wet dog pictures of my show boy to know what he looks like under that coat, and he is no different than most we show with.


----------



## Claudia M

Megora said:


> I don't think anyone has actually said we should eliminate 40lb field goldens... I'll be honest, the 40lb dogs I immediately think of are not necessarily field bred, but performance bred and owned by obedience people on this forum. And I don't think they should be made to feel like their dogs should not exist or their type needs to be eliminated on the basis of a sport that they do not play.
> 
> Other thing too is don't be confused by the illusion of coat and fur on dogs as far as what attributes they have. Plenty of leggy dogs in conformation. People have seen enough wet dog pictures of my show boy to know what he looks like under that coat, and he is no different than most we show with.


A great article to read (I am still reading it) - But I like both dogs presented here and also agree with the statement that paraphrasing: "too many goldens today are short in leg". 

Grooming & Presentation Trends Over the Decades: The Sporting Group

And I referred to the 40lbs dogs in the show ring which actually would DQ them. And if we are talking about improving the breed I would still work towards bringing those dogs in within standard. Nothing wrong with having a small or big dog; many of us do. But if you keep on breeding these sizes are you really improving the breed?


----------



## Titan1

Megora said:


> I don't think anyone has actually said we should eliminate 40lb field goldens... I'll be honest, the 40lb dogs I immediately think of are not necessarily field bred, but performance bred and owned by obedience people on this forum. And I don't think they should be made to feel like their dogs should not exist or their type needs to be eliminated on the basis of a sport that they do not play.
> 
> Thank you Kate for trying to stick up for me... I know my Titan is small. He is 48 lbs and not a ounce of fat on him... the rest of his litter are in standard and he was the runt who stayed the runt. This dog is the sweetest hardest working dog I have ever had and I am praying for one just like him out of a repeat breeding. So no hurt feelings here..
> 
> I am just sorry everyone can't have the best dog in the world like I have...
> 
> Over the years I have gotten a thick skin and I do not judge my dog on what anyone else thinks of him.The only opinion that matters is mine. He has proven himself over and over again.. Are there things I would like to improve.. yes..but I would take a clone in a heartbeat.. In fact I am hoping for one this time around.


----------



## Megora

Claudia M said:


> A great article to read (I am still reading it) - But I like both dogs presented here and also agree with the statement that paraphrasing: "too many goldens today are short in leg".
> 
> Grooming & Presentation Trends Over the Decades: The Sporting Group
> 
> And I referred to the 40lbs dogs in the show ring which actually would DQ them. And if we are talking about improving the breed I would still work towards bringing those dogs in within standard. Nothing wrong with having a small or big dog; many of us do. But if you keep on breeding these sizes are you really improving the breed?


1. That is an old article and doesn't go into the fact that a lot of breeders are already working on improving the overall balance of the dogs. This goes into more than just the legs.

2. I think you just need to be sensitive to those people on this forum who have smaller goldens who are excellent at what they were bred to do. They were not bred for the conformation ring necessarily and the people who highly desire their puppies are not looking for conformation dogs. One dog I'm think of - he is a fantastic dog and his puppies are fantastic at what they were bred to do. And this is not based on his size or color or weight or anything like this. It's based on the talents and drive which this dog has. And health too, I might add. 

^ It would be very different if the owner of this dog and others like him were speaking up in strong criticism of dogs bred for conformation on the basis that they think those dogs should be more like their own dog. I have never seen the owner of this dog be so trite and furthermore I've not heard owners of his puppies coming forward and whining about how their dogs should be able to win conformation shows or stuff like that. Since they don't play the conformation game, why would they even care?

ETA - @Michelle - I didn't want to name names, but yes, I was thinking of Titan and what a fantastic dog he is. I cringe when I see these conversations because I'm around dogs like Titan in obedience and I know the owners are not the least bit gripey about their dogs not being in standard or represented in the conformation ring.


----------



## Kmullen

There are dogs and bitches in the conformation world that are short on leg. I definitely agree with that. But, there are many that aren't. You just typically see more short legs in specials, especially in bitches (IMO).

I see a ton of judges rewarding for the "cute" and "flashy" look.


----------



## Claudia M

Kate? what does old article mean? Is it less valid? Short legs and less functional coat? 

From what I see it was posted on August 2013. Does not say exactly when it was written, or maybe I missed it.

If you have the legs but cannot see it because of the coat then it is the coat. The dog are not shown wet to my knowledge, even though I have been at field training in the pond with Darcy the day before her shows; got home, sprayed her with water, dried her and she was ready for the next day 

I am sensitive to small dogs as I am sensitive to big dogs (I have one). 

But now if we eliminate that as well can we really talk about improving the breed? Isn't this what this thread is about?


----------



## Sally's Mom

I found the article interesting. I was at the New England Sporting Specialty several years ago where a well respected and long time golden breeder was complaining about the dogs winning that day who she thought were too short on leg.

And I also wanted to comment on the CCA. When I did it last summer, there were all types of Goldens: field, conformation, English type. All those types passed. Three of my breeding went and all got scores over 90. We all found it very educational and helpful.

I have always admired photos of Titan and am in awe of his accomplishments. My 52 lb Laney had a brother who was 85 lbs, from standard size parents.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I don't think it's fair to generalize that "all field dogs need to improve _______" and "all conformation dogs need to improve ___________." Each dog is individual and unique and can bring different strengths and weaknesses. I have seen conformation bred dogs with weak rears, strong rears, strong fronts, and weak fronts. I've seen performance bred dogs with good toplines, bad toplines, good earsets and bad earsets. (I feel like Dr. Suess.) My point is that you can't generalize that ALL of one style of dog need to improve anything. 

For example, my conformation bred girl (Smooch) who is almost finished (needs her last major) could use more overall substance. She is on the smaller side but is objectively a lovely and very correct bitch. She also possesses a biddability and temperament that I LOVE. So we just bred her to a boy who has excellent longevity in the line (he is almost 12 himself), has working titles in his pedigree, has been producing overall substance (but not excessive) and has lovely structure to boot (including a wonderful topline and front end). But honestly, there are conformation dogs who do not need more overall substance, so to generalize that all dogs in one style need anything doesn't seem fair to the dogs.


----------



## AmberSunrise

I truly believe each breeder needs to decide what their idea of perfection is and go from there.

My idea obviously differs from many in this discussion but my goals include
- beautiful and balanced movement: equally at home in obedience, agility or field
- dogs with a drive to work but a willingness to relax (on/off switch)
- strong type 
- balanced ability to take direction and to work independently
- beauty and brains
- quickness and eagerness to learn, to play and to go hiking/biking etc

while I do get CCAs on my dogs, a strict adherence to the standard takes a lesser importance than a golden retrievers temperament, health and joy in working.

I am extremely honored that Titan was approved for my Towhee not just once but twice!! The 1 year old puppies are doing phenomenal, are mostly well within standard, are happy workers already excelling and starting to earn titles and are adored by their people. These wonderful dogs would not have been possible if strict observance of the standard without looking at the whole picture had been the deciding factor.

and Titan balances many areas where my Towhee is weaker - focus to name just one quality


----------



## Megora

Claudia M said:


> Kate? what does old article mean?


 I've seen it elsewhere and discussed fully elsewhere. Not necessarily about length of leg or anything like that. It's how things have changed as far as how dogs are shown and groomed. 

Times have changed - particularly with the invention of dryers so you can give dogs baths right up to the time of the shows and not have to worry about pinning towels on your dogs or putting slickers on them to keep the coats straight. Showing is a lot less fuss and ordeal now, I imagine. I've said before - I'm really glad I don't have to own a slicker! 

He used pictures to demonstrate his point on how the stacking practices have changed... and problem is the dog on the right (who he credited with having proper amount of leg under him) is correctly stacked. Dog on the left (from the 60's) has his feet too far forward just like the judge was criticizing in his article as far as what handlers do now. That's the thought which crossed my mind when I read this before and still sticks out when I looked at the article again.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> And I referred to the 40lbs dogs in the show ring which actually would DQ them.


Actually it would not. Our standard has only two disqualifications:

_*Disqualifications*_ -- 1. Deviation in height of more than one inch from standard either way. 2. Undershot or overshot bite.


----------



## Claudia M

Megora said:


> I've seen it elsewhere and discussed fully elsewhere. Not necessarily about length of leg or anything like that. It's how things have changed as far as how dogs are shown and groomed.
> 
> Times have changed - particularly with the invention of dryers so you can give dogs baths right up to the time of the shows and not have to worry about pinning towels on your dogs or putting slickers on them to keep the coats straight. Showing is a lot less fuss and ordeal now, I imagine. I've said before - I'm really glad I don't have to own a slicker!
> 
> He used pictures to demonstrate his point on how the stacking practices have changed... and problem is the dog on the right (who he credited with having proper amount of leg under him) is correctly stacked. Dog on the left (from the 60's) has his feet too far forward just like the judge was criticizing in his article as far as what handlers do now. That's the thought which crossed my mind when I read this before and still sticks out when I looked at the article again.


Funny, what sticks out to me is exactly what this golden owner and show judge is stating: the dog was BOB in 2009 (not that long ago) and has proper amount of leg as opposed to the ones you see in the show mostly with too short legs and less functional coat. 

Maybe that is because that is what I have said thru this entire thread.


----------



## cubbysan

Claudia M said:


> A great article to read (I am still reading it) - But I like both dogs presented here and also agree with the statement that paraphrasing: "too many goldens today are short in leg".
> 
> Grooming & Presentation Trends Over the Decades: The Sporting Group
> 
> And I referred to the 40lbs dogs in the show ring which actually would DQ them. And if we are talking about improving the breed I would still work towards bringing those dogs in within standard. Nothing wrong with having a small or big dog; many of us do. But if you keep on breeding these sizes are you really improving the breed?


You would be surprised how small a female in standard actually is. My Sailor is very compact and tiny, but believe it or not she is right at the bottom of her height standard and weight standard. When she stands next to Brady, who is a male, and on the higher end of the height standard, the difference in size is a lot more than one would think. Those couple inches make a world of difference.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Actually it would not. Our standard has only two disqualifications:
> 
> _*Disqualifications*_ -- 1. Deviation in height of more than one inch from standard either way. 2. Undershot or overshot bite.


Now I can hardly imagine a 23" male golden retriever at 40 lbs! 

My female flatcoat is 22" and she is 58 lbs. She was completely scrawny at 50 lbs. 
So as far as proportions I would assume that the dog is also shorter at 40lbs.


----------



## Loisiana

males can be 22"


----------



## Megora

The breed standard says 23-24 for boys. And there is an inch allowed either way. Meaning the dogs could be anywhere between 22" and 25". 

23" is right in the middle (my boys are both 23.5). 

Anything less than 22" would be a DQ from the ring - if somebody called you on it, I guess. In theory, you could probably have very lightweight goldens who are 22". 

Females are 21.5-22.5 - with an inch allowed either way. Means you could have anything between 20.5-23.5" in the ring. 

Just thought it should be clarified.

Other note... _goldens are a completely different breed than flatcoats_.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> males can be 22"


Reason why I stated my female flatcoat height!


----------



## Kmullen

I have not read the article yet, but just wanted to say that just bc one dog with legs won BOB in 2009, does not mean that we don't have dogs with legs now. Let me go and read now!


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> Funny, what sticks out to me is exactly what this golden owner and show judge is stating: the dog was BOB in 2009 (not that long ago) and has proper amount of leg as opposed to the ones you see in the show mostly with too short legs and less functional coat.
> 
> Maybe that is because that is what I have said thru this entire thread.


Um, no, I don't think so. Your premise is wrong. The dogs today do not generally lack in leg. Some did for a few years (and by no means most), but not anymore. That's one of the things that has been improved!  The vast majority of dogs in the conformation ring these days have a good amount of leg. Those few without much leg don't do well unless they are otherwise spectacular. All you have to do is attend a dog show to see it.

This photo (click to enlarge) shows a few of the 100+ Goldens at this show. You don't see a lot of Goldens built like Corgis. And speaking of Chaos (the 2009 BOB winner that you referred to in Jeff Pepper's article), about halfway back in the purple suit and obscured by the pole is Tonya Struble and her Chaos kid, who has "correct" leg (the dog, not Tonya; though Tonya's legs are quite nice, too  ). Note that all the Goldens in this photo have "correct" leg, equivalent to the Chaos son.

So, I think your assumption about short-legged Goldens all over the show ring is just wrong. Because, you know, breeders _improved_ that when it became a problem. And your generalization of it was never, in fact, the norm.


----------



## Claudia M

So once again how is that improving the breed in general? 

Or is that really an impossible question if at every mention about the standard now we are cringing because we know so and so and train with so and so and then we get defensive about it? That makes then this whole thread completely futile and just a never ending bickering about who insulted whom and who is sensitive and who is not. 

If dogs are being bred intentionally out of standard because of a certain attribute are we still breeding goldens? I thought that was what the field breeders have been accused of! Or were they accused of it only because they still wanted to play in the conformation ring?

Are we now splitting the goldens between field, conformation, obedience and agility and they all will have their different standard? 

So until someone is honestly able to discuss the breed in general (purpose, appearance, temperament and structure) I am out of the discussion.


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns

Jefferey Pepper would disagree with you on length of legs.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I don't understand the dispute at this point. 

I think depending on where you go in the country (or world) there may be more likely to be certain faults in the breed ring. I don't think length of leg is a huge issue is California but I would argue that length of body and loin (contributing to the issue of overall proportion) is a problem. So while a dog can have correct length of leg, in terms of height at the withers, they still may be too long in body or loin, so that they would not be the correct proportion of 11:12 ratio, i.e. slightly off square. If that makes sense. 

What I'm "hearing" is the assumption that a certain style of breeder is breeding the "correct" golden that has no room for improvement, which is just incorrect. There is no perfect dog. So all breeders have room for improvement somewhere.


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> DanaRuns
> 
> Jefferey Pepper would disagree with you on length of legs.


Ha. I doubt it. You should have seen the leg on the dog he put up in a recent California show. We can always ask him. I can email him the photo and ask for his opinion. 

The judge in my photo is Jon Chase. Not someone known to like fluffy dogs with no leg and overdone coats. He thought this was an impressive lineup.

I'll say that leg in the midwest has been slower to catch up than the rest of the country.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

If memory serves I believe Mr. Pepper used Chaos in an article he wrote to show correct length of leg. Given how many dogs in California descend from that particular dog at the moment, even the number of dogs in that photo, I would be surprised to hear him criticize the dogs currently being shown in this general area for issues with length of leg. But I have learned to never say never


----------



## HiTideGoldens

DanaRuns said:


> I'll say that leg in the midwest has been slower to catch up than the rest of the country.


Very true. I think it certainly speaks to the fact that the styles found in the ring are certainly dependent on the pedigrees being bred and shown in any general area.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

One other thought I just had that I think is being overlooked in some of this conversation. The breed standard applies to all goldens. It applies to field bred dogs, performance dogs, conformation dogs and companion dogs. So to the extent that any of those goldens possess structural faults (or DQs), they are just as incorrect as that short legged conformation golden, or the out of standard too-tall golden. Faults are just faults. All goldens have them and no golden is perfect. But just like a breeder shouldn't ignore the part of the breed standard that speaks to biddability and working ability, a breeder should also not ignore the structural component of the standard and breed just for the biddability and temperament. I hope this is making sense. As I said several pages ago, these breeding decisions are a fine balance.... and definitely not easy.


----------



## cubbysan

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Very true. I think it certainly speaks to the fact that the styles found in the ring are certainly dependent on the pedigrees being bred and shown in any general area.


That is one thing I noticed moving from the North East to the Midwest. They are definitely different styles that really cannot be appreciated in pictures until you see them in person.


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns said:


> Ha. I doubt it. You should have seen the leg on the dog he put up in a recent California show. We can always ask him. I can email him the photo and ask for his opinion.
> 
> The judge in my photo is Jon Chase. Not someone known to like fluffy dogs with no leg and overdone coats. He thought this was an impressive lineup.
> 
> I'll say that leg in the midwest has been slower to catch up than the rest of the country.


Don't doubt it. He stated it in his goodbye article.

Maybe you missed it.


----------



## Kmullen

gdgli said:


> Don't doubt it. He stated it in his goodbye article.
> 
> Maybe you missed it.



Do you have the article? I would love to read it.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

gdgli said:


> Don't doubt it. He stated it in his goodbye article.
> 
> Maybe you missed it.


I don't doubt that he believes that to be the case generally, but not necessarily in California at the moment.


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> Don't doubt it. He stated it in his goodbye article.
> 
> Maybe you missed it.


I guess I did miss it. Can you quote it or point me to the part? Sorry, I don't even know of any "goodbye article," especially since he is still judging. I guess I'm confused, now.


----------



## Brave

Education question.... 

The fourth dog back (with the handler leaning over them) appears to my uneducated eye to have shorter front legs than the rest. Is it just a question with a lot of chest coat obscuring the true length of the leg? Or is it really shorter? 

I have no clue whose dog that is, nor do I mean an offense with my question.


----------



## DanaRuns

Brave said:


> Education question....
> 
> The fourth dog back (with the handler leaning over them) appears to my uneducated eye to have shorter front legs than the rest. Is it just a question with a lot of chest coat obscuring the true length of the leg? Or is it really shorter?
> 
> I have no clue whose dog that is, nor do I mean an offense with my question.
> 
> View attachment 474577


I know all these dogs and people, so forgive me if I don't want to critique individual dogs here. But I'll say generally that's probably what Jeff Pepper was writing about, when he said that the coat doesn't let you know whether the leg is correct or not. Unlike most of the others, that dog is carrying a lot of coat. That amount of coat is also unusual here in California.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I would also note that we have to remember there is a variation in the standard on height, where a dog could be realistically anywhere from 22-25 inches tall at the withers and not be DQ'd. So if a dog in the vicinity of the dog in question is on the higher side of the standard, it might make that particular dog look shorter. But shorter does not necessarily mean out of proportion (i.e. short on leg). It just means shorter. Am I making sense here?


----------



## Brave

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I would also note that we have to remember there is a variation in the standard on height, where a dog could be realistically anywhere from 22-25 inches tall at the withers and not be DQ'd. So if a dog in the vicinity of the dog in question is on the higher side of the standard, it might make that particular dog look shorter. But shorter does not necessarily mean out of proportion (i.e. short on leg). It just means shorter. Am I making sense here?



Yes. That makes sense. It does appear both dogs on either side are taller than the one in question. Which could be the visual trigger that makes the dog in question seem so out of place to me. 

Thank you for pointing that out. I wouldn't have thought of that as a variable to consider.


----------



## gdgli

kfayard said:


> Do you have the article? I would love to read it.


kfayard

I will look for it. Only problem is I may have thrown it out. And in reality I was very surprised at his comments. 
If you have old issues of GR news, I am pretty sure I can get the date of that issue.

And thanks for asking rather than, well, you know, kill the messenger.


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns said:


> I guess I did miss it. Can you quote it or point me to the part? Sorry, I don't even know of any "goodbye article," especially since he is still judging. I guess I'm confused, now.


DanaRuns

You obviously did miss it. It appeared in GR News. I believe it appeared last year but I will try to find which issue.


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> DanaRuns
> 
> You obviously did miss it. It appeared in GR News. I believe it appeared last year but I will try to find which issue.


Thanks. And I'm not shooting any messengers, either. I'm just surprised, given what I've heard him say and seen him do. In fact, you don't need to dig it up. I will just send him an email or PM. Thanks.


----------



## Megora

DanaRuns said:


> I know all these dogs and people, so forgive me if I don't want to critique individual dogs here.


Dana - could you PM me the name of the dog behind the one Brave was asking about? The one with the standing handler w/glasses in the gray suit?


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is so very true, and it shows how subjective it really is. Everyone is using the same breed standard, yet the style of dog is quite different. The big winning dogs in the East probably wouldn't get a second look here in the Midwest, and the dogs winning in the Midwest might not even get a first look on the West coast. They're all fine dogs, just different.



cubbysan said:


> That is one thing I noticed moving from the North East to the Midwest. They are definitely different styles that really cannot be appreciated in pictures until you see them in person.


----------



## gdgli

Eureka!

Golden Retriever News January-February 2012, Pg. 144. Article is titled SO LONG... by Jeffrey G Pepper.

WARNING, he also discusses grooming practices in Goldens. Again, WARNING.


----------



## gdgli

And sorry but I must add another observation. I have attended our club's last four Specialties. I have yet to see a dog measured. However, at the one CCA event I went to, every dog was measured. Now, what could be the possible outcome of this practice? And, why does this happen?


----------



## Magnolia

*lurker in*

I find this conversation (mostly) fascinating. My little girl and I went to our first show a few weeks ago. The GRs here (Toronto area) have a very different look from where we used to live (DC area). It's interesting to me that regardless of differences, all of these different styles fall within the standard.

Carry on.

*lurker out*


----------



## Titan1

gdgli said:


> And sorry but I must add another observation. I have attended our club's last four Specialties. I have yet to see a dog measured. However, at the one CCA event I went to, every dog was measured. Now, what could be the possible outcome of this practice? And, why does this happen?


At the national two years ago we all had to be measured before we could go the next day. They had the wicket set up from Agility and we went in and it was registered on our paperwork. I know if at that point you are in the 1" under and 1" over you had to be measured the next day by another person/judge...


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> Now I can hardly imagine a 23" male golden retriever at 40 lbs!
> 
> My female flatcoat is 22" and she is 58 lbs. She was completely scrawny at 50 lbs.
> So as far as proportions I would assume that the dog is also shorter at 40lbs.


This is my 22", 42 lb boy. I'm certainly not saying he belongs in the show ring, just pointing out it's very possible to be in height standard but near the 40 lb mark. Of course he's only 14 months so he'll fill out some still.

Pedigree: Sunfire's Ashes To Gold


----------



## Eowyn

gdgli said:


> DanaRuns
> 
> You obviously did miss it. It appeared in GR News. I believe it appeared last year but I will try to find which issue.


I would be very interested in reading this article as well.


----------



## Stretchdrive

My 22" male is 46lbs, and my 21 3/4 bitch is 48lbs.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Loisiana, lovely pedigree, beautiful pup.


----------



## Eowyn

On a side note, Dana you come up with the most interesting threads...  I also look forward to them.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> The big winning dogs in the East probably wouldn't get a second look here in the Midwest, and the dogs winning in the Midwest might not even get a first look on the West coast. They're all fine dogs, just different.


But keep in mind though that what wins in the ring depending on where you are around the country.... it is based on what people take into the ring. 

The judges travel all over and make their choices from what is shown to them. This means that looking up what judges awarded in different areas doesn't always tell you the whole story. Believe me - as a newbie who doesn't have a private "judge list" to refer to - I'm looking up as much as I can about some judges I'll be showing to and trying to guess what they like. I'm sure I could probably look up Mr. Pepper's past assignments and see him awarding short legged hairy dogs - obviously (I haven't read the article that George is referring to but I assume) that's not what he likes. 

And you do have people sending dogs out around the country to show to certain judges? Regardless of region.


----------



## Kmullen

Btw... The warning about the grooming is not really a warning for me. I completely agree that people over groom their dogs. I showed a puppy at the national (I am not the best groomer!) and I had someone tell me that he was really cute, but I should have "sculpted" him more!! Um, no I am not sculpting my 8 month old puppy! If a judge can not put his/her hands on a dog/bitch and feel for correct structure, they do not need to be judging!

Too many judges reward for pretty and cute. We (I think) are trying to change some things with judges and judging. Imo something needs to happen.

A major problem with some (not all) is that winning is more important than staying true to the standard. (That is with every sport). I mean, yea, who would not like to have a winning Golden, but we should be doing to show off what a golden should be.

I have to say I was quite embarrassed watching some of the top specials out there this year.

Now, do all conformation Goldens fall under this? Heck no. You have many that want to do right by the breed. We all need to encourage everyone.


----------



## gdgli

kfayard

Nice honest post.


----------



## Megora

I think what frustrates me a little on the sculpting conversation.... and coming from that article which that judge posted on how goldens are groomed and presented. If you take a look at the dog on the right (who this judge is putting his stamp of approval on at the headline of this article), that is my impression of a dog who has been sculpted to a certain extent. Even if it was just pulling back on the fur to show what the dog actually has.

And I recognize that style, because a friend of mine had a golden about the same age as Bertie who had been groomed similar to how Bertie was groomed around the neck (light stripping to bring out the neck, but nothing over the top). This dog was sent out with a pro and that first show with that pro, the neck was stripped out like that. He looked like a completely different dog. Good side, you could definitely see his neck and he appeared to have better front angles than he actually did. 

I don't groom my dog like that. I don't even know how to do that nor want to. I freaked out with just the little bit of stripping out that we do. And my dog has beat that other dog each time we've been in the same class, a lot of it is because the judges DO put their hands on the dogs and know what is there and what isn't.


----------



## DanaRuns

Here's something that drives me absolutely nuts about this Israeli and Palestinian divide in Goldens. I don't understand the war. I don't get it. We all love these dogs!

Each and every working dog, whether show, field, obedience, agility, search and rescue or whatever represents the top 0.01% of Goldens in America over all the carelessly bred and pet dogs. Each is the top pick in his litter, with ancestors that were each the top pick in theirs going back 150 years, and bred by people who cared deeply and agonized over the breedings, spent tons of money on them, loved each puppy and carefully raised them, spent endless hours training them, grooming them, hunting them, showing them, testing them, competing with them, traveling with them, feeding them, staying in hotels, pampering them, and then breeding them to the best mate they could find, and sobbing as they hold their dog when it takes its last breath. And then they start the process all over again with the next generation, putting all their love, all their knowledge, all their effort and all their vision in to each breeding. Every one of those dogs is wonderful. Every one of them exemplifies the Golden Retriever the best way that breeder (and the breeders of its ancestors) knew how. 

Each dog represents a life's work, a labor of great love, a burning passion. There is over a century of tradition and effort in each dog that is argued about here. Each dog is not only the product of many great dogs, but of many loving and dedicated people. There is not a single accident in any of these dogs. There were no casual breedings. Each one is part of someone's great effort.

So rather than argue about them, I prefer to enjoy them and honor them. I prefer to find what is wonderful about them, rather than what flaws I can discern. I want to try to see what their breeders see in them, why they created this dog, why this dog was chosen over all the others in its litter, and all the litters that came before. I prefer to revel in all the wonderful work and magic that made each special dog. It's much better for my soul for me to enjoy them rather than tear them apart, or have mine torn apart by others.

Do I have opinions about them? Yes. Can I look at them analytically? Of course, one has to. Do I have my own preferences about dogs, and coats, and purpose, and temperament and grooming? Certainly! But you'll notice that while I will criticize the people who are mean or insulting, I never say anything negative about any of those dogs because they are all wonderful, beautiful creatures that represent someone's labor of great love. Not one is any better, worse or more of a "real" Golden Retriever than any of the others. As far as these carefully bred and loved dogs go, there is no better, there is only different. And each one should be appreciated for the pinnacle of effort that it is, not criticized or insulted or mocked or laughed at. Just because you have a different preference or take on the standard doesn't make that other dog or the breed as a whole "ruined," or that other breeder stupid or evil. How arrogant and insulting. Who do you think you are? Each of these dogs should be appreciated and admired for what they are, not ridiculed for what they are not. For each one is the product of great care, and is like a fine work of art. Learn to appreciate the art.

This is something I say to conformation people all the freaking time. Conformation people are the worst. Jeebus. And it's bizarre that just because I have conformation dogs now, people here think I'm anti-field dogs. I grew up with and hunted over field Goldens for 20 years. Hunting is what got me into Goldens. But Goldens are much more than one thing, no matter how much the rabid conformation idiots or rabid field fools think they are only this or only that. Lift up your heads and look around. You're missing greatness.

/rant


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns

Very interesting rant.


----------



## Loisiana

Dana, best post on this thread. Possibly ever.


----------



## Titan1

DanaRuns... Sums it up perfectly and why I would never comment on any other dog beside my own..


----------



## lhowemt

Dana are YOU a golden retriever?  cuz that post seems like it was written by one, very very nice.


----------



## goldlover68

Dana, 
Me too.....love your post!

I think most have figured out I have field bred Golden's, yet my first Golden, was from a Conformation line. She was something special. My 11 year old son decided to train her on obedience for his school science project. From watching him work her, I got hooked on working with Golden's and he got an A on his science project. Somewhere in all of that we took her to a hunt test and the rest is history!


I love watching Dog Shows, don't miss local events, also never miss watching obedience tests. I watch TV Dog Shows also....I just love all dogs, and really love my 3 Goldens.....!

I am taking my newest Golden Foxy JH, duck hunting this weekend! Meeting my now 38 year old son....life happens.....what great fun we will have...!


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> This is my 22", 42 lb boy. I'm certainly not saying he belongs in the show ring, just pointing out it's very possible to be in height standard but near the 40 lb mark. Of course he's only 14 months so he'll fill out some still.


Totally true that height and weight don't correlate all that strongly. I'll point out that my short dog is 1 pound _heavier_ than my tall dog, and both got comments of "lean, muscular" on their CCA. Comet, though, is narrower throughout and more lean, while Jax is cobby and built like a brick.


----------



## tippykayak

Sunrise said:


> My idea obviously differs from many in this discussion but my goals include
> - beautiful and balanced movement: equally at home in obedience, agility or field
> - dogs with a drive to work but a willingness to relax (on/off switch)
> - strong type
> - balanced ability to take direction and to work independently
> - beauty and brains
> - quickness and eagerness to learn, to play and to go hiking/biking etc


I just want to say that Sunrise has excellent taste in Goldens...

For those who don't know, her Faelan is Comet's littermate.


----------



## kwhit

Exceptional post, DanaRuns. :dblthumb2

I've gone to dog shows since I was 18 years old. It's the same thing every time...as soon as I walk onto the show grounds my stress level goes waaaaay down. I love everything about dog shows and more than once I've contemplated getting involved in the sport, when I had Danes and also now with Goldens. 

But...even though the atmosphere is something I could be in every single day, people being critical and talking trash about my dog would put me in "Mama Bear" mode. My skin is very thin when it comes to my dogs. Constructive criticism would be fine, in fact welcomed. It's just the snarky comments that would make me go off.

Is it the same or as bad in obedience and/or agility? Maybe I'm destined to just be an observer and not a participant.


----------



## AmberSunrise

no, on average, I find obedience, agility and rally to be extremely supportive  Perhaps some of the super competitive obedience folks can be critical but I sometimes wonder if they are aware of using their 'outside voice'


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I have overheard people being nasty to others at agility trials, as well as at conformation shows. I don't think nastiness is unique to any one venue. Any time people are competing against each other there is bound to be bad seeds.


----------



## Megora

I think people are nice regardless of venue. There are unkind and rude people everywhere.... maybe just focus on the nice people and you'll have a happier experience wherever you might be?

@Dana - I agree to a certain extent and that's probably just the dog person in me. I like dogs regardless of "what" they are. And golden people regardless of what they do.... when push comes to shove DO enjoy hanging out together. It's FUN (for example) when goldens take over a drop in obedience class - basically 5 out of 6 six dogs are goldens. They might not be the same bloodlines and look different, but they are goldens and generally all outdo the other breeds in the class. I also love the fact that some people with other breeds grimace about entering trials that are part of golden specialties because they know they probably won't be in placements....  

But the same time - criticism of dogs (your own dogs ESPECIALLY, don't be kennel blind or so besotted with your own dog that you can't critically see where s/he lacks or you fall into the trap of thinking all dogs should be like your dog) is healthy for the breed. The problem I think all of us have with some breeders is they purchase "breeding" dogs and start up business regardless of what faults those dogs may have. There is no intention to improve what they have because heck, all that matters is they have purebreds who fit a certain category they can sell. And because they likely are not very educated about what specific faults are, then they breed faults to faults and get more faults. And the pet owners never know.


----------



## gdgli

Loisiana said:


> This is my 22", 42 lb boy. I'm certainly not saying he belongs in the show ring, just pointing out it's very possible to be in height standard but near the 40 lb mark. Of course he's only 14 months so he'll fill out some still.
> 
> Pedigree: Sunfire's Ashes To Gold


42lbs.? Don't you feed him?
Of course I am kidding. Nice to have in shape dogs.


----------



## gdgli

kwhit said:


> Exceptional post, DanaRuns. :dblthumb2
> 
> I've gone to dog shows since I was 18 years old. It's the same thing every time...as soon as I walk onto the show grounds my stress level goes waaaaay down. I love everything about dog shows and more than once I've contemplated getting involved in the sport, when I had Danes and also now with Goldens.
> 
> But...even though the atmosphere is something I could be in every single day, people being critical and talking trash about my dog would put me in "Mama Bear" mode. My skin is very thin when it comes to my dogs. Constructive criticism would be fine, in fact welcomed. It's just the snarky comments that would make me go off.
> 
> Is it the same or as bad in obedience and/or agility? Maybe I'm destined to just be an observer and not a participant.


The best thing is to not pay attention and know that you enjoy your dog. AND, if your dog outshines others in a certain venue, then wear the big grin.


----------



## gdgli

Sunrise said:


> no, on average, I find obedience, agility and rally to be extremely supportive  Perhaps some of the super competitive obedience folks can be critical but I sometimes wonder if they are aware of using their 'outside voice'


I find that the most competitive are the worst. And boy do I take pleasure in outdoing them. Of course we are talking obedience, field, and general citizenship.


----------



## DanaRuns

Megora said:


> The problem I think all of us have with some breeders is they purchase "breeding" dogs and start up business regardless of what faults those dogs may have. There is no intention to improve what they have because heck, all that matters is they have purebreds who fit a certain category they can sell. And because they likely are not very educated about what specific faults are, then they breed faults to faults and get more faults. And the pet owners never know.


I think we all agree on those (at least we agree on something, even if we can't appreciate each other), and those are obviously not the breeders I was referring to in my little rant.


----------



## Megora

DanaRuns said:


> I think we all agree on those (at least we agree on something, even if we can't appreciate each other), and those are obviously not the breeders I was referring to in my little rant.


My brain is probably still buried in the accounting stuff I've been doing all morning, but I took your rant to possibly be directed at those people I can think of who watched the National and after it was all over began to tackle the issue with the top twenty having some fairly noticeable faults. <- I was resistant to the same, until I watched one of those top twenty in a different show and sure enough the fault was very noticeable. 

We can absolutely admire dogs for what they are and congratulate and hold up the owners for what they do right.... I'm not in favor of some of the absolute statements which people make (we saw some on this thread) claiming that the show dogs are all faulty and ruined and should be thrown away, etc... always keep in mind too that judges when they are looking at dogs in the ring, aren't supposed to be strictly fault finding so much as comparing the dogs strengths against each other. 

But if we do not criticize and recognize faults where they exist, then you are encouraging people to continue compounding faults until they are no better than those other breeders I referred to.


----------



## lhowemt

Loisiana said:


> This is my 22", 42 lb boy. I'm certainly not saying he belongs in the show ring, just pointing out it's very possible to be in height standard but near the 40 lb mark. Of course he's only 14 months so he'll fill out some still.
> 
> Pedigree: Sunfire's Ashes To Gold


Phoenix! Miss seeing photos and videos of him :--heart:


----------



## K9-Design

gdgli said:


> And sorry but I must add another observation. I have attended our club's last four Specialties. I have yet to see a dog measured. However, at the one CCA event I went to, every dog was measured. Now, what could be the possible outcome of this practice? And, why does this happen?



Height measuring is required of every entrant in a CCA. CCAs are a GRCA event, not AKC. Height measuring is only at the judge's discretion OR if a fellow exhibitor calls the wicket on another exhibitor, at an AKC licensed show. It is not required and in fact rarely happens.


----------



## gdgli

K9-Design said:


> Height measuring is required of every entrant in a CCA. CCAs are a GRCA event, not AKC. Height measuring is only at the judge's discretion OR if a fellow exhibitor calls the wicket on another exhibitor, at an AKC licensed show. It is not required and in fact rarely happens.


k9

I am well aware of height not required at a show but required at CCA. I am a scientist. Tools of measurement increase the accuracy of our observations. How do you ensure that a dog's height is within the breed standard if it is not being checked with a tool of measurement? I believe that Post 171 reminded us that deviation in height by more than one inch either way is a disqualification. How would the judge know unless he measures?

And now for another question---Why are there Champions that don't have a CCA? Why should I assume that a Champion could get a CCA if it is not measured to check whether or not it is within the standard?


----------



## LJack

gdgli said:


> k9
> 
> I am well aware of height not required at a show but required at CCA. I am a scientist. Tools of measurement increase the accuracy of our observations. How do you ensure that a dog's height is within the breed standard if it is not being checked with a tool of measurement? I believe that Post 171 reminded us that deviation in height by more than one inch either way is a disqualification. How would the judge know unless he measures?
> 
> And now for another question---Why are there Champions that don't have a CCA? Why should I assume that a Champion could get a CCA if it is not measured to check whether or not it is within the standard?


Most judges will know we're on their body a dog should fall to be with in standard. Though not infalible, doing something that requires measurement enough will cause an innate sense for that specific measure. As an example, I handled metered mail for about 4 years for an office, mostly standard business sized envelopes. I had a scale for weight but honestly after a time I did not need to weigh all the envelopes and most of the time when I did weight, already knew how much it was going to cost and was just double checking. 

Also, judges have a set amount of time to judge an individual dog, I can go look but I believe the number is 3 minutes. To measure every dog of every breed with a height in the standard would leave little to no time to judge dogs in any other way including the bite which is the other DQ. 

I saw a measurement once and the handler called for the AKC rep to be present it stopped the ring for a good 5-7 minutes.

Can dogs earn a Chmpionship who don't deserve it, you bet! But, I don't think it is too common. I have heard of dogs being sent to Puerto Rico or Alaska to title as there are so few dogs that building a major is quite possible. It is conceivable that I could take 6 of my own dogs to Puerto Rico and if one dog won 3 days, bam American Champion. I now look to see where wins were earned. 

Also, sometimes people will show an exceptional puppy that will be under standard and judges can give them a 'pass' on height because it is a puppy. If that puppy finishes but never hits standard size, then no CCA since all dogs are measured there. By the way, the judges should not give puppies a pass on height as our standard does not say that, but others like the Lab standard does for dogs under 12 months.


----------



## Megora

Agree with Laura.... Measuring is the exception as opposed to the norm in conformation - just like with obedience.... because it would take additional time to measure each dog. They are allowed only so much time per dog. 

The judge will walk down the line and step back to look at the lineup in a class a couple times. If a dog is noticeably shorter or taller than the others, I'm sure the judge will notice. 

Not a lot of CCA's per year - and when they are done locally, space is limited to a certain number and they're done on weekends when dogs may be somewhere else showing. It's not actually convenient to get to these... but I've heard of people really making a point to go to them when they can. Might not be until the Nationals that they do.


----------



## K9-Design

gdgli said:


> k9
> 
> I am well aware of height not required at a show but required at CCA.


Uhh, okay. You're the one who asked....



> I am a scientist. Tools of measurement increase the accuracy of our observations. How do you ensure that a dog's height is within the breed standard if it is not being checked with a tool of measurement? I believe that Post 171 reminded us that deviation in height by more than one inch either way is a disqualification. How would the judge know unless he measures?


Even though it's a DQ in the breed ring, height is not a big problem in the breed, either too short or too tall. Breeders and exhibitors know not to show a dog that measures over or under. Our breed is not at either end of the height spectrum for the species so it's not something we have to continuously select for (genetics tend toward the median if left to themselves). It's just really not a big deal. Few dogs are measured in the ring because few need to be. AKC judges have "been around the block" by the time they are fully licensed and have a good eye as to what is too small or too tall. 

The last time I saw goldens measured in the ring, I thought it was ridiculous. The judge called the wicket on three 6-9 puppy bitches, her whole entry in that class. The first two did measure in, before she could measure the third, the dog's handler said "MY DOG IS NOT FEELING WELL TODAY" and left the ring. Gimme a break. 6-9 month old little girls? Penalize them for their whole life because they are not full height at 6 months? This is the sort of thing we are successfully avoiding by not making height measuring a requirement for the show ring. It is a tool available for the judges but at their discretion. 



> And now for another question---Why are there Champions that don't have a CCA? Why should I assume that a Champion could get a CCA if it is not measured to check whether or not it is within the standard?


Probably because they haven't shown up for a CCA.
I'm sure it's happened but it would be vary rare indeed for a dog to get all the way to it's championship if it was truly under or over sized and not ever get measured in the ring.

When I did the CCA with Slater, he and another Fisher son (Fetcher) checked in at the same time. I had measured the same two dogs up on the grooming table a week before. Slater was exactly 23", Fetcher was 24.5". The CCA person (NOT an evaluator/judge -- just a volunteer) measured BOTH dogs at 24". I told her it was wrong for both. She looked at me like I was crazy and said, well it's passing for both so why do you care? Well maybe because if you're going to measure something at least do it right??? 

And let's not even get started on agility measuring. My first trial with Slater was like a month ago. I want to jump 24" so really measuring is moot point. But I got him measured two days in a row under two different judges. 21 7/8" and 23 1/2". Sigh. He's 23".


----------



## Claudia M

The dogs can easily be measured before they enter the ring. Plenty of time.


----------



## K9-Design

Go propose it to AKC. There is no breed where measuring is done every time a dog goes in the ring. I really don't think it's an issue in our breed to even consider it.


----------



## cubbysan

My understanding is that the CCA is designed mainly for dogs that will not be showing in conformation. It is to prove that the dog fits the standard. I have also been told it is very hard to find an opening to have your dog evaluated when a show has them available. There are only limited openings since they take so long and each dog is assigned a specific time frame.


----------



## LJack

Sure if you want shows to run until 9:00pm or later, have to pay for lighting, or increase the staff at a show by atleast twice and then buy enough costly wickets to go around. Clubs already have a hard enough time affording to offer shows and why do something that causes this kind of expense and hassle when it is already addressed in a fair way? The officiating judge who is an experienced and trained professional has the right to call for a measurement on any dog.

That would be kind of like running every single denomination of bill ever deposited at bank through a teller through a counterfeit detctor (various kinds available) because 1 out of every 10,000 bills is counterfeit. Sure it could be done. Is it necessary? Not when you have properly educated tellers.


----------



## LJack

cubbysan said:


> My understanding is that the CCA is designed mainly for dogs that will not be showing in conformation. It is to prove that the dog fits the standard. I have also been told it is very hard to find an opening to have your dog evaluated when a show has them available. There are only limited openings since they take so long and each dog is assigned a specific time frame.


Agreed, the last time one was near me my dogs were too young, 2 years later, we have one with only 21 entries I just sent my entry in and it is over 2 months away and I am so worried I will not get in. :crossfing


----------



## gdgli

K9-Design said:


> Uhh, okay. You're the one who asked....
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it's a DQ in the breed ring, height is not a big problem in the breed, either too short or too tall. Breeders and exhibitors know not to show a dog that measures over or under. Our breed is not at either end of the height spectrum for the species so it's not something we have to continuously select for (genetics tend toward the median if left to themselves). It's just really not a big deal. Few dogs are measured in the ring because few need to be. AKC judges have "been around the block" by the time they are fully licensed and have a good eye as to what is too small or too tall.
> 
> The last time I saw goldens measured in the ring, I thought it was ridiculous. The judge called the wicket on three 6-9 puppy bitches, her whole entry in that class. The first two did measure in, before she could measure the third, the dog's handler said "MY DOG IS NOT FEELING WELL TODAY" and left the ring. Gimme a break. 6-9 month old little girls? Penalize them for their whole life because they are not full height at 6 months? This is the sort of thing we are successfully avoiding by not making height measuring a requirement for the show ring. It is a tool available for the judges but at their discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because they haven't shown up for a CCA.
> I'm sure it's happened but it would be vary rare indeed for a dog to get all the way to it's championship if it was truly under or over sized and not ever get measured in the ring.
> 
> When I did the CCA with Slater, he and another Fisher son (Fetcher) checked in at the same time. I had measured the same two dogs up on the grooming table a week before. Slater was exactly 23", Fetcher was 24.5". The CCA person (NOT an evaluator/judge -- just a volunteer) measured BOTH dogs at 24". I told her it was wrong for both. She looked at me like I was crazy and said, well it's passing for both so why do you care? Well maybe because if you're going to measure something at least do it right???
> 
> And let's not even get started on agility measuring. My first trial with Slater was like a month ago. I want to jump 24" so really measuring is moot point. But I got him measured two days in a row under two different judges. 21 7/8" and 23 1/2". Sigh. He's 23".


Sorry k9 but the question was meant to stimulate discussion. And your statement about Slater's measurement is a very interesting one. Actually measurement is in itself very interesting. When I taught physics I loved to show the students that we assume a lot of things. I used to show them that I could easily find two rulers in the classroom that didn't agree. For that matter, when you buy a ruler what makes you think that it is accurate? Anyway, to get back to height measurement, eyeballing the height is really not too accurate. 

And by the way, measurement for CCA has its problems too. Who checked the wicket to see that it was correct? Why was the measurement done on an uneven surface? And so on.

Maybe I am just too much of a scientist. I don't mean to be annoying. But measurement is what it is. And if it isn't that important, then I understand.


----------



## K9-Design

gdgli said:


> Sorry k9 but the question was meant to stimulate discussion. And your statement about Slater's measurement is a very interesting one. Actually measurement is in itself very interesting. When I taught physics I loved to show the students that we assume a lot of things. I used to show them that I could easily find two rulers in the classroom that didn't agree. For that matter, when you buy a ruler what makes you think that it is accurate? Anyway, to get back to height measurement, eyeballing the height is really not too accurate.


OK, gotcha.
Although maybe the subject of measurement is a left-brain/right-brain thing. By trade I am a graphic designer and I can estimate dimensions and balance of elements in a layout within a 16th of an inch, just by eyeballing it. It's probably a natural inclination and a lot of practice. It's also important to me and seeing something that is off center, crooked, or off kilter in any way makes me insane. But there are plenty of very intelligent people out there that can look at the same ad or sign or whatever and not even notice that something is off (and many of them are my competing designers...hahaha). Same goes for dog show judges and knowing the heights of the dogs they are charged with judging -- with experience they develop an eye to what is right, and what is out of the norm. And again, it's not a huge problem in our breed, so is there a reason to be even more accurate than we already are?


----------



## Claudia M

A measuring stick when you get your number is sufficient. The measurement is noted in the book before you enter in the ring. 5 min tops out of hours of grooming should not cause extra electric bills and staff and expense.


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> A measuring stick when you get your number is sufficient. The measurement is noted in the book before you enter in the ring. 5 min tops out of hours of grooming should not cause extra electric bills and staff and expense.


Except that the judge must do the measurement. Which in all honesty seems the only fair way. If I am paying for a judge's opinion you better believe I want my measurement by that judge. It is not the exhibitors time that is in question. I would gladly show up at 3:00 am and stay until 12:00. But I don't have to be in the ring the whole day. That is simply not realistic for judges, steward, AKC reps, and superintendents.

It probably won't make any differance as you seem set to believe this would not be a huge issue, but the other exhibitors can also call for a measurement. So, in that case you have not only the judge but every competitor in that class that can call for the measurement. 

Do under or oversize dogs probably get Championships. Probably, especially in the case of puppies (which finishing under 12 months is not common). But would penalizing all with a costlier, longer show if it could be offered all, solve an issue that is already handled reasonably in the rules? 

That to me would be like cops constantly pulling over people just to check licenses, registrations and insurance. Are those things important, yes. Is that management technique appropriate and cost effective? No.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> A measuring stick when you get your number is sufficient. The measurement is noted in the book before you enter in the ring. 5 min tops out of hours of grooming should not cause extra electric bills and staff and expense.


I have no objection to measuring dogs -- I actually think it's a good idea -- but from your suggestion I think you've probably never been involved in dog shows. It's very busy, much more so than it looks to the casual observer. I'm wondering who is going to do that measuring. The judge? The overworked ring steward who starts moving at 7am and doesn't stop until the show is over? Time is tight in a dog show, there are starting times for each breed that must be met, stewards have a hundred things to keep track of, so who is going to take the time to measure 20 or 40 or 60 Goldens every show?

Measuring when picking up numbers sounds reasonable, but out here, at least, handlers are often picking up 10-15 numbers at a time, while coordinating grooming, getting dogs in and out, showing other breeds (perhaps at the same time). They are flying, all the time. And when a dog is not in the ring, its on the table getting ready to go into the ring. No way they could get all those dogs measured, too, and do their jobs.

And besides, what a waste of time. It's not as if these dogs grow or shrink from show to show, so why repeatedly measure them? If you want to measure dogs, perhaps the thing to do would be to have dogs above the puppy classes measured _once_ sometime prior to being able to compete in the adult classes. It could be done any number of ways, including after their last show from the puppy classes. Something like that might work.

And if we're going to measure conformation dogs, perhaps we should also measure all the field Goldens before their competition, and permanently disqualify any that are more than an inch out of standard. After all, the standard does say that "will disqualify" the dog, without qualifying or limiting it. Or do field folks only want conformation dogs measured?

But in the end, I agree with others that it's not a problem. And when you're a judge walking down the line, it's pretty obvious if a dog is more than an inch taller or shorter than all the other dogs in the line. If you look at the difference in size between dogs and bitches, which is pretty dramatic, and realize that they are only 1 1/2 inches apart, you really don't need to be measuring dogs. A dog more than an inch out of standard is going to stand out like a sore thumb.


----------



## LJack

Just cause I thought it would be interesting to note, here is some very basic calculation of how much time this would take.

Taking one of my areas largest shows and assuming we are going across the board with measuring and or weighing all entries. 

There are 2318 entries if it took a judge (as it is required now) 90 seconds to measure/weigh each dog (including set up, time in between dogs, with no breaks) that would be slightly under 58 hours of measuring/weighing. If you spread that out evenly amongst the judges (which is not in reality how judges are assigned) it would mean an additional 2.4 hours of work for the judge.

Now I did not do one of the smaller shows but as the number of judges go down for the smaller shows, it is likely it would be proportionate.

For Dana: as our standard does not make an allowance for puppies, the single time pre-show measurement (if we go that way) would need to include all dogs regardless of age. 

I also, would not have an issue with a system like that as long as measuring events where common and easily accessible to all. But, I feel that way because I have not had a height issue nor do I ever really expect one. I do doubt the AKC would want to take on the expense of that program. It reminds me of measuring for a Pony card. I had a pony that had to be measured barefoot and freshly trimmed to card.

Another thing to keep in mind is that regardless of a measurement, dog at either end of the height range (but still with in the standard) can and do experiances difficulty in pointing. My girls are on either end of the standard but not in the penalty zone and they both have shown to judges that all things being fairly equal, the judge went with a more middle of standard sized dog. There are judges that will prefer not to use a smaller dog or pefer not to use a bigger dog even when they are in standard.


----------



## DanaRuns

LJack said:


> J
> For Dana: as our standard does not make an allowance for puppies, the single time pre-show measurement (if we go that way) would need to include all dogs regardless of age.


Yeah, I know  , but I do make allowances for puppies. It's the rare 6-month old puppy that is there to win points, it's usually more for training and experience (and to build majors?). Plus, if they are out of standard at 6 mos, they could be within standard a month later, so I say let's measure when they are fully grown. Everyone knows puppies under the standard are in the ring, and they rarely ever win. I think it's mostly a theoretical problem (though I'm sure someone will now come in with the inevitable story about a puppy that finished and then was out of standard).

I actually don't think we need to measure dogs. I think it's a solution in search of a problem. But two field folks wanted to talk about measuring conformation dogs, so I thought I'd play along.


----------



## LJack

So, I am going to preface this with, this may not be the best example as I am not nor do I claim to be a hunt test or feild trial expert, but I am hoping this might help stimulate discussion of measuring a trait. 

So, we for the past several pages have been caught up on height. Which of course is one of our DQs and certainly very important. It is very tempting since it is a DQ and of course easily quantifiable as few other things in the standard are to fixate on it. 

It has been questioned why the breed ring does not measure every dog and suggested that it should be so. 

My thought is we are not seeing height issues in the ring and if we were there is already a fair and reasonable mechanism in place that allows for the officiating judge or competitors call for a measurement.

So, here is my question. Why create a time consuming method to measure something that is already measured (though I conceed that it is not always with a tool)?

Would that not be similar to requiring a Hunting titles before allowing entry into a feild trial? Many **, *** and FTCHs have hunt test tiles but not all. It seems some pefer to focus soley on trials and do not do hunt tests. Since in a very basic way, these competitions measure the same trait of the breed, I think that suggestion of Hunt Title before entry allowed into a trial would be kind of like measuring dogs repeatedly before going into the ring where the judges job already includes handling disqualifying faults.

What do you think?


----------



## hotel4dogs

Generally judges don't need a wicket because if there's a dog who is over or under, they will stand out in the ring.
In a class of 20 dogs, in which 19 are between 23 and 24 inches tall (which would be typical), a dog who is 26 inches tall is going to stand out like crazy. The judge may then wicket just that dog.
Because conformation shows require 3 "major" wins, meaning beating a fairly large number of dogs, you can be pretty well assured that any CH dog is within the breed standard for height, no CCA necessary.
That said, I did get a CCA on Tito after he already had his CH. I found it to be very, very valuable information.




gdgli said:


> k9
> 
> I am well aware of height not required at a show but required at CCA. I am a scientist. Tools of measurement increase the accuracy of our observations. How do you ensure that a dog's height is within the breed standard if it is not being checked with a tool of measurement? I believe that Post 171 reminded us that deviation in height by more than one inch either way is a disqualification. How would the judge know unless he measures?
> 
> And now for another question---Why are there Champions that don't have a CCA? Why should I assume that a Champion could get a CCA if it is not measured to check whether or not it is within the standard?


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> In a class of 20 dogs, in which 19 are between 23 and 24 inches tall (which would be typical), a dog who is 26 inches tall is going to stand out like crazy.


To follow up on this - there was exactly one show I did this year where I saw a dog who looked rather tall. 

I spoke with the handler while we were waiting to go into the ring and she admitted concern about him growing to be too tall. He was only 9 months old and already at least 24.5 if not 25". When you consider the other goldens generally are between 23 and 24, he LOOKED tall. 

He was not measured, but he did not win either. He did have other stuff going on besides height though....

*** Meant to add too. Anney's story about her dogs being measured for agility absolutely hit home for me. LOL. Bertie was measured for the Lifetime Study thingy at 16 months, and the vet marked him down at 21". Keep in mind this was about a week before I was showing him the first time. I had a heart attack. <- Measured him at home and got those important 2.5" back. Not sure how she measured him to get 21! My best guess is he was frazzed because the measurement happened right after they tried getting toenail clippings off him and he was probably scrunching down making himself smaller.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Back when my Tiki was a 6-9 month puppy bitch, the wicket was taken out on the 6-9 month puppy dogs. Both were excused which I thought was ridiculous. One of the boys went on to become a CH.


----------



## Claudia M

Dana - I have observed about 3 shows and have been in about 6 shows. I would say small to medium size shows. 

I do not think that puppies should be measured. Also once your dog is measured in one show there should not be any reason to measured from there on. That should stay in the dog's profile. Eliminates a lot of time. Yes, I have seen where some pick up 10+ numbers and since I was sitting behind that person I found it irritating. 

LJack - I would not think a judge should do the measurement; they have enough to do. I would say that the judge should do the measurement, if the initial measurement would DQ the dog, at the owner's request.


----------



## Claudia M

LJack said:


> ........
> Would that not be similar to requiring a Hunting titles before allowing entry into a feild trial? Many **, *** and FTCHs have hunt test tiles but not all. It seems some pefer to focus soley on trials and do not do hunt tests. Since in a very basic way, these competitions measure the same trait of the breed, I think that suggestion of Hunt Title before entry allowed into a trial would be kind of like measuring dogs repeatedly before going into the ring where the judges job already includes handling disqualifying faults.
> 
> What do you think?




Very interesting as this was a question I have asked a lab field trial trainer just last week. He used to go to hunt tests but quit years ago and concentrated mostly on the higher levels. 

I personally do not think that a dog should have Hunt titles before they get Field trial titles. Just like you do not have to have a JH and SH title before you get an MH title. If the dog can get an MH title then the same dog can pass both JH and SH. Also if a dog is an FTCH, NFC that dog is past the MH. 

A JH to me measures the dog's instinct and mark-ability. Same with **., WC. The dog does not have to be steady, does not have to honor, does not have to be handled. 

The lower levels are also more for the green handlers such as myself. I need that step by step and exposure to those tests more than my dogs. Sort of what you said in another thread about going to conformation shows with a dog that did not pass the elbow or hip clearances (excuse me if I do not remember exactly which one it was).


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> I would not think a judge should do the measurement; they have enough to do. I would say that the judge should do the measurement, if the initial measurement would DQ the dog, at the owner's request.


I get what you are saying here.

That leaves us with how and who does that initial measurement? That is still time and money most clubs don't have as some are struggling to offer shows at all. One of my shows In January has always been 4 days with 2 clubs. This year it is only 2 days 1 club. The trials, shows and competitions are put on by the club's not AKC directly. So weather it is creating special event or doing it at a show, were does the time and money come from? Also, who does this? My oppinion is not someone associated with hosting the show, not a volunteer. Someone with expertise, authority and a reasonable expectation of fairness. To me that describes a judge or the AKC rep, both would be very busy already. 

Also, if we are following the standard showing puppies would _have_ to be measured as the height DQ does not give the a consideration as it does in reference to light color (US standard for and non-US folks reading along). The creators of the standard could have chosen to put it in as Labs did. But it is not there and if we wish to address why _potential_ Champions could have a DQ height, not measuring puppies could _potentially_ still produce champions who are not standard height.

I am not against a mandatory measure but, we have to evaluate does the end justify the means. I think it is address appropriatley and fairly now with mechanism that allows an expert (the judge) to call or any competitor call for the measurement.

But as said earlier and I liked it...."this is a solution looking for a problem."


----------



## Jersey's Mom

LJack said:


> I get what you are saying here.
> 
> That leaves us with how and who does that initial measurement? That is still time and money most clubs don't have as some are struggling to offer shows at all. One of my shows In January has always been 4 days with 2 clubs. This year it is only 2 days 1 club. The trials, shows and competitions are put on by the club's not AKC directly. So weather it is creating special event or doing it at a show, were does the time and money come from? Also, who does this? My oppinion is not someone associated with hosting the show, not a volunteer. Someone with expertise, authority and a reasonable expectation of fairness. To me that describes a judge or the AKC rep, both would be very busy already.
> 
> Also, if we are following the standard showing puppies would _have_ to be measured as the height DQ does not give the a consideration as it does in reference to light color (US standard for and non-US folks reading along). The creators of the standard could have chosen to put it in as Labs did. But it is not there and if we wish to address why _potential_ Champions could have a DQ height, not measuring puppies could _potentially_ still produce champions who are not standard height.
> 
> I am not against a mandatory measure but, we have to evaluate does the end justify the means. I think it is address appropriatley and fairly now with mechanism that allows an expert (the judge) to call or any competitor call for the measurement.
> 
> But as said earlier and I liked it...."this is a solution looking for a problem."



I agree with everything here. I can't help but wonder why so much effort is being made in this thread to debate the measuring of dogs in the breed ring. Is there a legitimate argument that the typical show champion is well above or below standard height? If the occasional oversized dog somehow makes it through the puppy classes, is it prevalent enough that it is effecting the overall size of the breed? When I think about the things I would want breeders to look at as concerns "improving the breed," enforcing the measurement of every dog entering the breed ring would never come to my mind. 

If height in the breed is a large concern, and we are looking at the breed as a whole, I think this kind of laser focus on the breed ring may be a bit short sighted. Perhaps AKC should adjust the requirements for full registration for any breed that specifies height in the standard. So, you get your puppy with some sort of provisional registration but you would need to have the dog measured by an AKC rep somewhere around 2 years old to verify he meets standard height (within the allowable inch above or below) in order to finalize that full registration prior to breeding and registering offspring. This would apply whether the dog competes in conformation, obedience, agility, or field. (Or those who don't compete in any venue for that matter) I don't actually think the AKC would ever go through the trouble but this would be the best way to make a difference across the breed as a whole. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Claudia M

Jersey's Mom said:


> ................
> If height in the breed is a large concern, and we are looking at the breed as a whole, I think this kind of laser focus on the breed ring may be a bit short sighted. Perhaps AKC should adjust the requirements for full registration for any breed that specifies height in the standard. So, you get your puppy with some sort of provisional registration but you would need to have the dog measured by an AKC rep somewhere around 2 years old to verify he meets standard height (within the allowable inch above or below) in order to finalize that final registration prior to breeding and registering offspring. This would apply whether the dog competes in conformation, obedience, agility, or field. (Or those who don't compete in any venue for that matter) I don't actually think the AKC would ever go through the trouble but this would be the best way to make a difference across the breed as a whole.
> 
> Julie and the boys


Not a bad idea. 

But then, do we stop at measurement?


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> A JH to me measures the dog's instinct and mark-ability. Same with **., WC. The dog does not have to be steady, does not have to honor, does not have to be handled.
> 
> The lower levels are also more for the green handlers such as myself. I need that step by step and exposure to those tests more than my dogs.


Oh my. You do know what "**" stands for, right?


----------



## marsh mop

Those old ** are so, so easy to get.


----------



## Claudia M

I did not say they are EASY to get! But they do not take the dog the higher level. They are the FIRST beginner level.

I do not *dismiss* any level. You can act so "know it all" and sarcastic as you want.


----------



## marsh mop

Claudia M said:


> But they do not take the dog the higher level. They are the FIRST beginner level.


 That is not true.


----------



## Swampcollie

marsh mop said:


> Those old ** are so, so easy to get.


Oh yeah, real real easy. It's like they grow on trees and are easy pickins.:uhoh:


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> Oh yeah, real real easy. It's like they grow on trees and are easy pickins.:uhoh:


Does a field trailer stop at ** ???? It is the beginning of a field trial dog's career. Most of them prior to the age of 2. 

You know, it has actually been good, I would have never gotten into the hunt tests if it wasn't for the sarcastic people on this forum. I was going to just dove hunt with my dogs and enjoy them as they are. 
I figured I better show that the "English Crème" white golden can do it. And by golly she has shown so far that she can do it, despite the trash talk about the white goldens. The more I have gotten to know trainers and people involved in tests and trials and the more I see my golden in love with them and the more I got into it. 

So, keep on - seems to be working pretty good for us!!! You should have seen her today at field trial training!


----------



## gdgli

K9-Design said:


> Oh my. You do know what "**" stands for, right?


k9

Please tell us what it means.


----------



## foilgirl

gdgli said:


> Please tell us what it means.


Seconded. Please?


----------



## LJack

From GRCA-Titles Awarded For Field Trial Performance: by Jim Pickering


"GRCA Designations:

** The two stars following a dog’s name is a designation given by the GRCA to identify a Golden Retrieve that has been awarded a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th place or a JAM in a Derby stake or that has been awarded a 3 rd or 4 th place or a JAM in a Qualifying stake at an AKC licensed field trial. Only one such place or JAM is required.

*** The three stars following a dog’s name is a designation given by the GRCA to identify a Golden Retriever that has earned Qualified All Age (QAA) status in accordance with the AKC rules for Retriever Field Trials. A dog earns QAA status by being awarded a 1st or 2nd place in a Qualifying stake, or by being awarded a place or JAM in either an Amateur or Open stake. Only one such place or JAM is required. While QAA status is applicable with respect to a dog’s qualification to enter certain stakes, the AKC does not award a title for achieving the status."


----------



## Eowyn

DanaRuns said:


> I think it's mostly a theoretical problem (though I'm sure someone will now come in with the inevitable story about a puppy that finished and then was out of standard).


I'll give. I do know a dog who finished their championship at 7 months, and is not 90+ pounds and over the standard by an inch+ (I don't recall exactly how tall he is, but it is over DQ). But how many dogs actually finish that early?


----------



## gdgli

LJack said:


> From GRCA-Titles Awarded For Field Trial Performance: by Jim Pickering
> 
> 
> "GRCA Designations:
> 
> ** The two stars following a dog’s name is a designation given by the GRCA to identify a Golden Retrieve that has been awarded a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th place or a JAM in a Derby stake or that has been awarded a 3 rd or 4 th place or a JAM in a Qualifying stake at an AKC licensed field trial. Only one such place or JAM is required.
> 
> *** The three stars following a dog’s name is a designation given by the GRCA to identify a Golden Retriever that has earned Qualified All Age (QAA) status in accordance with the AKC rules for Retriever Field Trials. A dog earns QAA status by being awarded a 1st or 2nd place in a Qualifying stake, or by being awarded a place or JAM in either an Amateur or Open stake. Only one such place or JAM is required. While QAA status is applicable with respect to a dog’s qualification to enter certain stakes, the AKC does not award a title for achieving the status."


What is the other meaning of **?


----------



## HiTideGoldens

gdgli said:


> What is the other meaning of **?



I don't think there is one.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> I did not say they are EASY to get! But they do not take the dog the higher level. They are the FIRST beginner level.
> 
> I do not *dismiss* any level. You can act so "know it all" and sarcastic as you want.



YOU SAID : "A JH to me measures the dog's instinct and mark-ability. Same with **., WC. The dog does not have to be steady, does not have to honor, does not have to be handled."

You can earn a ** with either ribbon in a derby or any ribbon less than a 1st or 2nd in a qual. Which means you certainly need a steady dog who can honor and run blinds. And it is NOT an ENTRY LEVEL field accomplishment by ANY stretch of the imagination.

I don't act like I know it all but I do like to keep my facts I do know to be true before I post them! And it wasn't sarcasm, it was disbelief that you would lump a ** dog in with those who have earned a WC.


----------



## K9-Design

gdgli said:


> What is the other meaning of **?


Before the advent of hunt tests a one star (*) was used as a WC or WCX. It's no longer used today. If you know of another meaning of ** then it must be an uncommon one.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> Does a field trailer stop at ** ???? It is the beginning of a field trial dog's career. Most of them prior to the age of 2.


Claudia, any accomplishment at a field trial is a truly wonderful field achievement for any trainer and dog. With many dogs, the two-star or three-star designation may be the end result of a lifetime of commitment. It is NOT an entry level event. 

What you are hearing from me is not sarcasm or ridicule. It's disbelief and astonishment that you can so flippantly categorize or label accomplishments or titles and boil them down to their most elementary definition as to make them seem simple or commonplace, when often nothing is further from the truth.

I HOPE you pursue field training with your girls beyond a JH so you will undoubtedly gain this much needed appreciation for the difficulty of the field trial game, the Master level, even just training at the upper levels and being successful. It can look very very easy to outside observers who have never "been there." It can be very very difficult to achieve it. The ONLY way to ever gain that perspective of what it means to train and achieve at that level -- is to do it. You have only taken the first step, on a mile long journey. I wish you well at it because the more you get into it, the more you will understand.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Before the advent of hunt tests a one star (*) was used as a WC or WCX. It's no longer used today. If you know of another meaning of ** then it must be an uncommon one.


Are you sure? So one * was used only and it was used to indicate both titles?


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Claudia, any accomplishment at a field trial is a truly wonderful field achievement for any trainer and dog. With many dogs, the two-star or three-star designation may be the end result of a lifetime of commitment. It is NOT an entry level event.
> 
> What you are hearing from me is not *sarcasm or ridicule*. It's disbelief and astonishment that you can so flippantly categorize or label accomplishments or titles and boil them down to their most elementary definition as to make them seem simple or commonplace, when often nothing is further from the truth.
> 
> I HOPE you pursue field training with your girls beyond a JH so you will undoubtedly gain this much needed appreciation for the difficulty of the field trial game, the Master level, even just training at the upper levels and being successful. It can look very very easy to outside observers who have never "been there." It can be very very difficult to achieve it. The ONLY way to ever gain that perspective of what it means to train and achieve at that level -- is to do it. You have only taken the first step, on a mile long journey. I wish you well at it because the more you get into it, the more you will understand.


You just did! (see bolded statement)

And not one time I said they are meaningless or that the dogs that have them are worthless. If that was the case I would not even enter my dogs in a JH test. When people assume bad things happen. 
I would personally get a dog from a ** or *** or JH pedigree or even a hunted untitled dog over an MH or FC dog.


----------



## Brave

LJack said:


> From GRCA-Titles Awarded For Field Trial Performance: by Jim Pickering
> 
> 
> "GRCA Designations:
> 
> ** The two stars following a dog’s name is a designation given by the GRCA to identify a Golden Retrieve that has been awarded a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th place or a JAM in a Derby stake or that has been awarded a 3 rd or 4 th place or a JAM in a Qualifying stake at an AKC licensed field trial. Only one such place or JAM is required.
> 
> *** The three stars following a dog’s name is a designation given by the GRCA to identify a Golden Retriever that has earned Qualified All Age (QAA) status in accordance with the AKC rules for Retriever Field Trials. A dog earns QAA status by being awarded a 1st or 2nd place in a Qualifying stake, or by being awarded a place or JAM in either an Amateur or Open stake. Only one such place or JAM is required. While QAA status is applicable with respect to a dog’s qualification to enter certain stakes, the AKC does not award a title for achieving the status."



Looking for some education. What is a JAM? And what test/show/venue is the dog participating in to get a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place ribbon on a qualifying run. (I re-read and I think they are talking about Field Trials?)

And where does this rank on the progression? If I'm remember correctly, it's:

JH -> SH -> MH
WC -> WCX

What are the field trial abbreviations? And if they Q in a field trial, why wouldn't they get an acronym of their own?


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> .............
> I don't act like I know it all but I do like to keep *my facts* I do know to be true before I post them! And it wasn't sarcasm, it was disbelief that you would lump *a ** dog* in with those who have earned a *WC*.


 Very very interesting........


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> You just did! (see bolded statement)
> 
> And not one time I said they are meaningless or that the dogs that have them are worthless. If that was the case I would not even enter my dogs in a JH test. When people assume bad things happen.


No, you said a ** was an entry level title. It is not. Try to stay on some sort of linear track here. 



> I would personally get a dog from a ** or *** or JH pedigree or even a hunted untitled dog over an MH or FC dog.


I have no idea what that whole scramble of titles is supposed to mean. I don't think you know the difference between them, either, or that it matters.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> Very very interesting........


Come on then Sherlock, let's have this condemning evidence on my factual misrepresentation that you're hiding here. If it's * was a WC, WCX or both or one or the other, that you've needled out I didn't get exactly right, excuse me for not pegging information that was obsolete 40 years ago.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Come on then Sherlock, let's have this condemning evidence on my factual misrepresentation that you're hiding here. If it's * was a WC, WCX or both or one or the other, that you've needled out I didn't get exactly right, excuse me for not pegging information that was obsolete 40 years ago.


You must be correct then. I need to "brew" "- in your words -- gain perspective, do it and understand better -- a little longer before I can "make" my own facts!

ETA - I will let the person who asked you the question first, to respond! Maybe you will be less likely to ridicule again.


----------



## K9-Design

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-pedigree/104755-k9data-what-do-mean.html

There, a thread for this exact question, from 3 years ago. If you've got a better answer, then let's have it.
George seems to ask a lot of questions he already knows the answer to.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> I would personally get a dog from a ** or *** or JH pedigree or even a hunted untitled dog over an MH or FC dog.


May I ask why or what would be your logic here?


----------



## GoldensGirl

Let me remind everyone that the GRF rules forbid personal attacks and require that members treat one another with respect. If participants in this thread can't comply, there may be sanctions forthcoming and the thread may be closed. There is a lot of interesting discussion here and I would hate to see it cut short.

Thank you.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> May I ask why or what would be your logic here?


It really depends on the dogs, the age of dogs at breeding, type of breeding etc. I will PM more details as this is something already discussed months ago and to not want to start another argument.


----------



## gdgli

Anney, you have so much to offer and you are well respected. I need to go out now but will be messaging you later. Please take the time to read it.

I think matters like this are best handled with PM's and not taken on the open forum in an attempt to embarrass or mock someone.


----------



## Megora

No offense, but this conversation took a really bizarre turn the last couple days... and I don't think it's really about improving the breed anymore. I think people are picking nits and looking for things to argue about or strike a point. Or something. 

It started out weird with the discussion on height and suggestions of height cards for conformation.... <- I've seen handlers juggling armbands as they switch dogs from class to class (your major pros will likely have a dog in each class). Can you imagine them juggling height cards as well? And need I add that I've read a conversation on training dogs for measurement. And people talking about how to stack dogs to get more height or less height. So if a judge is not the one measuring the dogs and you are talking about a very hurried affair with dogs being measured by somebody who is frazzled and wants to get it over with, you are going to have smart people trumping such a system. That is why it's not a norm to have every dog measured at every class - even if time was not a problem. 

Smaller shows might be more casual as far as people strolling up and getting their armbands and so on. But to use an example... there was a show this summer (Anney was up here for that show) - you had a huge number of goldens entered, and the steward was mia until last minute. And then when she got to the ring, they couldn't locate the armbands and ribbons. And there was a huge last minute rush with golden people and the class before us to get those armbands on before we actually had to go into the ring. 

Can you imagine if those stewards also had to measure each dog as they went into the ring? LOL.

I have to add too as has been said and just needs more emphasis... height is not an issue for the breed. Proportions and balance is an issue. This goes back to the topic (improving the breed) - you have some breeders who are breeding based on titles (across the board - conformation, field, obedience, etc). And you have others who are breeding based on what they are trying to fix. Proportions and balance are two things that come up a lot when you listen to people talk about their own programs and what they are concerned about in the breed. And they are working on improving these areas in what they breed.

Then the conversation on asterisks in field... I was cracking up over here and had three asterisks rattling around my head which mean something totally different than field titles. And got me in trouble before. : 

I can't believe that people are now discussing whether some field titles (actual field trial titles) are better or not than field test titles!!!!! 

If you put this very simply - there are a couple popular sires in performance who I don't think anyone could nitpick about their titles. This would Manny and Beau (both are very nice dogs!). <- And I'll add here that one of my friends has a puppy from a recent Manny litter. This puppy comes from a performance breeder/program that also has maintained ties to conformation. I don't know right now if those puppies are typey or not, but it would interesting to see how they turn out - particularly if the litter is repeated.


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> So if a judge is not the one measuring the dogs and you are talking about a very hurried affair with dogs being measured by somebody who is frazzled and wants to get it over with, you are going to have smart people trumping such a system. That is why it's not a norm to have every dog measured at every class - even if time was not a problem.


With all the discussion on height, and the premise that it is not necessary in this breed to measure dogs, I want to say that it is not logistically impossible to measure every dog. 
In the past it was SOP to measure every dog competing in open and utility and did not impact the flow of events at all. It was just something else you trained for. 
Dogs entered the ring, were measured and the class moved on.

I am not arguing that it needs to be done in the conformation ring, just saying that it is not that difficult to do.


----------



## Ljilly28

Megora said:


> If you put this very simply - there are a couple popular sires in performance who I don't think anyone could nitpick about their titles. This would Manny and Beau (both are very nice dogs!). <- And I'll add here that one of my friends has a puppy from a recent Manny litter. This puppy comes from a performance breeder/program that also has maintained ties to conformation. I don't know right now if those puppies are typey or not, but it would interesting to see how they turn out - particularly if the litter is repeated.


Manny was out showing with Lush at the LI specialty, and we were on the same team of Graeme Burton. What a great showman - smiling, showing like a million bucks, working with Graeme, look at me 'tude.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> In the past it was SOP to measure every dog competing in open and utility and did not impact the flow of events at all. It was just something else you trained for.
> Dogs entered the ring, were measured and the class moved on.
> 
> I am not arguing that it needs to be done in the conformation ring, just saying that it is not that difficult to do.


But I imagine they stopped doing it for a reason.... right? Even with numbers in obedience going down.... utility and open take up a huge chunk of time on their own, no measurements done.


----------



## K9-Design

I know both Manny and Beau-D very well. I don't think either of their owners would appreciate having their ** designations referred to as an entry-level title or "starting point."


----------



## Eowyn

Megora said:


> This would Manny and Beau (both are very nice dogs!).


Clarification. Beau, or Beau-D as in my trainer (Christy)'s dog?


----------



## cubbysan

I would be careful what we wish for when it comes to registering heights. First of all whenever I see a dog that is obviously not standard, like even my MacKenzie, it is a field style golden. I think my MacKenzie is 25 inches. She did not stop growing until she was about a year. Also, the AKC might just find another way to make this a money maker. They nickel and dime us like crazy as it is, at both the owner/handler level, the breeder level and the club level.

Running a AKC conformation show is very expensive. This is the third I have helped plan, we always lose money on them. It is our other events that pay for the specialty.


----------



## Claudia M

cubbysan said:


> I would be careful what we wish for when it comes to registering heights. First of all whenever I see a dog that is obviously not standard, like even my MacKenzie, it is a field style golden. I think my MacKenzie is 25 inches. She did not stop growing until she was about a year. Also, the AKC might just find another way to make this a money maker. They nickel and dime us like crazy as it is, at both the owner/handler level, the breeder level and the club level.
> 
> Running a AKC conformation show is very expensive. This is the third I have helped plan, we always lose money on them. It is our other events that pay for the specialty.


And if this a trend in the field dog it should certainly be addressed. I am confused tell you the truth and not sure how to say it anymore. I tried to concede that if it is a trend in the field lines with too small dogs that should be looked at. It was mentioned that field dogs are too small, now too tall. Whichever it is - it should be addressed. 

With the availability of the CCA it would be nice to have that on all performance, agility, obedience, field, conformation etc goldens. 
Mine will not pass so it would be a waste of time to even try it. But wouldn't it be a nice addition to the dog's name to have it?


----------



## Megora

Eowyn said:


> Clarification. Beau, or Beau-D as in my trainer (Christy)'s dog?


I meant Beau (Emberain Beau Geste) whose name I've seen show up with a lot of working litters, but definitely Beau-D would be another good example. 



> With the availability of the CCA it would be nice to have that on all performance, agility, obedience, field, conformation etc goldens.
> Mine will not pass so it would be a waste of time to even try it. But wouldn't it be a nice addition to the dog's name to have it?


 Not to be a downer.... I think it would be a toughie getting a CCA on every dog. Simply because there are very limited events around the country and the entries are also very limited even when you get them near enough to home. 

Other thing is... the title is not just for padding your dog's name. I know it's used that way sometimes, but the way I understood it.... it is to educate the breeder and owner as far as what they have in their dogs. That written critique they receive will tell them where their dog is not as strong and needs improvement. <- A lot of my friends who participated in the last local one came out scratching their heads about the information they got on their dogs and figuring out what to do with it. 

I think Robin (Prism) is very involved with the CCA and could probably provide more information on it...


----------



## Ljilly28

The photo at the very bottom of the page is educational. 

http://www.grca.org/pdf/education/Size Proportion and Substance.pdf


----------



## hotel4dogs

great info Jill, thanks


----------



## K9-Design

When I looked at the standard yesterday I was surprised to find that there is no mention of the elbows being half the height at the withers. I know this to be ideal for goldens, but there is nothing in the standard about it. Maybe it's another one of those long-time rules-of-thumb commonly used to eyeball dogs in the ring, much like the "thirds" picture mentioned in the PDF Jill posted. 
Since I am taking agility classes with Slater it is interesting to note that as the lone sporting dog in a class full of herding dogs, he is the only one with elbows at half the height -- the herding breeds all have longer legs than body depth. This makes them much better jumpers, but much poorer swimmers.


----------



## Swampcollie

Size is something the judges aren't going to be concerned with unless somebody makes it an issue with a particular dog. The size range allowed (including the plus/minus 1" wiggle room) for the Golden Retriever in the U.S. is huge. A large 25" male with substance can easily be 105lbs to 110lbs in working condition. A small female just breaking the 20 1/2" mark may only be 45lbs. Anything in between is likely going to be OK to play. 

If you get an opportunity at an event where there are numerous Goldens present, arrange a line up of dogs from the smallest allowed, to the largest allowed with others arranged order in between. Then stand back and observe, looking at real dogs, just how broad the allowable range is. 

The judges know well just how broad the range is so unless a dog is incredibly small or large, they're going to let it go unless somebody makes a stink.


----------



## Conquerergold

K9-Design said:


> When I looked at the standard yesterday I was surprised to find that there is no mention of the elbows being half the height at the withers. I know this to be ideal for goldens, but there is nothing in the standard about it. Maybe it's another one of those long-time rules-of-thumb commonly used to eyeball dogs in the ring, much like the "thirds" picture mentioned in the PDF Jill posted.


There was a discussion on one of the FB groups about length of leg a while ago. This is what I wrote when it was brought up that it isn't in the standard (ground to elbow = elbow to withers). Just throwing this out there as my thoughts.

"The words "The distance from withers to elbow and elbow to ground should be approximately equal." appear in the GRCA Illustrated Standard and "The distance from withers to elbow should approximately equal the distance from elbow to ground." in the GRCC Illustrated Standard. 

In my opinion the standard needs to be read as a fluent document, not sections, to see how one piece fits with another to create the final picture.

For example (using the American Standard), these things all appear within it:
a symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg
Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21 1/2-22 1/2 inches.
Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11
Body -- well-balanced, short coupled, deep through the chest.
Brisket extends to elbow.
Shoulder blades long and well laid back with upper tips fairly close together at withers. Upper arms appear about the same length as the blades, setting the elbows back beneath the upper tip of the blades, close to the ribs without looseness.
Hindquarters -- Broad and strongly muscled. Profile of croup slopes slightly; the pelvic bone slopes at a slightly greater angle (approximately 30 degrees from horizontal). In a natural stance, the femur joins the pelvis at approximately a 90-degree angle
Gait -- when trotting, gait is free, smooth, powerful and well co-ordinated, showing good reach. Viewed from any position, legs turn neither in nor out, nor do feet cross or interfere with each other.

A male is whom 23 inches tall should be roughly 25in long, the dog should also be deep through the chest, and the brisket should extend to the elbow, the well laid back shoulder and upper arm should be about the same length and due to needing to be well balanced the rear angulation of femur to pelvis is more or less replicated in the shoulder to upper arm, a 90 degree angle. The movement needs enough leg and angulation to be powerful with good reach, length of leg and front/rear angulation needs to be balanced to prevent interference.

With all of that, for myself, it leaves little leeway in terms of length of leg to create a symmetrical well-balanced dog. Anything more than '"The distance from withers to elbow and elbow to ground should be approximately equal", and you would have an unbalanced dog, anything less than ""The distance from withers to elbow and elbow to ground should be approximately equal", again creates an unbalanced picture (in my mind anyway)."


----------



## Ljilly28

This is just an observation, having shown a bitch with lots of leg in an area in which many dogs are short on leg: the standard emphasizes that the golden is NOT to be "long" in the leg. Long in the leg is the bigger sin over short on leg. Therefore, human nature kicks in in a few breeding programs, so that "nor long in the leg" becomes exaggerated to become very short legs over the generations, lol. If the standard read neither long nor short on leg , the outcome would have been different imo.


----------



## TrailDogs

Here is another take on 'breeding to improve the breed'. There is an excellent article in the current GRCA news regarding the genetic bottleneck created by popular sires and a closed registry. 
The author did open the door to the possibility that in order to prevent further shrinking of the gene pool we may have to consider dogs from breeders that are not what many would consider a reputable breeder. 
The gene pool may be out there without having to outcross to another breed, we just have to be willing to look at dogs that are not what we might consider the best. They may come from the family down the street or what some call a BYB. 
From this perspective, what is more important, breeding to preserve the integrity of the gene pool for future generations, or breeding for that next winner.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Here is another take on 'breeding to improve the breed'. There is an excellent article in the current GRCA news regarding the genetic bottleneck created by popular sires and a closed registry.
> The author did open the door to the possibility that in order to prevent further shrinking of the gene pool we may have to consider dogs from breeders that are not what many would consider a reputable breeder.
> The gene pool may be out there without having to outcross to another breed, we just have to be willing to look at dogs that are not what we might consider the best. They may come from the family down the street or what some call a BYB.
> From this perspective, what is more important, breeding to preserve the integrity of the gene pool for future generations, or breeding for that next winner.


I saw the article and agree with the observation. I've been saying for years that there is a wide open gene pool out there for the taking. Of course, choosing among them is tough, since they do not test their dogs, do not get clearances, do not compete, and do not do anythingSZA -- sorry, Gibbs decided to type, there -- not do anything to give us guidance as to which ones we might want to breed to.


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> This is just an observation, having shown a bitch with lots of leg in an area in which many dogs are short on leg: the standard emphasizes that the golden is NOT to be "long" in the leg. Long in the leg is the bigger sin over short on leg. Therefore, human nature kicks in in a few breeding programs, so that "nor long in the leg" becomes exaggerated to become very short legs over the generations, lol. *If the standard read neither long nor short on leg , the outcome would have been different imo*.


Completely agree with that statement!


----------



## gdgli

I read an excellent article last night but can't find it this morning. I may have seen it on FB. It was titled something like "The myth about hybrid vigor in dogs". Title is misleading, it ends up discussing the problems with inbreeding and fitness. Excellent article. 

If any have seen it, please send me the link. I think it is relevant to this thread.


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> I saw the article and agree with the observation. I've been saying for years that there is a wide open gene pool out there for the taking. Of course, choosing among them is tough, since they do not test their dogs, do not get clearances, do not compete, and do not do anythingSZA -- sorry, Gibbs decided to type, there -- not do anything to give us guidance as to which ones we might want to breed to.


This is true, so maybe it would be a worthwhile endeavor to mentor folks who want to breed their dogs that come from less than optimal breeders instead of encouraging them to start with a new dog from a good breeder and a known pedigree. 
It is not an easy thing to do, breeders who step outside the boundaries of acceptable breedings would most likely be looked down on. If we are truly trying to better the breed then expanding the gene pool would be a huge accomplishment.


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> I read an excellent article last night but can't find it this morning. I may have seen it on FB. It was titled something like "The myth about hybrid vigor in dogs". Title is misleading, it ends up discussing the problems with inbreeding and fitness. Excellent article.
> 
> If any have seen it, please send me the link. I think it is relevant to this thread.


Here it is! The myth of hybrid vigor in dogs...is a myth - The Institute of Canine Biology


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns

Thank you so much. This really is an excellent read and not too technical. Actually I think that everyone on this thread should read it.


----------



## K9-Design

I can appreciate the notion that there's a "whole new world" of pet pedigrees out there ready and willing to liven up our gene pool. But with what? More cancer, this time without hips and eyes and hearts and elbows and looks and temperament and working ability????
It's not like newspaper pedigrees are all living into their teens. They have the same health concerns as "known" pedigrees.


----------



## TrailDogs

gdgli said:


> DanaRuns
> 
> Thank you so much. This really is an excellent read and not too technical. Actually I think that everyone on this thread should read it.


Thanks George and Dana, great article.


----------



## Eowyn

K9-Design said:


> I can appreciate the notion that there's a "whole new world" of pet pedigrees out there ready and willing to liven up our gene pool. But with what? More cancer, this time without hips and eyes and hearts and elbows and looks and temperament and working ability????
> It's not like newspaper pedigrees are all living into their teens. They have the same health concerns as "known" pedigrees.


But what if byb goldens have lower rates of cancer? How do we know, since they typically don't have diligent breeders keeping track... Statistics do say that regardless of who is in the pedigree, dogs with lower COI do tend to live longer. 


I am not recommending we just start throwing everything and anything out the window in accommodation for genetic diversity. It's just a point.


----------



## Brave

Thanks for the link. That was a very interesting read.


----------



## Loisiana

Real question, not trying to pick....Rather than go to backyard bred dogs to increase diversity, why not just go to dogs outside the normal lines people use that are still from reputable breeders with generations of clearances? People say there's a problem with genetic diversity in goldens, yet there are tons of goldens born from reputable breeders with relatively low COI's all the time. If you breed a top winning field trial dog to top winning field trial dog, your diversity is probably limited, same for top winning show dog to show dog. But if one is willing to look outside their normal circles, wouldn't it be better to find a dog you like that still has the generations of careful breeding practices behind it than go with a total unknown?


----------



## K9-Design

Eowyn said:


> But what if byb goldens have lower rates of cancer? How do we know, since they typically don't have diligent breeders keeping track... Statistics do say that regardless of who is in the pedigree, dogs with lower COI do tend to live longer.
> 
> 
> I am not recommending we just start throwing everything and anything out the window in accommodation for genetic diversity. It's just a point.


No, I get it. But a dash of common sense says that BYB goldens have just as much cancer as their well-bred counterparts. We hear just as many sad stories from their owners as from "us." And you're exactly right -- we can't know the rates of disease because they are not tracked. Does breeding wide open, very low COI litters for the sake of genetic diversity really work? In the short run? The long run?


----------



## Brave

Loisiana said:


> Real question, not trying to pick....Rather than go to backyard bred dogs to increase diversity, why not just go to dogs outside the normal lines people use that are still from reputable breeders with generations of clearances? People say there's a problem with genetic diversity in goldens, yet there are tons of goldens born from reputable breeders with relatively low COI's all the time. If you breed a top winning field trial dog to top winning field trial dog, your diversity is probably limited, same for top winning show dog to show dog. But if one is willing to look outside their normal circles, wouldn't it be better to find a dog you like that still has the generations of careful breeding practices behind it than go with a total unknown?



Tbh that is what I took from the article. It said that hybrid vigor could be capitalized on by breeding to other lines within the same breed. Which is what breeders look at when they see the coefficient (from what I've gleaned from threads). 

I think combining field and show lines would be a great thing to harmonize the different styles and bring them all closer together towards that "ideal" golden in the standard.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Loisiana said:


> Real question, not trying to pick....Rather than go to backyard bred dogs to increase diversity, why not just go to dogs outside the normal lines people use that are still from reputable breeders with generations of clearances? People say there's a problem with genetic diversity in goldens, yet there are tons of goldens born from reputable breeders with relatively low COI's all the time. If you breed a top winning field trial dog to top winning field trial dog, your diversity is probably limited, same for top winning show dog to show dog. But if one is willing to look outside their normal circles, wouldn't it be better to find a dog you like that still has the generations of careful breeding practices behind it than go with a total unknown?


YES! Exactly!!! 

My friend spoke with Carol from ICB recently at a local show and this is exactly what she suggested. Going a bit outside your comfort zone and breeding to field/performance lines or lines from Europe. You will still have the careful breeding practices but will have a significantly more diverse pedigree. I am mulling over the possibility in my head and running some test breedings as well speak


----------



## lhowemt

This is a cool facebook group, I hope for the breed more people utilize these unknown studs.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/509263762496929/


----------



## Eowyn

K9-Design said:


> No, I get it. But a dash of common sense says that BYB goldens have just as much cancer as their well-bred counterparts. We hear just as many sad stories from their owners as from "us." And you're exactly right -- we can't know the rates of disease because they are not tracked. Does breeding wide open, very low COI litters for the sake of genetic diversity really work? In the short run? The long run?


deleted, misread post.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Most of the breeders that I know routinely bring in other lines .. granted most of the breeders that I know are performance based but I believe it would truly benefit golden retrievers in general if conformation breeders brought in performance based just as performance based breeders bring in conformation lines.





goldenjackpuppy said:


> YES! Exactly!!!
> 
> My friend spoke with Carol from ICB recently at a local show and this is exactly what she suggested. Going a bit outside your comfort zone and breeding to field/performance lines or lines from Europe. You will still have the careful breeding practices but will have a significantly more diverse pedigree. I am mulling over the possibility in my head and running some test breedings as well speak


----------



## Brave

Eowyn said:


> If you want a mutt, who probably has hip dysplasia and bad eyes, but a long life, yes.



In relation to this. What if we took a BYB who passed their clearances? Is the risk for HD or ED greater because we don't have 5 generations of clearances?


----------



## Tahnee GR

lhowemt said:


> This is a cool facebook group, I hope for the breed more people utilize these unknown studs.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/509263762496929/


This is what I am doing with my girl Suva. Her father is Sydney, an Australian import, and her mother is American, going back to my lines. Granted Sydney is not an unknown anymore 

Her COI's are

10 generation 0.0%
12 generation 0.08%

Her 1st breeding this spring to an import from the Netherlands will be

10 generation 3.61%
12 generation 5.61%

I wonder how long it will take before those COI's go right back up, though? You can see the trend, with an American/Australian girl bred to a Netherlands import-the COI begins to go up again. In this case, at least partially because of one or two popular English dogs.

I will probably take a puppy from the above breeding and breed back into American lines, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the COI then.

But, you *can *do lower COI's in American lines as well. This is my (hopefully) current breeding, 2 American conformation dogs

10-generation COI 4.76% 
12-generation COI 6.95% 

Granted this is the sire's first litter, but both my girl and he come from well known, successful lines. 

I won't say it is easy because it is not. Sometimes you really have to dig to find a good stud dog for your girl, rather than going with the popular stud. And most popular stud dogs are popular for a reason.

I don't think COI is the be-all and end-all either. The above COI's just happened and a low COI was not my goal in doing any of the breedings. I wanted a healthy, well put together dog with breed type and smarts. I like line-breeding, it just does not happen to mesh with where I am with my current dogs.


----------



## Tahnee GR

Brave said:


> In relation to this. What if we took a BYB who passed their clearances? Is the risk for HD or ED greater because we don't have 5 generations of clearances?


It could be-maybe the BYB was the only dog in its litter to pass its clearances; maybe its ancestors had poor hips or elbows, or SAS or PU. You have no way of knowing how bad (or how good) the clearance history behind that dog is.

I had a friend who was seriously considering an agility dog with all of his clearances, from a BYB background. He was nice enough looking and had his clearances but she finally decided against it, because there was too much unknown about his pedigree.


----------



## Conquerergold

goldenjackpuppy said:


> YES! Exactly!!!
> 
> My friend spoke with Carol from ICB recently at a local show and this is exactly what she suggested. Going a bit outside your comfort zone and breeding to field/performance lines or lines from Europe. You will still have the careful breeding practices but will have a significantly more diverse pedigree. I am mulling over the possibility in my head and running some test breedings as well speak


As someone who routinely breeds different pedigrees (overseas to North American) I can say I have had the same results as when breeding strictly one or the other.

I have had a couple dogs of my breeding pass early (and by early I mean before 9 years of age) due to cancer with a 10 Generation COI of around 2-3%.

Of course, my one little breeding program isn't even a blip on the data chart.

I'm not a fan of so much attention on a COI number, as the number doesn't really tell us anything (more so when the significant dogs are now more than 10-12 generations back), rather I pay attention to the dogs that make up that number. One can breed a 10 gen. 28% COI dog to an unrelated 10 gen. 32% COI bitch and end up with a 10 gen. 8% COI litter. That is not an outcross, as the dogs on both sides of the pedigree are, while unrelated, still concentrated. 

Breeding, so many shades of grey.


----------



## Brave

Tahnee GR said:


> It could be-maybe the BYB was the only dog in its litter to pass its clearances; maybe its ancestors had poor hips or elbows, or SAS or PU. You have no way of knowing how bad (or how good) the clearance history behind that dog is.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a friend who was seriously considering an agility dog with all of his clearances, from a BYB background. He was nice enough looking and had his clearances but she finally decided against it, because there was too much unknown about his pedigree.



Thanks!! Can we go from unknown and turn that into known? Meaning start with BYB and turn them into known pedigrees? After 5 generations (which is at least 10 years for final hips and elbows) we should have a decent history. Is this something we could explore? Or is it pointless? Or is there just too much risk for a hobby breeder to their line?


----------



## Tahnee GR

For me, it's a lot of risk. I'm talking about producing living, breathing beings who are alive only because I chose to do a breeding. I will do everything I can not to cause pain in them.


----------



## Claudia M

Brave said:


> Thanks!! Can we go from unknown and turn that into known? Meaning start with BYB and turn them into known pedigrees? After 5 generations (which is at least 10 years for final hips and elbows) we should have a decent history. Is this something we could explore? Or is it pointless? Or is there just too much risk for a hobby breeder to their line?


Many BYB dogs come from a known pedigree probably 7 to 10 generations back. 

If I was going to breed Rose (if she was standard height and weight) who is a BYB dog I would have also done the clearances on Rose's parents. 

Of course you still have a gap in clearances but that would at least eliminate the possibility of one good luck dog out of two non passing dogs.


----------



## K9-Design

Clearances are great but it's cancer we need to worry about. As it is now, we are taking stabs in the dark. The only way to hedge is only breed to old(er) sires who have lived that long. Finding a BYB dog who can pass all clearances probably isn't that hard. Finding one with some sort of longevity pedigree is next to impossible. After one generation, you've lost all track of information.

So if we all run out and do a complete outcross to a field line, now we have X x Field Line. Then breed that to European line. Now we have X x Field x Euro. WHERE NEXT????????? Right back to the same problem, but now you have nowhere to turn??? Short-sighted answer to long-term problem...


----------



## Claudia M

Originally Posted by K9-Design View Post
No, I get it. But a dash of common sense says that BYB goldens have just as much cancer as their well-bred counterparts. We hear just as many sad stories from their owners as from "us." And you're exactly right -- we can't know the rates of disease because they are not tracked. Does breeding wide open, very low COI litters for the sake of genetic diversity really work? In the short run? The long run?



Eowyn said:


> If you want a *mutt*, who probably has hip dysplasia and bad eyes, but a long life, yes.




I am giving the benefit of the doubt here that the above was not meant in a derogatory way. 

If it was than an apology is in place and if it wasn't a re-phrasing would be in place.

ETA - also not sure how long life goes hand in hand with hip dysplasia and bad eyes. The quote did not really link correctly. I am referring to Eowyn's response to K9-Design, not to what K9-Design originally posted.


----------



## Brave

K9-Design said:


> Clearances are great but it's cancer we need to worry about. As it is now, we are taking stabs in the dark. The only way to hedge is only breed to old(er) sires who have lived that long. Finding a BYB dog who can pass all clearances probably isn't that hard. Finding one with some sort of longevity pedigree is next to impossible. After one generation, you've lost all track of information.



So say we start breeding programs with BYBs whose parents lived long. At the beginning its one kennel with 8 dogs (split evenly between genders). All dogs came from different parents and all 16 parents cleared their four clearances AND lived into their teens. 

This kennel would breed responsibly and to the code of ethics, amongst their 8 dogs. ALL puppies would get their clearances and uploaded to k9 data. 

In 10 years we would have a new genetic material that hobby breeders might be interested in mixing with their lines. 

I realize I'm talking about experimental sciences, and that it's off putting to most breeders to speak in these terms. For that I apologize. I'm just trying to rationalize a way to beat cancer. To get the incident rate lower at least.

Eta: my other option is to wait for science to catch up and we can find a test to predict Cancer or catch it or determine what factors are more likely to cause it, and then breed away from those. 

But for many of these points it seems like a catch-22. We breed away from A and now we have dogs with B. We breed away from B and now we have dogs with C.


----------



## DanaRuns

Tahnee GR said:


> It could be-maybe the BYB was the only dog in its litter to pass its clearances; maybe its ancestors had poor hips or elbows, or SAS or PU. You have no way of knowing how bad (or how good) the clearance history behind that dog is.
> 
> I had a friend who was seriously considering an agility dog with all of his clearances, from a BYB background. He was nice enough looking and had his clearances but she finally decided against it, because there was too much unknown about his pedigree.


I don't want people to take my BYB "modest proposal" too seriously, but there is a point to be made. When going outside, there are going to be unknowns. So the question becomes, at some point, what's your tolerance for unknowns?

In the show world, there are some _beautiful_ Goldens coming out of breeders who bring in South American and Japanese dogs into their lines. I'm thinking of doing that with my Ziva, in fact, who has Yoshida (Japanese) dogs behind her. I'm thinking of breeding her to a particular boy who has Argentinian and Brazilian dogs behind him. (Both those lines come back to U.S. dogs, though, if you go back far enough.) Some folks are advising me against this breeding because of the unknown clearances generations back in both the Japanese and South American lines. Their tolerance for unknowns might be lower than mine.

Then again, breeding dogs with perfect clearance history but a COI of 25 carries its own set of unknowns, right? And those breeders would be fine with that.

If genetic variation becomes enough of a problem, I can see going completely outside the norm. That's why I brought up the BYB idea. You might not know what's there, and you might not like the dogs, but in the event people fear that the breed is crashing, there is a great store of genes out there for the tapping.


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> Originally Posted by K9-Design View Post
> No, I get it. But a dash of common sense says that BYB goldens have just as much cancer as their well-bred counterparts. We hear just as many sad stories from their owners as from "us." And you're exactly right -- we can't know the rates of disease because they are not tracked. Does breeding wide open, very low COI litters for the sake of genetic diversity really work? In the short run? The long run?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am giving the benefit of the doubt here that the above was not meant in a derogatory way.
> 
> If it was than an apology is in place and if it wasn't a re-phrasing would be in place.
> 
> ETA - also not sure how long life goes hand in hand with hip dysplasia and bad eyes. The quote did not really link correctly. I am referring to Eowyn's response to K9-Design, not to what K9-Design originally posted.


Oh man, I am so sorry! I miss understood what she meant by wide open breeding. My mind instantly jumped to any dog of any breed for what ever reason. I did not mean that! I am so sorry! Thank you for calling me out on that, I appreciate it.


----------



## Megora

K9-Design said:


> Clearances are great but it's cancer we need to worry about. As it is now, we are taking stabs in the dark. The only way to hedge is only breed to old(er) sires who have lived that long. Finding a BYB dog who can pass all clearances probably isn't that hard. Finding one with some sort of longevity pedigree is next to impossible. After one generation, you've lost all track of information.
> 
> So if we all run out and do a complete outcross to a field line, now we have X x Field Line. Then breed that to European line. Now we have X x Field x Euro. WHERE NEXT????????? Right back to the same problem, but now you have nowhere to turn??? Short-sighted answer to long-term problem...


 I agree.... I think people seem very eager to have quick fixes to a problem that isn't going to be solved in one generation. And even going for the long involved fix (breeding to unknowns) - you have the possibility of introducing more problems into the breed. 

A good example I can think of is one of those dogs I looked at the other day (out of curiosity - I'm not puppy shopping!). You had a popular sire who had like 20 litters listed on K9data. And of those 20 litters, he had more than one pup who died from early cancer. Not just early cancer, but things like pancreatic cancer and lymphosarcoma.... as opposed to more common cancers like hemangiosarcoma at age 11+. And odds are there are more than that who have not had information listed on K9data. <- It's not singular. You have a lot of pedigrees where the breeders withhold any information which would cause trouble as far as people looking for stones to throw. 

Other problems besides cancers are cataracts, kidney defects, dentition problems (dogs who have improper bites), pigment problems, temperament flaws, structure problems (like roached backs, hare feet, etc), etc.... 

I'm thinking about those people too who purchased backyard bred dogs and have dogs with bad elbows, back hips, and bad backs which have them looking and feeling geriatric before they are even five years old.


----------



## DanaRuns

Brave said:


> In 10 years we would have a new genetic material that hobby breeders might be interested in mixing with their lines.


That's not quite right, since all of the genes in the breed were present in the foundation dogs, and it is not possible to add new ones (except through mutation, which is not a very efficient or good way).

What you will have in that 10 years, are certain of those dogs who have a combination of "cancer genes" (if we can call them that) that, when bred to, make the expression of cancer less likely.

But even here, that's not quite right. Cancer is most likely a function of epi-genetics. That's a whole new ball of wax that is just emerging, and one of the weird things about that is that certain genetic traits can be turned "on" or "off" by environmental factors, and then those "on" traits can be passed down to future generations, even though they have the same genes as the parent! So, with cancer, I suspect the answer is going to lie more in epi-genetics than with any attempt to try to breed away from it. But at this point, no one really knows.


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> Oh man, I am so sorry! I miss understood what she meant by wide open breeding. My mind instantly jumped to any dog of any breed for what ever reason. I did not mean that! I am so sorry!


Did not think you did!


----------



## Sally's Mom

Some of those South American and Japanese pedigrees go back to some very American show lines. And I have noticed that one dog who is very popular here, has relatives missing clearances close up...


----------



## DanaRuns

Sally's Mom said:


> Some of those South American and Japanese pedigrees go back to some very American show lines.


I thought I said that. If I didn't, I meant to. 

And even worse than that, some of those American breeders were selling their worst puppies in Japan and South America.


----------



## Sally's Mom

lhowemt said:


> This is a cool facebook group, I hope for the breed more people utilize these unknown studs.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/509263762496929/


I am on it and find it really interesting...


----------



## Sally's Mom

DanaRuns said:


> I thought I said that. If I didn't, I meant to.
> 
> And even worse than that, some of those American breeders were selling their worst puppies in Japan and South America.


That is very true


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> I agree.... I think people seem very eager to have quick fixes to a problem that isn't going to be solved in one generation. And even going for the long involved fix (breeding to unknowns) - you have the possibility of introducing more problems into the breed.


It is not meant as a quick fix but rather a consideration to stop the current trend of further narrowing the gene pool. Since a closed registry does not allow outcrosses to other breeds it is a way of looking within the breed to find alternate solutions.


----------



## K9-Design

DanaRuns said:


> In the show world, there are some _beautiful_ Goldens coming out of breeders who bring in South American and Japanese dogs into their lines. I'm thinking of doing that with my Ziva, in fact, who has Yoshida (Japanese) dogs behind her. I'm thinking of breeding her to a particular boy who has Argentinian and Brazilian dogs behind him. *(Both those lines come back to U.S. dogs, though, if you go back far enough.)* Some folks are advising me against this breeding because of the unknown clearances generations back in both the Japanese and South American lines. Their tolerance for unknowns might be lower than mine.


That's just it -- just because the dog lives in a different country doesn't mean his genetics are any difference than your Rush Hill or Nautilus dog next door! They all go back to the SAME DOGS. That's the same thing we're dealing with right now. Run those COIs and you'll see the same top contributing ancestors!


----------



## DanaRuns

K9-Design said:


> That's just it -- just because the dog lives in a different country doesn't mean his genetics are any difference than your Rush Hill or Nautilus dog next door! They all go back to the SAME DOGS. That's the same thing we're dealing with right now. Run those COIs and you'll see the same top contributing ancestors!


Except it's not that simple. The dogs in the intervening generations come from various places and have different pedigrees. And they are, after all, different dogs with different genetic makeups than the American dogs in those same intervening generations. So, while they may share certain distant American ancestors, there is a lot of recent diversity. After all, every single Golden in the world goes back to the same couple dogs. And perhaps even more importantly when it comes to things like cancer, those foreign dogs may have different epigenetic influences and makeups.

I think when the Morris GRLS gets done, we're going to hear a great deal about epigenetics in Goldens' cancer.


----------



## lhowemt

DanaRuns said:


> I think when the Morris GRLS gets done, we're going to hear a great deal about epigenetics in Goldens' cancer.


That is my thought too. It's not like it is only Goldens with increasing cancer and health issues. Other breeds, humans....


----------



## Conquerergold

Brave said:


> So say we start breeding programs with BYBs whose parents lived long. At the beginning its one kennel with 8 dogs (split evenly between genders). All dogs came from different parents and all 16 parents cleared their four clearances AND lived into their teens.
> 
> This kennel would breed responsibly and to the code of ethics, amongst their 8 dogs. ALL puppies would get their clearances and uploaded to k9 data.
> 
> In 10 years we would have a new genetic material that hobby breeders might be interested in mixing with their lines.
> 
> I realize I'm talking about experimental sciences, and that it's off putting to most breeders to speak in these terms. For that I apologize. I'm just trying to rationalize a way to beat cancer. To get the incident rate lower at least.
> 
> Eta: my other option is to wait for science to catch up and we can find a test to predict Cancer or catch it or determine what factors are more likely to cause it, and then breed away from those.
> 
> But for many of these points it seems like a catch-22. We breed away from A and now we have dogs with B. We breed away from B and now we have dogs with C.


We wouldn't have new genetic material, we would have the possibility of slightly different genetic material. All Golden Retrievers go back to a handful of dogs, all Golden Retrievers of North American pedigree (show, pet, performance, BYB etc.) all go back to yet another handful of dogs out of the original handful. The same can be said for the world over. So in the UK, all modern (i.e. post war) Golden Retrievers go back to a handful or two of certain dogs.

Having 5 generations of a slightly unrelated pedigree possessing clearances is great, but I want to know what is behind that 5 generations (not just clearance information, I want to know what dogs are back there).

I have attached an analysis of one of my dogs. If we look at the COI, it looks pretty darn good across multiple generations. This dog is an 'outcross' from overseas lines into North American. While the dataset is incomplete (unable to obtain a full 16 generations, some branches of this tree are traced back 32 generations), we can still analyze the numbers/dogs that are there. In 8 generations there are 510 ancestors. In this dogs example of those 510, 306 are unique (i.e. only appearing in the pedigree once), 23 are common (i.e. appear more than once) and can be found 204 times. That's not too bad. But, when we look at 16 generations while the COI is still low, the picture changes, even when only 9 full generations are found. In 16 Generations there are 131070 ancestors, my database has 88941 of them. Of those 88941, 2063 appear once. 1131 ancestors can be found more than once, filling up 86878 out of the 88941 found slots in the family tree. When we go back further in pedigrees 1 dog can repeat hundreds upon hundreds of times.










It really is a catch 22, dance with the devils you know, the ones you don't, or both?


----------



## hotel4dogs

just sayin'...
My Tiny was from a pet store (and a puppy mill), lived to be almost 17, never sick a day. My Toby was from a BYB, lived to be just short of 14.
Not that I would ever have considered breeding either one.


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> just sayin'...
> My Tiny was from a pet store (and a puppy mill), lived to be almost 17, never sick a day. My Toby was from a BYB, lived to be just short of 14.
> Not that I would ever have considered breeding either one.



Can you elaborate? Are you drawing attention to their lifespan or to the reasons why you would not breed them. Or both?


----------



## TrailDogs

hotel4dogs said:


> just sayin'...
> My Tiny was from a pet store (and a puppy mill), lived to be almost 17, never sick a day. My Toby was from a BYB, lived to be just short of 14.
> Not that I would ever have considered breeding either one.


And maybe with a trainer like you and health clearances they would be a good example of dogs that should contribute their genetics to the breed.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> And maybe with a trainer like you and health clearances they would be a good example of dogs that should contribute their genetics to the breed.


But what do you know about "their" genetics? 

I know of a supreme example with two of my neighbors (two separate families) who brought home littermates. 

The male golden died between 7 and 9 to cancer. 

The female golden was put to sleep because of old age (she could no longer function well) when she was nearly 18. 

You can't say the female had good genetics.... when you know her littermate died early.


----------



## Loisiana

I'll admit since I've never even considered breeding a litter I guess I just don't really understand the difficulties in COI. Flip's breeder not only owned both of his parents, but she bred ALL FOUR of his grandparents. They all go back to her original foundation dogs. Yet Flip's 10 gen COI is 3.97%, 12 gen is 4.46%. I guess it's hard for me to understand how my breeder was able to do that using so many dogs from her own breeding, yet there's so much talk about the limited diversity.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Megora said:


> But what do you know about "their" genetics?
> 
> I know of a supreme example with two of my neighbors (two separate families) who brought home littermates.
> 
> The male golden died between 7 and 9 to cancer.
> 
> The female golden was put to sleep because of old age (she could no longer function well) when she was nearly 18.
> 
> You can't say the female had good genetics.... when you know her littermate died early.


I do not think it is that black and white. My Sally lived to 12.5 years,with a mom who died from cancer at 7, and a grandmom who died from cancer at 13.5. She had brothers who died from cancer at 9... Rather than say, bad genetics, perhaps, Sally not only inherited uber genes not predisposed to early cancer, enriched by environment. My 89 year old father spent his entire life on cancer research...were cancer that "easy" to predict..


----------



## DanaRuns

Megora said:


> But what do you know about "their" genetics?
> 
> I know of a supreme example with two of my neighbors (two separate families) who brought home littermates.
> 
> The male golden died between 7 and 9 to cancer.
> 
> The female golden was put to sleep because of old age (she could no longer function well) when she was nearly 18.
> 
> You can't say the female had good genetics.... when you know her littermate died early.


But you can, I think. This goes back to my comment earlier about epigenetics. Epigenetics translates as "above genetics," and it's about things in a dog's (or person's) life that can turn on or turn off certain genes. One of those things that dogs and people have is a gene that inhibits mutation of cells. If that is turned on, cancer is unlikely (this is very simplified for the point), but if factors in the dog's life inhibit that gene it gets turned off ("repressor proteins"), and cancer is more likely. There's a lot of research in human applications going on right now. But in your example, you _might_ be able to say that the dogs had good genes, but something in the male's life turned "off" that mutation inhibiting gene. Or it could be that the genes in the male were so tightly wound around the histone that they couldn't express.

For the whole breed it could be as simple as that, or it could be a complex set of genetic and epigenetic factors, and we will never be able to breed out of it, we'll just learn how to avoid turning off the mutation inhibiting gene.


----------



## Claudia M

Megora said:


> *But what do you know about "their" genetics?*
> 
> I know of a supreme example with two of my neighbors (two separate families) who brought home littermates.
> 
> The male golden died between 7 and 9 to cancer.
> 
> The female golden was put to sleep because of old age (she could no longer function well) when she was nearly 18.
> 
> You can't say the female had good genetics.... when you know her littermate died early.


Just as much as you know about the "reputable" bred dogs. 

The same example you gave can be given with 2 littermate of a "reputable" breeder.


----------



## lhowemt

DanaRuns said:


> But you can, I think. This goes back to my comment earlier about epigenetics. Epigenetics translates as "above genetics," and it's about things in a dog's (or person's) life that can turn on or turn off certain genes. One of those things that dogs and people have is a gene that inhibits mutation of cells. If that is turned on, cancer is unlikely (this is very simplified for the point), but if factors in the dog's life inhibit that gene it gets turned off ("repressor proteins"), and cancer is more likely. There's a lot of research in human applications going on right now. But in your example, you _might_ be able to say that the dogs had good genes, but something in the male's life turned "off" that mutation inhibiting gene. Or it could be that the genes in the male were so tightly wound around the histone that they couldn't express.


I believe recent human research shows a single gene being turned on in humans with rheumatoid arthritis. Researchers are now investigating turning it off, which I am sure will be difficult without significant unintwnded consequences.


----------



## cubbysan

Megora said:


> But what do you know about "their" genetics?
> 
> I know of a supreme example with two of my neighbors (two separate families) who brought home littermates.
> 
> The male golden died between 7 and 9 to cancer.
> 
> The female golden was put to sleep because of old age (she could no longer function well) when she was nearly 18.
> 
> You can't say the female had good genetics.... when you know her littermate died early.


My brother in law and I bought littermate Great Pyrenees puppies (BYB). They lived one block from each other. His had to be put down at 8 years old per old age, mine 13 years old per old age. I totally believe this shows life style. His was mostly outdoors, cheap dog food. Mine was mostly indoors, premium dog food.


----------



## Megora

cubbysan said:


> My brother in law and I bought littermate Great Pyrenees puppies (BYB). They lived one block from each other. His had to be put down at 8 years old per old age, mine 13 years old per old age. I totally believe this shows life style. His was mostly outdoors, cheap dog food. Mine was mostly indoors, premium dog food.


 Believe it or not, I know both these families. 

The one with the nearly 18 year old dog - never walked the dog. Most exercise involved the dog going up north on weekends, and that was it. The dog was fed grocery store type dog food. And basically no extra expense was spent on the dog out of the ordinary routine vaccinations.

Other family I know also through our vet and also the place where I used to train. Very involved and very concerned about care. Expensive food. Training. Exercise every day. Care. And it showed with their dogs in general. This golden (Dakota) died from young cancer and they a rottie (Molly) who died at 9 from either heart failure or heart cancer (they said the heart exploded). But their other dogs have all lived well into their teens regardless of breed. 

If we were going to play the usual blame game on the owners, I would imagine the other family feeding the cheap food, never exercising the dog (she was pretty fat in old age), etc.... these would have been the ones losing the dog early.

I don't think we really understand cancer with dogs. I totally agree with everyone that there's likely a trigger that sets it off with 2-3 dogs in a litter but not the others.

But that all said.... cancer is what concerns me as far as this breed. And if your excuse for breeding to a badly bred backyard dog who may be pretty awful as far as various things going on with this dog is to improve health... fact is, these dogs have cancer right across the board. Just because one backyard bred dog lives a long time doesn't brush off the fact that maybe 5-8 other dogs in his litter died from cancer, including early cancer. Or had other conditions which were problematic.

For example, both those dogs I listed had cataracts. Probably the whole litter did.


----------



## cubbysan

When I bought my first golden to the vet for his wellness, the vet was a little upset that I bought a golden without asking for an opinion ( I had been going to that practice since I was 8 years old ). She and another vet at that practice had golden littermates and had tons of issues. I believe PU was the big issue.

Once I showed her Brady's pedigree, she was a little more relieved. She told me they had tons of goldens in that practice with HD and cancer, but 99 percent of them were BYB's or puppy mills. I would think that just what she was saying, that even the goldens that are outside of the show dog gene pool have the same issues.


----------



## gdgli

TrailDogs said:


> And maybe with a trainer like you and health clearances they would be a good example of dogs that should contribute their genetics to the breed.


You read my mind.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Just making the point that, while you can and should stack the deck in your favor by buying from a reputable breeder, it's still just a roll of the genetic dice in a lot of ways. Bad things happen to great breeders. Great dogs can be produced by lousy breeders.




Brave said:


> Can you elaborate? Are you drawing attention to their lifespan or to the reasons why you would not breed them. Or both?


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> For example, both those dogs I listed had cataracts. Probably the whole litter did.


Interestingly enough, the article I referenced in the GRCA news by R. Hovan was discussing loss of genetic diversity in terms of a proposed change to the GRCA COE which would allow some types of cataracts that do not impair the dogs function, but would fail CERF, as an allowable part of a breeding program. 
You should read the article if you get a chance.
Basically, while we can't add new genetics to a closed registry breeding pool, we have to do everything we can to preserve what we have. Even if that means thinking outside the box and including dogs that are not normally considered breeding stock.


----------



## Ljilly28

I read the GR News article last week, and right away the repeated idea of test and DISCLOSE jumped out at me. 

I am tired of seeing ads for dogs who are presented as alive when they have been dead, or people breeding dogs missing clearances jumping on other breeders for doing the same thing with no apparent sense of irony. The whole "do as I say not as I do" theory of breeding mentioned by one of the moderators earlier( sorry cannot recall who) is a problem. Right now there are already a bazillion breeders excusing early deaths or missing clearances in their own dogs, while pointing the finger at others. That is not breeding to improve the breed. 

I appreciate the article's consideration of the specific cataract issue, and the suggestion of taking another look at juvenile cataracts makes sense. 

Overall, I agree with Anney. The article did exclude pet store and puppy mill dogs, and for good reason. There is no use throwing out the baby/bathwater and "expanding" the gene pool by adding in all the problems whimsically bred dogs bring to the table without the good qualities of breed type, clean structure, and working ability.

I work with many many byb and HVB goldens weekly, with severe cow hocks, easty westy, back roaches, patella breakdowns, heart murmurs, underbites like certain toy dogs, and bite histories- it is sometimes very sad. These dogs are not going to broaden the gene pool is a positive way.


----------



## my4goldens

hotel4dogs said:


> Just making the point that, while you can and should stack the deck in your favor by buying from a reputable breeder, it's still just a roll of the genetic dice in a lot of ways. Bad things happen to great breeders. Great dogs can be produced by lousy breeders.


Yep. Very true. I did tons research and bought my last four goldens from great breeders, still consider them terrific breeders. Tess failed her OFA's at two, and Raider was diagnosed with PU at 8. My son bought his black lab from a very well known and reputable field breeder, Samson was diagnosed with epilepsy at two. You do the best you can, but in the end I believe it really is just a crap shoot.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> Interestingly enough, the article I referenced in the GRCA news by R. Hovan was discussing loss of genetic diversity in terms of a proposed change to the GRCA COE which would allow some types of cataracts that do not impair the dogs function, but would fail CERF, as an allowable part of a breeding program.
> You should read the article if you get a chance.
> Basically, while we can't add new genetics to a closed registry breeding pool, we have to do everything we can to preserve what we have. Even if that means thinking outside the box and including dogs that are not normally considered breeding stock.


People who want to think outside the box are welcome to buy puppies where the parent dogs have cataracts and other problems like heart defects, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, etc. But I would not touch a puppy with such a recent background.


----------



## Eowyn

Legitimate question here. We all seem to agree that we don't understand how cancer works. We also agree that we need more genetic diversity. So why are we eliminating dogs from the breeding pool that we think have too high a cancer risk? i.e., not breeding to dogs that have a high rate of cancer in the pedigree, not using semen on boys that died of cancer (I'm not talking the dog that died at age 3, I'm talking more the 8 or 9+ year old), etc.. It just doesn't make sense to me why we are eliminating dogs with genes that may be valuable to the breed down the road, over something we don't even understand.


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> People who want to think outside the box are welcome to buy puppies where the parent dogs have cataracts and other problems like heart defects, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, etc. But I would not touch a puppy with such a recent background.


Nobody is suggesting that. The intent is that there are good, sound dogs out there that are not in any 'reputable' breeding program that can add value to the breed genetically. The dogs themselves may not win in any given venue but they can add to a good breeding program by contributing some different genetics.


----------



## Bentman2

DanaRuns said:


> Except it's not that simple. The dogs in the intervening generations come from various places and have different pedigrees. And they are, after all, different dogs with different genetic makeups than the American dogs in those same intervening generations. So, while they may share certain distant American ancestors, there is a lot of recent diversity. After all, every single Golden in the world goes back to the same couple dogs. And perhaps even more importantly when it comes to things like cancer, those foreign dogs may have different epigenetic influences and makeups.
> 
> I think when the Morris GRLS gets done, we're going to hear a great deal about epigenetics in Goldens' cancer.



It is clear in my mind, as DanaRuns indicated, that the Morris Animal Foundation study on Goldens will offer us the most insight to date on the health of our dogs. This study is still 10 + years away from being able to tell us more but once that is done, I think we will see some real improvement made toward "improving the breed". I am certain that progress will be made in all areas but cancer will continue to be years away from being able to predict who will be affected so that we can breed it into more manageable levels. Not until we make significant progress with our animals will we start to see more progress toward treating and understanding it in man. :wavey:


----------



## gdgli

Megora said:


> People who want to think outside the box are welcome to buy puppies where the parent dogs have cataracts and other problems like heart defects, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, etc. But I would not touch a puppy with such a recent background.


With all due respect

Hip dysplasia I believe is polygenic. That is a tough one to deal with. And of course there are environmental factors.
Elbow dysplasia may be due to trauma in many instances

Not looking to outside of your lines, not considering all of the advantages of a broader gene pool, and restricting yourself to a narrow gene pool---that is what the referenced article is about. And just test the parents as TrailDogs suggested in a previous post. 

Breed smart and use science.


----------



## gdgli

These other dogs that you may not consider for breeding are reservoirs for an expanded gene pool.

A breeding goal is not "What will my pups be like?" but instead "What can I do to combine traits A,B,C and D several generations down the line?"


----------



## Eowyn

gdgli said:


> These other dogs that you may not consider for breeding are reservoirs for an expanded gene pool.
> 
> A breeding goal is not "What will my pups be like?" but instead "What can I do to combine traits A,B,C and D several generations down the line?"


Yes, but you are responsible for the pups you bring into existence while still striving for your goal...


----------



## DanaRuns

Megora said:


> Believe it or not, I know both these families.
> 
> The one with the nearly 18 year old dog - never walked the dog. Most exercise involved the dog going up north on weekends, and that was it. The dog was fed grocery store type dog food. And basically no extra expense was spent on the dog out of the ordinary routine vaccinations.
> 
> Other family I know also through our vet and also the place where I used to train. Very involved and very concerned about care. Expensive food. Training. Exercise every day. Care. And it showed with their dogs in general. This golden (Dakota) died from young cancer and they a rottie (Molly) who died at 9 from either heart failure or heart cancer (they said the heart exploded). But their other dogs have all lived well into their teens regardless of breed.
> 
> If we were going to play the usual blame game on the owners, I would imagine the other family feeding the cheap food, never exercising the dog (she was pretty fat in old age), etc.... these would have been the ones losing the dog early.
> 
> I don't think we really understand cancer with dogs. I totally agree with everyone that there's likely a trigger that sets it off with 2-3 dogs in a litter but not the others.
> 
> But that all said.... cancer is what concerns me as far as this breed. And if your excuse for breeding to a badly bred backyard dog who may be pretty awful as far as various things going on with this dog is to improve health... fact is, these dogs have cancer right across the board. Just because one backyard bred dog lives a long time doesn't brush off the fact that maybe 5-8 other dogs in his litter died from cancer, including early cancer. Or had other conditions which were problematic.
> 
> For example, both those dogs I listed had cataracts. Probably the whole litter did.


No "blame game," but it might not have been food or exercise, and it might not be "bad genes" or luck of the draw. It might have been something as simple as exposure to a particular component in the fertilizer they use on their lawn that turned on the cancer "switch" for the male dog. So at this point I don't know that there's much we can conclude from stories like yours.


----------



## gdgli

Eowyn said:


> Yes, but you are responsible for the pups you bring into existence while still striving for your goal...


You are also responsible for the fitness(see article) which you propagate. Long term goal is better IMO.
Do you really think these pet store pups and BYB pups don't have valuable genes? Just the fact that there is variety makes them valuable.


----------



## Brave

DanaRuns said:


> No "blame game," but it might not have been food or exercise. It might have been something like exposure to a particular component of the fertilizer they use on their lawn that turned on the cancer "switch." I suspect that we're looking in the wrong direction when we look only at things like food and exercise, but the truth is that we just don't know, so I don't think we can make any conclusions based on what pups from a particular litter did.



True. It could be anything. An additive to the water supply. A certain plastic component that degrades poorly. Excess air pollution. Mold. 

It's hard for me to understand the logistics of breeding AWAY from cancer when we have no clue what causes it. I understand the desire and the goal. But the execution is still fuzzy. I think our best bet is to breed to improve on qualities we KNOW (like HD, SAS, PU, Icthy, etc). And when science catches up and gives us solid research into what causes (or activates) Cancer, we can explore our options and work to eradicate it at that time. 

I'm not saying the goal isn't worthwhile. I think in some aspects we're wasting time (and genetic diversity) by taking shots in the dark and refusing to breed lines with known cases of cancer. 

I realize I'm not a breeder. I don't have the experience of bringing life into this world and I can sympathize with those who've lost dogs to this horrible disease (as some may know I lost my Dad to cancer after a 5 year battle), but I don't have that unique experience of losing a dog I bred to cancer. Because I don't breed, I'm lacking that perspective as some have expressed, of being hesitant to breed puppies that may or may not have problems in life. 

Anyways, I really appreciate everyone's insight in this thread.


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> Yes, but you are responsible for the pups you bring into existence while still striving for your goal...


Of course you are and no more than the 'reputable breeders' who are responsible for the pups they bring into this world. I do not think anyone is advocating not to screen the homes and keep track of the pups and take back. Also no one is advocating to start going to puppy mills and pet-stores and start breeding these dogs. 

You want to have at least clearances on the parents, the dog and maybe siblings of said dog. You may mot have the 2 to 5 clearances and old and not all up to date clearances on the above 5 year generation (but that is with both BYB and 'reputable' breeders).


----------



## DanaRuns

Other than cancer and longevity, are there other things that are universal about breeding to improve the breed?

We routinely have threads in this forum where a newbie comes in and posts a photos of their dog, and asks "Do you think my dog is a Golden Retriever?" There was one such recent thread, and when I saw it I remember thinking that the breeders who bred those dogs (assuming they are, indeed, Goldens) have drifted very far away from the breed of Golden Retriever toward generic dog if people can't even tell what breed those dogs are. A field person in this thread (I don't recall who) lamented that someone referred to his/her dog as a "red coyote." It seems like breed type can be lost very quickly, and perhaps all it takes is a few generations to entirely lose the essence of what a Golden Retriever visually is.

Aside from conformation folks, for whom breed type is obviously paramount, should breeding for type be a high priority in improving the breed? When breeding for performance and trying to set a certain behavior or innate trait -- whether it's drive, biddability, courage or whatever -- should "it looks like a Golden Retriever" take priority over breeding for the invisible trait? Or, since we can't breed for everything and have to lose something when we gain something else, is sacrificing the visual for the invisible consistent with breeding to improve the breed? Said another way, do we have to keep "looks" as a super high priority, or do looks not really matter, at all? Is a Golden its appearance? Or is it the things inside? Or what?


----------



## tippykayak

gdgli said:


> Elbow dysplasia may be due to trauma in many instances


Just as a point of fact, OFA research shows that passing elbows produce ED in offspring at about half the rate of failing elbows, so at least some of the factors in ED are very heritable.

Your statement is probably correct as well, but I wanted to point out that heritability is a huge part of ED.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> Of course you are and no more than the 'reputable breeders' who are responsible for the pups they bring into this world. I do not think anyone is advocating not to screen the homes and keep track of the pups and take back. Also no one is advocating to start going to puppy mills and pet-stores and start breeding these dogs.
> 
> You want to have at least clearances on the parents, the dog and maybe siblings of said dog. You may mot have the 2 to 5 clearances and old and not all up to date clearances on the above 5 year generation (but that is with both BYB and 'reputable' breeders).


Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm being sensitive or misinterpreting. But every time you put the word "reputable" in quotes when describing breeders, it reads like an insult, to me. It seems clear that you do it to indicate that you do not, in fact, think those breeders are reputable; which, of course, is an insult to those breeders and those who hold those ethics. It sounds like you are saying, "those so-called reputable breeders, though they are not reputable, at all." Otherwise, why the quotation marks?

I'm asking because every time I see it it bugs me. And I guess I'm hoping that I'm wrong and you can set me straight with an explanation.


----------



## Megora

DanaRuns said:


> No "blame game," but it might not have been food or exercise, and it might not be "bad genes" or luck of the draw. It might have been something as simple as exposure to a particular component in the fertilizer they use on their lawn that turned on the cancer "switch" for the male dog. So at this point I don't know that there's much we can conclude from stories like yours.


The family with the nearly 18 year old dog has a lawn that they always fussed over.... the family that lost their dog to early cancer doesn't really have much of a lawn and never have. 

Now it may be the dog who was exercised more often was exposed to more chemicals on our road (winter treatments in the salt and run-off from people's properties).

The point is obviously those dogs have something in their genetics which made them prone to develop cancer. You have a lot of dogs who can be exposed to all kinds of chemicals (topical treatments, lawn treatments, cheap food, etc) but not have anything happen to them - but they are closely related to dogs who develop early cancer and other issues. 

Not a big deal, but you realized in golden retrievers there are a lot of breeders who will absolutely take a stand against certain breeders and lines on the basis that for every dog they produce who lives a long time, they also produce short lived dogs as well.



> Nobody is suggesting that. The intent is that there are good, sound dogs out there that are not in any 'reputable' breeding program that can add value to the breed genetically. The dogs themselves may not win in any given venue but they can add to a good breeding program by contributing some different genetics.


 I don't disagree. But when I hear anything about a breeder gambling on breeding dogs with cataracts or elbow dysplasia or some other issue (eye cysts are a new issue that people are paying attention to because of PU).... my thing is they are betting on people buying these dogs they produce and do not keep for themselves. Me personally, I've had a dog with cataracts, I had a dog with elbow dysplasia, and of course my Jacks has hip dysplasia. These were not "Terrible" things to live with long term - but they had an impact on those dogs.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Of course you are and no more than the 'reputable breeders' who are responsible for the pups they bring into this world. I do not think anyone is advocating not to screen the homes and keep track of the pups and take back. Also no one is advocating to start going to puppy mills and pet-stores and start breeding these dogs.
> 
> You want to have at least clearances on the parents, the dog and maybe siblings of said dog. You may mot have the 2 to 5 clearances and old and not all up to date clearances on the above 5 year generation (but that is with both BYB and 'reputable' breeders).


When breeding it should be about stacking the odds in the direction of a favourable outcome. 

When breeding to a dog with zero traceable pedigree knowledge (which could include the core 4, age and cause of death, and all other health aspects), the odds of a favourable outcome are decreased since that knowledge is unknown. There is a huge difference dealing with a pedigree that has 5 generations of hip results, and several siblings within that 5 generations, compared to dealing with a pedigree that has hip results on the parents and nothing else. One can sub in any issue for hips in the above example.

If a breeder does this type of breeding and has an unfavourable outcome, what happens to those puppies? The breeder takes them back and/or supports the new owners monetarily. Just how many generations could a breeder survive taking that chance? 

If I had the facilities and income to hire staff to help look after entire litters for their life time, it might be an option. But alas, it is not.


----------



## Eowyn

DanaRuns said:


> We routinely have threads in this forum where a newbie comes in and posts a photos of their dog, and asks "Do you think my dog is a Golden Retriever?" There was one such recent thread, and when I saw it I remember thinking that the breeders who bred those dogs (assuming they are, indeed, Goldens) have drifted very far away from the breed of Golden Retriever toward generic dog if people can't even tell what breed those dogs are. A field person in this thread (I don't recall who) lamented that someone referred to his/her dog as a "red coyote." It seems like breed type can be lost very quickly, and perhaps all it takes is a few generations to entirely lose the essence of what a Golden Retriever visually is.


Looks, temperament and ability are what separates the different breeds. If you throw out any one of those factors, you lose a vital aspect of the breed. 

I don't base a thing off of what the general public thinks my dogs are. Many people do not know the dog breeds, or are not educated on what a well bred golden looks like. I've known many a breed champions to get their breeds mis identified by miles (is that a golden doodle? ouch) or even had people argue about it not being a golden for whatever reason (my uncle had a golden and he was 110 pounds, so your 70 pound breed champion is not a purebred golden etc.). I go off of what knowledgeable people who know the breed standard think.

ETA: And I am not trying to discredit or slam the general public, it's just that I don't expect them to be breed experts.


----------



## Conquerergold

Eowyn said:


> I don't base a thing off of what the general public thinks my dogs are. Many people do not know the dog breeds, or are not educated on what a well bred golden looks like. I've known many a breed champions to get their breeds mis identified by miles (is that a golden doodle? ouch) or even had people argue about it not being a golden for whatever reason (my uncle had a golden and he was 110 pounds, so your 70 pound breed champion is not a purebred golden etc.). I go off of what knowledgeable people who know the breed standard think.


Yes! I took three dogs, a multi Group Winner Top 10 Golden, a Speciality Winner, and a multi Group placer Top 20 Golden, on a walk the other day (all related, mother and her two daughters) and was asked if they were doodles by one family and asked what breed by another person.

This is a somewhat regular occurrence on our walks, or when sitting in the reception area at the vets, or trips to the pet supply store etc. All for the reasons mentioned above.


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm being sensitive or misinterpreting. But every time you put the word "reputable" in quotes when describing breeders, it reads like an insult, to me. It seems clear that you do it to indicate that you do not, in fact, think those breeders are reputable; which, of course, is an insult to those breeders and those who hold those ethics. It sounds like you are saying, "those so-called reputable breeders, though they are not reputable, at all." Otherwise, why the quotation marks?
> 
> I'm asking because every time I see it it bugs me. And I guess I'm hoping that I'm wrong and you can set me straight with an explanation.


I honestly thought about it as I wrote the reply above. The reason I used the '.." marks is because it really lumps together any other breeders other than BYB and puppy mills. And in my view not all are really that reputable if they breed before 2, ITCH carriers to non-tested or other carriers, on preliminary clearances etc. It is not meant to insult the reputable breeders out there (and they know who they are) and if taken in that way my apology. Maybe I should think of a better phraseology.


----------



## cubbysan

Claudia M said:


> I honestly thought about it as I wrote the reply above. The reason I used the '.." marks is because it really lumps together any other breeders other than BYB and puppy mills. And in my view not all are really that reputable if they breed before 2, ITCH carriers to non-tested or other carriers, on preliminary clearances etc. It is not meant to insult the reputable breeders out there (and they know who they are) and if taken in that way my apology. Maybe I should think of a better phraseology.


I never know what to call what we call reputable breeders. I have had some correct me and call themselves a hobby breeder, but to me a hobby breeder means anybody can do it for a hobby.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> When breeding it should be about stacking the odds in the direction of a favourable outcome.
> 
> When breeding to a dog with zero traceable pedigree knowledge (which could include the core 4, age and cause of death, and all other health aspects), the odds of a favourable outcome are decreased since that knowledge is unknown. There is a huge difference dealing with a pedigree that has 5 generations of hip results, and several siblings within that 5 generations, compared to dealing with a pedigree that has hip results on the parents and nothing else. One can sub in any issue for hips in the above example.
> 
> If a breeder does this type of breeding and has an unfavourable outcome, what happens to those puppies? The breeder takes them back and/or supports the new owners monetarily. Just how many generations could a breeder survive taking that chance?
> 
> If I had the facilities and income to hire staff to help look after entire litters for their life time, it might be an option. But alas, it is not.


When you have half the new pups strong pedigree behind it and the other half to the immediate parents and siblings you are already stacking the favor on the side of the pups. Yes you will have unknown and one would take a huge responsibility to do that. But somewhere, somehow, something has got to give. 

It would be great if all the pups produced will be in the k9data, all the COD listed with the age. We do not even have that on some of the best dogs out there. And that is almost impossible. Maybe easier for the occasional breeder that has a litter once every couple years and can and will have the time to track all puppies educate the parents about the database and ask to update. 

When I adopted Darcy and looked at the flatcoat database I was impressed with all the info already entered in there - health (detailed to the minutiae info - first heat, heat cycle, the separation anxiety etc). Much of this was not possible before because of lack of data, lack of communication. Now with email, cellphones, facebook etc the info can be updated with more details.


----------



## hotel4dogs

for anyone who hasn't read this, I highly recommend it. It's written by Rhonda Hovan, the guru of Golden cancer.
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf
although the entire article is well worth reading, especially read page 3 into page 4, cancer as a genetic disease
and page 7, can we reduce risk through breeding decisions


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> for anyone who hasn't read this, I highly recommend it. It's written by Rhonda Hovan, the guru of Golden cancer.
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf
> although the entire article is well worth reading, especially read page 3 into page 4, cancer as a genetic disease
> and page 7, can we reduce risk through breeding decisions


Is it just me or does it go page 1-9 and then 2-4???


----------



## Brave

Claudia M said:


> Is it just me or does it go page 1-9 and then 2-4???



The pdf pulls up as 1-12 pages but the pages themselves are marked 1-9, then 2-4.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> When you have half the new pups strong pedigree behind it and the other half to the immediate parents and siblings you are already stacking the favor on the side of the pups. Yes you will have unknown and one would take a huge responsibility to do that. But somewhere, somehow, something has got to give.


However, when we are dealing with these issues WITH strong pedigrees, breeding them to unknown is not stacking the odds anywhere, because nothing is known. 



Claudia M said:


> And in my view not all are really that reputable if they breed before 2, ITCH carriers to non-tested or other carriers, on preliminary clearances etc.


Now I'm not clear. You are suggesting that breeders should look to breeding to unknown pedigrees to hopefully expand the genepool, yet label someone as not reputable if they breed an ICT carrier to anything other than clear. You know that too limits the genepool? 

More than 50% of Golden Retrievers in Europe are carriers, the same can be said for North America. It is estimated around 30-40% are clear. Remove dogs for other issues (failed clearance etc.), that creates an extreme bottleneck should carriers and affected only be bred clears.


----------



## Brave

Conquerergold said:


> However, when we are dealing with these issues WITH strong pedigrees, breeding them to unknown is not stacking the odds anywhere, because nothing is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm not clear. You are suggesting that breeders should look to breeding to unknown pedigrees to hopefully expand the genepool, yet label someone as not reputable if they breed an ICT carrier to anything other than clear. You know that too limits the genepool?
> 
> 
> 
> More than 50% of Golden Retrievers in Europe are carriers, the same can be said for North America. It is estimated around 30-40% are clear. Remove dogs for other issues (failed clearance etc.), that creates an extreme bottleneck should carriers and affected only be bred clears.



Can you clear something up for me? 

If you breed a clear to a carrier, are all the puppies carriers? Are any actually affected? 

Likewise if you breed two carriers together, what happens? 

I am under the impression Icthy is a recessive gene expression (pardon if my terms are off, I haven't taken biology in nearly a decade). Meaning you have to have both recessive alleles to express the gene physically. (Phenotype is the term, I believe). 

If that is correct, you could breed two carriers and get 1/4 clear, 1/2 carriers, and 1/4 affected. Of course this is over simplified, I'm sure. But isn't that how it works? If I am correct, what is the ethics behind breeding two carriers. Luck of the draw will determine if none, some, or all are affected. Right?

Edited to fix a typo.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Hmmm every bitch of mine that I have bred and tested is clear for every Optigen test I can clear them of..


----------



## Conquerergold

Brave said:


> Can you clear something up for me?
> 
> If you breed a clear to a carrier, are all the puppies carriers? Are any actually affected?
> 
> Likewise if you breed two carriers together, what happens?
> 
> I am under the impression Icthy is a recessive gene expression (pardon if my terms are off, I haven't taken biology in nearly a decade). Meaning you have to have both recessive alleles to express the gene physically. (Phenotype is the term, I believe).
> 
> If that is correct, you could breed two carriers and get 1/4 clear, 1/2 carriers, and 1/4 affected. Of course this is over simplified, I'm sure. But isn't that how it works? If I am correct, what is the ethics behind breeding two carriers. Luck of the draw will determine if none, some, or all are affected. Right?
> 
> Edited to fix a typo.


That is correct. Carrier to clear will only produce carriers and clears. Affected to clear will produce all carriers. 

To further muddy the waters some affected are clinically clear (ie zero symptoms), also there is at least one clear that was diagnosed as affected via pathology.


----------



## Brave

Conquerergold said:


> That is correct. Carrier to clear will only produce carriers and clears. Affected to clear will produce all carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> To further muddy the waters some affected are clinically clear (ie zero symptoms), also there is at least one clear that was diagnosed as affected via pathology.



Thanks! Where do you stand on Carrier to Carrier? Is it a safe enough risk to keep genetic diversity?


----------



## Conquerergold

Sally's Mom said:


> Hmmm every bitch of mine that I have bred and tested is clear for every Optigen test I can clear them of..


That's great!

So far I have tested 7 for prcd_PRA, 6 for ICT, 6 for PRA1 and 6 for PRA2. 2 are carriers for prcd_PRA, 4 are carriers for ICT, all are clear for PRA1 and PRA2.


----------



## Brave

Conquerergold said:


> That's great!
> 
> 
> 
> So far I have tested 7 for prcd_PRA, 6 for ICT, 6 for PRA1 and 6 for PRA2. 2 are carriers for prcd_PRA, 4 are carriers for ICT, all are clear for PRA1 and PRA2.



Can you break the acronyms down? What does each mean and what risks do they carry if they test positive or carrier?


----------



## Conquerergold

Brave said:


> Thanks! Where do you stand on Carrier to Carrier? Is it a safe enough risk to keep genetic diversity?


In my breeding program I don't make decisions on one piece of information alone. All of these tests and health screenings are tools towards making educated decisions. 

When I have bred one of my ICT carriers my preference is indeed to find a clear, however I will not rule out a carrier should that dog offer what my bitch needs (in pedigree, health, conformation etc) more than another. 

It's a clear as mud type of situation :curtain:


----------



## Brave

Conquerergold said:


> It's a clear as mud type of situation :curtain:


The more I learn, the less I know.


----------



## hollyk

What life span should a Golden have to earn the label of Longevity?


----------



## Sally's Mom

Conquerergold said:


> That's great!
> 
> So far I have tested 7 for prcd_PRA, 6 for ICT, 6 for PRA1 and 6 for PRA2. 2 are carriers for prcd_PRA, 4 are carriers for ICT, all are clear for PRA1 and PRA2.


Mine were clear for all which their pedigrees would suggest they should have been...but that is not an all clear, and I think people should test...


----------



## Conquerergold

Sally's Mom said:


> Mine were clear for all which their pedigrees would suggest they should have been...but that is not an all clear, and I think people should test...


Pedigree really doesn't give any indication of clears or carriers, especially with ICT since clinical symptoms can be non existent in affected individuals.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Conquerergold said:


> Pedigree really doesn't give any indication of clears or carriers, especially with ICT since clinical symptoms can be non existent in affected individuals.


Yup, know that which is why mine are tested..


----------



## lhowemt

hotel4dogs said:


> for anyone who hasn't read this, I highly recommend it. It's written by Rhonda Hovan, the guru of Golden cancer.
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf
> although the entire article is well worth reading, especially read page 3 into page 4, cancer as a genetic disease
> and page 7, can we reduce risk through breeding decisions


Great article, thanks.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> However, when we are dealing with these issues WITH strong pedigrees, breeding them to unknown is not stacking the odds anywhere, because nothing is known.
> 
> There is still lots of unknown with the well bred pups. Maybe it makes us feel better thinking we know but in reality we do not and the gene pool is getting smaller and smaller while the diseases are increasing more and more
> 
> Now I'm not clear. You are suggesting that breeders should look to breeding to unknown pedigrees to hopefully expand the genepool, yet label someone as not reputable if they breed an ICT carrier to anything other than clear. You know that too limits the genepool?
> 
> More than 50% of Golden Retrievers in Europe are carriers, the same can be said for North America. It is estimated around 30-40% are clear. Remove dogs for other issues (failed clearance etc.), that creates an extreme bottleneck should carriers and affected only be bred clears.


Yes yes yes - it is a very simple genetic testing. And if you have a carrier, which indicates you were responsible enough to test your own dog it just beats me why in world would you cut corners and not test the match!!!!!!!!!!!! - That right there indicates to me an irresponsible breeder. In the realm of things it does not cost that much especially if you package with the pra tests. I do not care how many are carriers or not - if you say this is not important than soon enough you will have snowy goldens all over the place and completely lock the gene pool. Then you will have to go and start testing and breeding puppy mills and pet store dogs to try to remove from the gene pool.


----------



## Claudia M

hollyk said:


> What life span should a Golden have to earn the label of Longevity?


In my opinion, with all the new medicine advancement and techniques, anywhere between 13 and 15 years.


----------



## kwhit

Brave said:


> Can you clear something up for me?
> 
> If you breed a clear to a carrier, are all the puppies carriers? Are any actually affected?
> 
> Likewise if you breed two carriers together, what happens?
> 
> I am under the impression Icthy is a recessive gene expression (pardon if my terms are off, I haven't taken biology in nearly a decade). Meaning you have to have both recessive alleles to express the gene physically. (Phenotype is the term, I believe).
> 
> If that is correct, you could breed two carriers and get 1/4 clear, 1/2 carriers, and 1/4 affected. Of course this is over simplified, I'm sure. But isn't that how it works? If I am correct, what is the ethics behind breeding two carriers. Luck of the draw will determine if none, some, or all are affected. Right?


This article has a chart concerning this:

http://australiangoldenretrieverbreeders.com/assets/ichthyosis in the golden retriever pdf.pdf


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> There is still lots of unknown with the well bred pups. Maybe it makes us feel better thinking we know but in reality we do not and the gene pool is getting smaller and smaller while the diseases are increasing more and more


You're right, we do not have a 100% clear picture with 'well bred pups'. However, we still have a picture. I'm not sure how else to get that point across.



Claudia M said:


> Yes yes yes - it is a very simple genetic testing. And if you have a carrier, which indicates you were responsible enough to test your own dog it just beats me why in world would you cut corners and not test the match!!!!!!!!!!!! - That right there indicates to me an irresponsible breeder. In the realm of things it does not cost that much especially if you package with the pra tests. I do not care how many are carriers or not - if you say this is not important than soon enough you will have snowy goldens all over the place and completely lock the gene pool. Then you will have to go and start testing and breeding puppy mills and pet store dogs to try to remove from the gene pool.


The breeder is responsible for testing, but irresponsible for breeding to anything other than clear tested dogs for carrier bitches. So what are they then?

Not sure what 'lock the gene pool' means. This issue has been around for decades upon decades upon decades, since the start of the breed. Yet, because in the past 5 years a test has been developed anyone who doesn't base breeding decisions on this test, is irresponsible. It's a d****d if you do and d****d if you don't I guess. 

What happens when ICT2 and ICT3 is discovered? Where do we go then?

What makes you think the issue isn't just as prevalent in puppy mill and pet store dogs? I know several rescues with the condition.

Also, please refrain from assuming anything. No where did I say it wasn't important, I didn't even hint at that, what I did say is that the testing is part of the breeders tool box.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater has proven time and time again to be detrimental to future generations. Yet, you are saying that is what we should do, but then turn to completely unknown pedigrees and cross our fingers that it helps (no guarantee either way). 

I do wish that you were a breeder, so that you could put your strong beliefs on how breeders should breed to work, it would be interesting to see how it all played out.


----------



## Conquerergold

hollyk said:


> What life span should a Golden have to earn the label of Longevity?


Anything above the breed average, which is 10-11 years. In my opinion


----------



## Loisiana

I think Phoenix has a fairly good example of longevity in his pedigree. Of course not all dogs lived to old age, but I love that there's lots of dogs in there in the 13-16 year range. His grandfather just celebrated his 15th birthday today 

Vertical pedigree: Sunfire's Ashes To Gold


----------



## Swampcollie

hollyk said:


> What life span should a Golden have to earn the label of Longevity?


Over the long term the average life expectancy (10 -15 yrs) for a Golden hasn't changed much. There has been a _Slight_ dip in the last couple of decades but I think that is largely due to the rampant early spay/neuter we've seen during that period. If that practice is reduced I suspect the life expectancy will return to the long term average for the breed. 

Is cancer worse today genetically that it was 40 or 50 years ago? We really don't know, but I suspect it too is unchanged from the beginnings of the breed. There are numerous other issues that used to be fatal to a lot of dogs. Veterinary medicine has greatly improved and is allowing dogs with other serious ailments like liver and kidney issues to live much much longer. In the past those dogs would have died much younger but today those dogs live long enough with treatment of their ailments to allow age related cancers to develop. 

So the average lifespan was and still is about 12 1/2 years. Average means some live longer, some less. I would label a dog that meets or beats the average (12 1/2) as having good longevity.

There is also some variation along family lines. If you're looking at the ancestors of your dog out five to six generations or longer and you see an average life span of 10 or 11 years, it's a pretty good bet your dog will be about the same. (You would be bringing unrealistic expectations to the table if you're expecting 15 years or better.)


----------



## K9-Design

Swampcollie said:


> So the average lifespan was and still is about 12 1/2 years. Average means some live longer, some less. I would label a dog that meets or beats the average (12 1/2) as having good longevity.


 
Not sure where you're getting 12.5 as the average livespan of a golden. The informal survey of GRCA members almost 10 years ago put it at 10.5. We all know that those 10.5 year old goldens who die of hemangio and lymphoma are not sickly dogs strung along with bad kidneys and liver by medicine and finally get cancer and die. They are perfectly healthy until they are attacked by their own bodies and robbed of ever living into old age. It happens time and time again. 

To me, anything under 12 that dies of lympho or hemangio is a big red flag for me. I don't think it's a coincidence or bad luck, I think it's genetics and until we can find a marker, we are screwed. I am less freaked out by oddball cancers unless the dog is really young. It's these two that are clearly the big concern.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> You're right, we do not have a 100% clear picture with 'well bred pups'. However, we still have a picture. I'm not sure how else to get that point across.
> 
> 
> A very blurry picture is still not a picture. It may make some feel good that they have a blurry picture and feel good that they still got a puppy with some sort of picture behind it.
> 
> The breeder is responsible for testing, but irresponsible for breeding to anything other than clear tested dogs for carrier bitches. So what are they then?
> 
> At least the BYBs do not know what they are doing. Ignorance is bliss. The ones that do it intentionally in my book are worse than BYBs. They cannot blame ignorance. They can only blame arrogance.
> 
> Not sure what 'lock the gene pool' means. This issue has been around for decades upon decades upon decades, since the start of the breed. Yet, because in the past 5 years a test has been developed anyone who doesn't base breeding decisions on this test, is irresponsible. It's a d****d if you do and d****d if you don't I guess.
> 
> If you want to claim that you are improving the breed then you test.
> 
> What happens when ICT2 and ICT3 is discovered? Where do we go then?
> 
> You test?
> 
> What makes you think the issue isn't just as prevalent in puppy mill and pet store dogs? I know several rescues with the condition.
> 
> I did not say it is not, that is why I said you will have to start looking and testing in puppy mills because you have already destroyed the well bred gene with diseases you could have otherwise avoid.
> 
> Also, please refrain from assuming anything. No where did I say it wasn't important, I didn't even hint at that, what I did say is that the testing is part of the breeders tool box.
> 
> I did not assume anything - where did you get that from?
> 
> Throwing the baby out with the bathwater has proven time and time again to be detrimental to future generations. Yet, you are saying that is what we should do, but then turn to completely unknown pedigrees and cross our fingers that it helps (no guarantee either way).
> 
> Breeding away from the original, un-functional coats, non-performing dogs that have lost the attribute that makes them a golden retriever has been detrimental to future generations. We have really done nothing to improve the breed. Longevity is the same despite the new medications and surgeries and techniques chemo holistic etc. I do not know who you are and what you breed, I am speaking in generalities and not directed to you.
> 
> I do wish that you were a breeder, so that you could put your strong beliefs on how breeders should breed to work, it would be interesting to see how it all played out.


Pretty hard to find the dogs that I want to breed with. Unfortunately what I like and works and has stamina in the field is no longer accepted in the ring. I will let you know when I retire and have time for actual breeding what I find. If the goldens will still be goldens by then.


----------



## Swampcollie

> * I do not care how many are carriers or not - if you say this is not important than soon enough you will have snowy  goldens all over the place and completely lock the gene pool.*


I don't think people really have a clear understanding of how widespread Ichty is within the breed. We ALREADY HAVE snowy goldens all over the place and the gene pool is all but locked up now. The last time I checked the numbers, roughly 66% of the Goldens tested were involved, meaning they are carriers or affected. 

In order to maintain a viable breed in the short term, involved dogs are going to have to continue to be included in breeding programs. The tests that are available will allow breeders to take a long term approach to dealing with the issue. This isn't something that is going to go away tomorrow, next year, or the year after that. It will take decades of hard work to get this problem under control. 

If breeders are doing their best, they are striving to produce the best "Complete" package they can when pairing Sires and Dams. In the near term it may be necessary on occasion to do a carrier to carrier breeding. There just are not that many tested "Clear" dogs available.


----------



## cubbysan

Claudia M said:


> Pretty hard to find the dogs that I want to breed with. Unfortunately what I like and works and has stamina in the field is no longer accepted in the ring. I will let you know when I retire and have time for actual breeding what I find. If the goldens will still be goldens by then.


Have you thought about going back into time? Many long time breeders have semen frozen from their older, long gone dogs. If these dogs do not have the clearances because those tests were not available, we can see what he has produced for generations instead. I have been told that what is produced is even more important than the clearances themselves.


----------



## Claudia M

cubbysan said:


> Have you thought about going back into time? Many long time breeders have semen frozen from their older, long gone dogs. If these dogs do not have the clearances because those tests were not available, we can see what he has produced for generations instead. I have been told that what is produced is even more important than the clearances themselves.


I do not think you have to go that far. There are plenty of field goldens out there that have been produced by those fine dogs. 
I am feeling more positive about a future come back of those lines into the ring. The more field people join the conformation ring, the more conformation people join the field training and see what works and what doesn't, the more conformation judges are upfront about the goldens that show up in their ring, the more we have conversations such as these the more optimistic I am.


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> I don't think people really have a clear understanding of how widespread Ichty is within the breed. We ALREADY HAVE snowy goldens all over the place and the gene pool is all but locked up now. The last time I checked the numbers, roughly 66% of the Goldens tested were involved, meaning they are carriers or affected.
> 
> In order to maintain a viable breed in the short term, involved dogs are going to have to continue to be included in breeding programs. The tests that are available will allow breeders to take a long term approach to dealing with the issue. This isn't something that is going to go away tomorrow, next year, or the year after that. It will take decades of hard work to get this problem under control.
> 
> *If breeders are doing their best, they are striving to produce the best "Complete" package they can when pairing Sires and Dams. In the near term it may be necessary on occasion to do a carrier to carrier breeding. There just are not that many tested "Clear" dogs available.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> OK if the breeder will buck up and test all puppies before placing them and then keep all the affected puppies. if a benevolent person will not take that pup and raise it for free. After all aren't they responsible for what they breed?
> 
> How would you get it under control by keeping breeding carriers to carriers? IMHO you will only spread a situation. If you have a diminished gene pool now you will only diminish it more by breeding carriers to carriers.


----------



## Loisiana

I don't know that we can have it both ways - throw out every potential problem breeding yet gain genetic diversity. 

If I saw a breeding that was everything I wanted with the exception that it was carrier to carrier for icht, I'd still most likely go for it. Mainly because, out of all the dogs that are affected, so many are symptom free. And personally if I am going to take a risk on genetics, that's one of the ones I'm more comfortable willing to take the gamble.


----------



## Swampcollie

K9-Design said:


> The informal survey of GRCA members almost 10 years ago put it at 10.5.


Yes but, that number is only reflective of those that chose to answer the survey. What about the GRCA members who did not respond to the survey? What about the numerous breeders who were not members of the GRCA? (The majority by the way.) That's why the survey is informal, it isn't by any means complete or scientific in nature. My sources are also not by any means totally complete nor scientific in nature. They are a reflection of data collected from numerous breeders and mentors over the last 45 years. Many of the mentors I learned from had been breeding goldens for more than four decades already at the time I was starting out.

Believe it or not, breeders of the past 150 years did not operate in complete blind ignorance. Even though they didn't have OFA, k9data or the internet, they still found ways to communicate, learn and improve their breeding programs. They exercised powers of indirect observation, direct observation and information shared in confidence about their own dogs, between each other.


----------



## Claudia M

Actually you are taking more of a gamble since the other ones are not black and white as this. So you are stacking more against instead of in favor of the pup.


----------



## Swampcollie

Loisiana said:


> I don't know that we can have it both ways - throw out every potential problem breeding yet gain genetic diversity.
> 
> If I saw a breeding that was everything I wanted with the exception that it was carrier to carrier for icht, I'd still most likely go for it. Mainly because, out of all the dogs that are affected, so many are symptom free. And personally if I am going to take a risk on genetics, that's one of the ones I'm more comfortable willing to take the gamble.



Exactly!


If you want to maintain genetic diversity over the long term you're going to have to make some difficult choices. 
The snowy dogs aren't new. They have been with us for a very long time. I would guess that up until the last few years very few people had even heard of Icthy in Golden Retrievers. As more genetic tests become available it will become crystal clear that there are no dogs that test completely clear for everything AND complement their potential mate. Then breeders are going to have to start picking and choosing the flaws they are willing to accept and those they're not. 

Dogs are living things, they are not genetically engineered products. It's not a perfect world and making short sighted decisions in search of perfection is bad for the long term genetic diversity for the breed.

Striving to eliminate a genetic problem is a laudable goal in the long term, however you want to retain as much genetic diversity as possible while you're accomplishing that goal. The toss the baby out with the bathwater philosophy is exactly what has caused the genetic bottlenecks we're facing in this breed today. We need to be working at removing the bottlenecks, not creating new ones.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Actually you are taking more of a gamble since the other ones are not black and white as this. So you are stacking more against instead of in favor of the pup.


More of a gamble on that one issue alone, not adding to more of an overall gamble. What makes up breeding decisions is not singular, it is a sum of many. 

Again, it is about educated choices. With this issue it can be black and white 'there is a possibility of producing an affected', that can't be said for most of the other issues. Owners and breeders can go into it with eyes wide open, again on that issue alone.


----------



## AmberSunrise

as did at least one of Tank's sisters and one of his brothers   

The lines with longevity are out there but perhaps need to be looked for beyond using popular sires.



Loisiana said:


> I think Phoenix has a fairly good example of longevity in his pedigree. Of course not all dogs lived to old age, but I love that there's lots of dogs in there in the 13-16 year range. His grandfather just celebrated his 15th birthday today
> 
> Vertical pedigree: Sunfire's Ashes To Gold


----------



## Ljilly28

Megora said:


> People who want to think outside the box are welcome to buy puppies where the parent dogs have cataracts and other problems like heart defects, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, etc. But I would not touch a puppy with such a recent background.


Yes, again uneducated buyers will end up with those pups. There is a big difference between saying to make an exception and include a dog with a single grade i elbow who brings outstanding longevity to the table as well, or to thoughtful change the policy for juv cats, and deciding to breed all comers in the name of the gene pool.


----------



## cubbysan

Just to add a little more thought, the more testing we do, the better technology gets, the more time it takes to choose and find a sire, the more expensive it is going to be to buy a well bred golden retriever. This is going to push the uneducated or even the poorer dog buyers right back to the BYBs and puppy mills.


----------



## Brave

Perhaps some day, when science has fully explored the genome and DNA sequencing, we'll be able to genetically alter or remove those problems (like Icthy) straight from the DNA before implanting test tube babies in the Dam. 

But that itself would have its own concerns and pitfalls. 

I need to read up on Icthy to get more information on what happens when you're a symptomatic affected (vs non-symptomatic affected; vs carrier). I was under the impression that the dog had flakey skin. I'm not sure how flakey skin would make the dog's life miserable or result in more expensive vet care over the years (unlike HD and structurally unsound dogs that can result in thousands upon thousands of dollars in corrective surgeries or physical therapy or preventative measures). 

I can understand picking the lesser of two evils. 

As to what ConquererGold was talking about re: when science comes out with a test for icthy2 or Icthy3.... Yes you test for it. But it'll continue to muddy the waters. And make picking a breeding even harder. 

Because the dogs will be (metaphorically) mottled with things we don't want to perpetuate mixed in with things we're trying so hard to keep going. And the breeder will be the only one to decide which evil they'll pick, because there will be NO truly CLEAR dogs. If that makes sense. And the breeders will be faced with "do i breed two Icthy1 carriers who happen to be clear of Icthy2 and Icthy3, who also has strengths where the other is lacking; or do I stop all breeding because perfection is impossible and let the Golden Retriever breed die out?"


----------



## gdgli

IMO, without trying to sound patronizing, I think that many of us would benefit greatly by trying to learn more about genetics, breeding, and statistics. 

And I see something repeated here that reflects not enough knowledge---What makes you think that breeding proven bloodlines leads to fitness in offspring? Proven in what ways? 

Let me tell you a story about an extremely popular stud that everyone was breeding to from years back. (No I won't divulge the name of the stud.) I mean everyone was using him. Ends up that seizures showed up in offspring and some subsequent generations. And you can only guess at the rumors.


----------



## kwhit

Brave said:


> I need to read up on Icthy to get more information on what happens when you're a symptomatic affected (vs non-symptomatic affected; vs carrier). I was under the impression that the dog had flakey skin. *I'm not sure how flakey skin would make the dog's life miserable or result in more expensive vet care over the years*...


Chance has both Ichthyosis and Elbow Dysplasia so I can talk first hand about dealing with both types of conditions. 

First of all, Ich is not _just_ "flakey skin". It's flakey skin on steroids. It's ugly and a pain in the butt to deal with. It definitely looks like the dog has a disease. As far as vet costs, I've spent a ton on shampoos and trying to find out why my dog looked like his skin was constantly peeling off his body. And whoever said it doesn't cause the dog discomfort is wrong. 

Now...would I rather buy a puppy with the potential of Ich vs. ED, absolutely! ED is a _painful and heartbreaking_ condition. The vet costs are off the chart. This is not to say that I think Ich is an acceptable condition, it's not. But between that and all the disabling genetic conditions, it is definitely the lesser evil. But it's still an "evil".


----------



## gdgli

Ict is a tough one. I know of a 6 yo dog with a nice coat and no skin condition that is Ict affected. Your situation has led me to believe that other factors (genes) contribute to the expression of the condition.


----------



## cubbysan

gdgli said:


> Ict is a tough one. I know of a 6 yo dog with a nice coat and no skin condition that is Ict affected. Your situation has led me to believe that other factors (genes) contribute to the expression of the condition.


I know of one dog with ich, once it was diagnosed by a dermatologist ( a regular vet did not know there was a problem ). The owner is very happy with the results of proper diet and weekly bathing. I cannot see anything wrong with the coat and skin when petting the dog.


----------



## Conquerergold

gdgli said:


> Ict is a tough one. I know of a 6 yo dog with a nice coat and no skin condition that is Ict affected. Your situation has led me to believe that other factors (genes) contribute to the expression of the condition.


By all appearances that appears to be the case. I have a senior who is severely affected, however hers did not present as symptomatic until she was spayed. She was bred to an affected (non-symptomatic also), thus her entire litter was affected. The puppies in that litter did not have any flakes as youngsters (commonly, affecteds will show symptoms around 4 weeks (weaning) and then it goes away for a time (or forever)), all have been spayed and neutered and at 8 years old, still have never seen a flake according to their owners.

Here is an article on the issue, and some good advice from a geneticist https://purinaproclub.com/resource-...be-underdiagnosed-due-to-seborrhea-similarity


----------



## kwhit

I think that as in any condition, it's severity is not uniform across the board. 

Chance gets fermented fish stock in his food every day, is on a top quality food, (Orijen), bathed once a week and is brushed twice a day. I have noticed that as he gets older the condition is lessening. At a year old, there were no symptoms. It started around 2 years old and was at it's worst when he was between 3 and 9 years old.


----------



## kwhit

Here's a few pictures on a good day. All were taken after a bath and brushing. Not pretty, huh? :no::


----------



## Brave

Kwit - thank you for the pictures and the first hand knowledge. I am so sorry for his affliction. I didn't realize how severe it was. Does he constantly itch? Is that what makes this uncomfortable? I apologize if I came off as uncaring. It's one thing to speak about diseases and it's an entirely different thing to see someone affected by it. 

Thank you also to others who shared their first hand experience with affected that weren't symptomatic. 

I think this is another thing that we just don't understand enough of. Why are some asymptomatic? Why are others seriously afflicted? Is this another thing like the cancer? Where epigenetics trigger the disease?


----------



## cubbysan

Can we learn from other breeds how to improve or things not to do? I know GSDs were ruined years back, not sure if they have improved, and look at the bull dogs, Pekingese, etc.

I have seen the same thing with Siamese and Persian cats.

Or do you think golden breeders are more educated and put more effort into getting a healthier dog?


----------



## Ljilly28

I really appreciate the chance to see ichythiosis - I never have before. 

That kind of disclosure and sharing is what I most took away about breeding better goldens in Rhonda Hovans GR News article even more than the specifics of JV cats. 

Test and DISCLOSE: that puts responsibility on breeders to be more forthcoming and also on individuals not to be judgy and shaming when a dog does have something like PU or hemangio revealed. The overall reaction should be gratitude the information was shared. 

The lack of honest disclosure about dates and causes of death in goldens, and hidden health info makes it tough for breeders to make as informed decisions as we should be able to, and that is why I like the idea of anything reducing the stigma breeders feel when a dog dies or has health issues. There can be a shame issue when a dog dies that is so sad compounding the loss of dear friend, but there also can be people who get in financial pickles and blatantly hide things to keep on breeding. 

I have mentioned before how hard it was to get my dog's PU up on OFA despite checking the box correctly on both CERF and OFA forms. They just couldnt believe I meant it, and I had a good talk with them about yes I did. In that case, I had already given up the dream of breeding the dog but it was a painful process to go from having high hopes for a promising puppy to realizing and facing that no those hopes were unrealistic bc of health issues. 

It is a bitter pill to look at xrays showing dysplasia in a young dog, and then go ahead and pay anyway to post them in hopes of benefitting the common good of the breed at the same time as one's personal dreams take a beating. It is a test of character in some cases. There have been many tears cried onto many test forms in the dog world, and the trick is to get people to go that next step and post them out of a sense of community or sense it is the right thing to do. Once an individual's sense of community in the breed erodes, there is little motivation to take a personal disappointment and pay money to make it public record unless a strong sense of being a trustee to the breed itself exists. 

One thing that is difficult about being a breeder is balancing anecdotal first hand experience against hard data. It is very hard to put aside personal experience such as having a healthy puppy mill dog or an unhealthy golden despite a responsible breeder's best effort and clear parents. 

For example, because my dual bred golden with a miniscule COI had grievously bad elbow bilateral dysplasia, I truly have a fear of the complete outcross and more faith in a moderate linebreeding with a healthy pedigree and good longevity throughout. I bring a bias to the table. The dogs who have lived into their teens owned by me have been moderate linebreedings or even strong linebreedings. Another example is it's possible to develop unfounded phobias about dogs anecdotally ( I have one for a stud dog who sired a very unhealthy dog owned by me BUT most of his other kids are great) even if statisitc do not bear that out. On the flipside, we see posters come here and passionately defend some truly sketchy breeding with no clearances bc they lucked out and got the one dog with great health. 

Lore, storytelling, superstitions etc and first hand experiences influence breeding decisions more now than if test and DISCLOSE were more the norm. For test and disclose to become the norm, people have to care more about the breed than about their individual breeding programs. I think the reason test and eliminate is what is taught has the right thing to do is bc it is really hard for people to operate in grey area, and there already is so much of it in dog breeding.


----------



## Claudia M

cubbysan said:


> I know of one dog with ich, once it was diagnosed by a dermatologist ( a regular vet did not know there was a problem ). The owner is very happy with the results of proper diet and weekly bathing. I cannot see anything wrong with the coat and skin when petting the dog.


I rally cannot imagine weekly bathing my dog! I have seen a puppy that at only a couple months old was diagnosed with ITCH by a vet. I can only feel completely sorry for that pup and its family. 
Rose is a carrier so she has no symptoms. But that was one other reason that it would have made finding a suitable stud impossible especially combined with her size. She has the best temperament, she took on the role of a big sister immediately, even though younger than Darcy and I don't know if we would have been able to put Darcy on the path she is in if it wasn't for Rose. Sometimes I wonder if she is more like a mother to Darcy than a sister.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> More of a gamble on that one issue alone, not adding to more of an overall gamble. What makes up breeding decisions is not singular, it is a sum of many.
> 
> Again, it is about educated choices. With this issue it can be black and white 'there is a possibility of producing an affected', that can't be said for most of the other issues. Owners and breeders can go into it with eyes wide open, again on that issue alone.


How many affected puppies are you willing to take back and raise, bathe weekly, be careful with every little piece of food and treats?


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> ....... On the flipside, we see posters come here and passionately defend some truly sketchy breeding with no clearances bc they lucked out and got the one dog with great health.
> 
> Lore, storytelling, superstitions etc and first hand experiences influence breeding decisions more now than if test and DISCLOSE were more the norm. For test and disclose to become the norm, people have to care more about the breed than about their individual breeding programs. I think the reason test and eliminate is what is taught has the right thing to do is bc it is really hard for people to operate in grey area, and there already is so much of it in dog breeding.


Not sure if you are referring to my previous posts and if you do that is great! Because I wanted to re-iterate that both immediate parents should be tested on said breeding dog and if possible immediate siblings which I would have had both if I was going to breed Rose. 

I do not know what the puppy mills produce but so far with all our BYB dogs I have had nothing but pure luck. In health, longevity, temperament and retrieving aptitudes. Rose is still young but so far she has passed every test other than ITCH carrier and will still et the Penn Hip done in a couple years. I have read some of the older posts (and maybe your opinion has evolved) that you do not consider dogs like Rose to be Golden Retrievers. I can honestly tell you she has quite proven herself to be part of the Golden Retriever breed. 

As far as the Optigen testing; I think many people do the swab instead of the blood test. I opted for the blood test and while it was more cumbersome to ship (in cooler and overnight) and extra cost at your local vet I wanted the most accurate results. It has been over a year since I did it but if remember correctly Optigen does prefer blood over the swab.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> I rally cannot imagine weekly bathing my dog! I have seen a puppy that at only a couple months old was diagnosed with ITCH by a vet. I can only feel completely sorry for that pup and its family.


I really hoped that you suggested to the vet they do the DNA test, as many times it's actually the more common Seborrhea presenting.



Claudia M said:


> Rose is a carrier so she has no symptoms. But that was one other reason that it would have made finding a suitable stud impossible especially combined with her size.


Wait...so it would have been impossible for you to find a suitable stud because she is a carrier, yet you expect all other breeders to be able to while at the same time not limiting the genepool?


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> How many affected puppies are you willing to take back and raise, bathe weekly, be careful with every little piece of food and treats?


Ask yourself this first before presenting unlikely scenarios for me to answer, how many affecteds need weekly bathing and need to be raised in a bubble when it comes to food and treats?

How much do you know about the condition?

It is clear that no breeder is able to live up to your expectations of how breeding should be done, and you have been able to figure out where breeders have all failed over the past 100+ years. I wish you were in a position to start breeding, so it could all be fixed.


----------



## Bentman2

gdgli said:


> IMO, without trying to sound patronizing, I think that many of us would benefit greatly by trying to learn more about genetics, breeding, and statistics.
> 
> And I see something repeated here that reflects not enough knowledge---What makes you think that breeding proven bloodlines leads to fitness in offspring? Proven in what ways?
> 
> Let me tell you a story about an extremely popular stud that everyone was breeding to from years back. (No I won't divulge the name of the stud.) I mean everyone was using him. Ends up that seizures showed up in offspring and some subsequent generations. And you can only guess at the rumors.


You are exactly right about learning more about genetics, breeding, and statistics. When I was a 2nd year Genetics student at University of Virginia, I had already finished 2 semesters in statistics and several classes in breeding. You can't study and understand genetics and to a lesser degree, breeding, until you have a good base in statistics.


----------



## SheetsSM

Claudia M said:


> I have read some of the older posts (and maybe your opinion has evolved) that you do not consider dogs like Rose to be Golden Retrievers.


I'm not tracking, where did anyone say Rose wasn't a golden retriever?


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> How many affected puppies are you willing to take back and raise, bathe weekly, be careful with every little piece of food and treats?


None. Because no one who would give back their dog just because they had Itch, would not get a puppy from me! I would screen my homes better than that. 


Disclaimer, I not a breeder, but hopefully will be years down the road. And I will take back any puppy for any reason if at all possible. I just can not imagine that would be a reason for anyone to return a puppy...


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> I do not know what the puppy mills produce but so far with all our BYB dogs I have had nothing but pure luck. In health, longevity, temperament and retrieving aptitudes. Rose is still young but so far she has passed every test other than ITCH carrier and will still et the Penn Hip done in a couple years. I have read some of the older posts (and maybe your opinion has evolved) that you do not consider dogs like Rose to be Golden Retrievers. I can honestly tell you she has quite proven herself to be part of the Golden Retriever breed.


Then. Breed. Her. 

I mean it. I seriously think you should breed Rose. You think you can do better, prove it. You can add to the gene pool, while being willing to be very incredibly dedicated to making sure all of the puppies have great lives. You seem to think that everyone else is doing nothing but harm to the breed, but what have you done to better the breed? Granted, you compete with Rose in hunt tests, but that doesn't better the breed if she is never bred. 

You seem to be a very passionate, determined person that is willing to stick your own neck out and take a hit (or hits) for the breed you love. We need that in the breed. 

You want change? Make it happen. 

Sincerely, Hannah.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> I really hoped that you suggested to the vet they do the DNA test, as many times it's actually the more common Seborrhea presenting.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...so it would have been impossible for you to find a suitable stud because she is a carrier, yet you expect all other breeders to be able to while at the same time not limiting the genepool?


 <Originally Posted by *Claudia M*  
_Rose is a carrier so she has no symptoms. But that was *one other* reason that it would have made finding a suitable stud impossible especially *combined with her size.>*_

_Maybe I am a bit more conservative in determining breeding but Rose is missing one molar, she is ITCH carrier and she is 24" tall and 68 pounds. Very proportional otherwise but still out of standard. _

_Considering all that YES I believe it would have been hard to find a suitable stud. _

_If she was in standard I would *never* breed to a carrier or affected. _


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> Then. Breed. Her.
> 
> I mean it. I seriously think you should breed Rose. You think you can do better, prove it. You can add to the gene pool, while being willing to be very incredibly dedicated to making sure all of the puppies have great lives. *You seem to think that everyone else is doing nothing but harm to the breed, but what have you done to better the breed?* Granted, you compete with Rose in hunt tests, but that doesn't better the breed if she is never bred.
> 
> You seem to be a very passionate, determined person that is willing to stick your own neck out and take a hit (or hits) for the breed you love. We need that in the breed.
> 
> You want change? Make it happen.
> 
> Sincerely, Hannah.


Not sure if you followed this thread but I have already done the OSS on Rose. Yes I cried when I did that. 

As far as your question, nowhere did I say or indicate that. I do however say tht the arrogance in breeding carrier to carrier which only leads to more carriers and affected pups therefore spreads the ITCH even further in the gene pool is like playing Russian Roulette. 

Example - out of a litter of 8 pups from Carrier to carrier, 2 MAY be clear while 4 carriers and 2 affected thus spreading the disease. And while some maybe be wiling to wait for ITCH 2 and ITCH 3 I am of the opinion that the problem needs to be solved as close to its infancy as possible thus breeding only clears to carriers and affected to clears. 


And yes there are breeders that would pass with no second thought on a breeding, no matter of their wants or how great the pair may seem. That is in my opinion a reputable breeder.


----------



## Claudia M

SheetsSM said:


> I'm not tracking, where did anyone say Rose wasn't a golden retriever?


http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-polls/78464-prettiest-colour.html

ETA - correction to what SheetsSM stated - I did not say that someone said Rose wasn't a golden retriever. 

This is what is said: 

"dogs *like *Rose to be Golden Retrievers."

And also left room for correction since this was written some years ago.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Example - out of a litter of 8 pups from Carrier to carrier, 2 MAY be clear while 4 carriers and 2 affected thus spreading the disease. And while some maybe be wiling to wait for ITCH 2 and ITCH 3 I am of the opinion that the problem needs to be solved as close to its infancy as possible thus breeding only clears to carriers and affected to clears.


And 8 may be clear with 0 carriers and 0 affecteds. Or all 8 may be carriers. There is no guarenteed outcome, thus baby bath water etc. 

It's not about willing to wait, it is a matter of we are testing our way out of a breed. Once the gene pool is reduced by only breeding to clears, it will happen again once ICT 2 is discovered, causing further reduction. 

Your opinion doesn't jive with what geneticists are telling the breeding community, whom have recommended managing the issue over many generations thus not causing a bottle neck. 

Also, if you wanted it solved as close to infancy as possible you are 100+ years too late.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-polls/78464-prettiest-colour.html
> 
> ETA - correction to what SheetsSM stated - I did not say that someone said Rose wasn't a golden retriever.
> 
> This is what is said:
> 
> "dogs *like *Rose to be Golden Retrievers."
> 
> And also left room for correction since this was written some years ago.



I didn't see anything in that thread about Ross's color. For one, I don't find Rose white.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> And 8 may be clear with 0 carriers and 0 affecteds. Or all 8 may be carriers. There is no guarenteed outcome, thus baby bath water etc.
> 
> I call it Russian Roulette, statistically you will not get all 8 clears!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about willing to wait, it is a matter of we are testing our way out of a breed. Once the gene pool is reduced by only breeding to clears, it will happen again once ICT 2 is discovered, causing further reduction.
> 
> Or if you have more clears in the gene pool then you will not have as many ITCH 2 and 3 and 1001.
> 
> Your opinion doesn't jive with what geneticists are telling the breeding community, whom have recommended managing the issue over many generations thus not causing a bottle neck.
> 
> Also, if you wanted it solved as close to *infancy* as possible you are 100+ years too late.


Maybe I should have said infancy/discovery.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Or if you have more clears in the gene pool then you will not have as many ITCH 2 and 3 and 1001.


Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. They are independent issues, not linked together. There has already been a dog DNA'd clear of ICT, however was symptomatic and upon pathology diagnosed with ICT. That indicates a second type of ICT. 

There are a minimum of 4 types of PRA in our breed. It has been proven that a dog can be a carrier for one type, clear for two others, and affected by the 4th. A test has been developed for 3 of them (prcd_PRA was the first several years ago, then PRA1 followed shortly after, and more recently PRA2 was discovered). The 4th still remains a mystery. In theory, a dog can be affected by multiple types of PRA. 

Example: Breeding a dog clear of PRA1 to a female clear of PRA1, has zero effect on PRA2. Completely different genes.


----------



## Claudia M

True, different mutations but still needed together to get to the bottom of PRA:

"
GR_PRA1 and 2, in combination with the OptiGen prcd-PRA test, enables us to identify nearly all causes of PRA in the breed. Unfortunately, there are still a few cases of PRA in the golden retriever that are caused by as-yet unidentified mutations. These cases will continue to be subject of ongoing PRA research. if you know of any PRA-affected golden retrievers, please encourage the owners to contact OptiGen to learn about our free PRA testing/research program: (http://www.optigen.com/opt9_research.html)
As of July, 2013, frequency of the three known forms of PRA in the breed are as follows:


prcd-PRA: 8% of goldens tested at OptiGen carry the mutation 
GR_PRA1: 5% of goldens tested at OptiGen carry the mutation 
GR_PRA2: 3% of goldens tested at the Animal Health Trust carry the mutation (Many thanks to the researchers at AHT for providing GR_PRA2 statistics.)
 All three mutations are inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. This means that disease will occur only if two copies of the same mutation are present; carriers of one copy of the mutations do not show disease. Similar to planning matings with prcd-PRA and GR_PRA1 in mind, by ensuring that at least one parent is Normal/Clear for GR_PRA2, no GR_PRA2 offspring will be produced. See the chart below for expected breeding outcomes when the GR_PRA2 status (Genotype) has been determined by testing."

OptiGen GR_PRA2 for Golden Retrievers


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> True, different mutations but still needed together to get to the bottom of PRA:
> 
> "
> GR_PRA1 and 2, in combination with the OptiGen prcd-PRA test, enables us to identify nearly all causes of PRA in the breed. Unfortunately, there are still a few cases of PRA in the golden retriever that are caused by as-yet unidentified mutations. These cases will continue to be subject of ongoing PRA research. if you know of any PRA-affected golden retrievers, please encourage the owners to contact OptiGen to learn about our free PRA testing/research program: (http://www.optigen.com/opt9_research.html)
> As of July, 2013, frequency of the three known forms of PRA in the breed are as follows:
> 
> 
> prcd-PRA: 8% of goldens tested at OptiGen carry the mutation
> GR_PRA1: 5% of goldens tested at OptiGen carry the mutation
> GR_PRA2: 3% of goldens tested at the Animal Health Trust carry the mutation (Many thanks to the researchers at AHT for providing GR_PRA2 statistics.)
> All three mutations are inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. This means that disease will occur only if two copies of the same mutation are present; carriers of one copy of the mutations do not show disease. Similar to planning matings with prcd-PRA and GR_PRA1 in mind, by ensuring that at least one parent is Normal/Clear for GR_PRA2, no GR_PRA2 offspring will be produced. See the chart below for expected breeding outcomes when the GR_PRA2 status (Genotype) has been determined by testing."
> 
> OptiGen GR_PRA2 for Golden Retrievers


No, you have interpreted the information incorrectly. The different forms of PRA are not needed together. They are all different genes (hence we have three different DNA tests for them), and do not 'work together' in any way. The different PRA's are different conditions. 

Breeding a PRA1 affected but clear for PRA2 dog with a PRA2 affected but clear of PRA1 female will not produce an affected for either form (nor will offspring magically have a new form of PRA), however the dog will have 1 copy of both the PRA1 and PRA2 gene, thus a carrier for both.

To bring this back to your ICT comment: "if you have more clears in the gene pool then you will not have as many ITCH 2 and 3 and 1001." Having a population of 100% clear PRA1 gene, has zero effect on the PRA2 or prcd_PRA gene within that same population. So, by current appearances, if/when another form of ICT is discovered, those with the (currently mythical) ICT1 will not have an impact on (the mythical) ICT2 (which ties in with the dog that is genetically clear for the current form of ICT yet is still affected via pathology).


----------



## gdgli

tippykayak said:


> Just as a point of fact, OFA research shows that passing elbows produce ED in offspring at about half the rate of failing elbows, so at least some of the factors in ED are very heritable.
> 
> Your statement is probably correct as well, but I wanted to point out that heritability is a huge part of ED.


Thank you for the comment.
I would also like to remind everyone that elbow evaluations are done solely on Xrays, no genetic analysis involved in this evaluation. This only shows phenotype, not genotype. And without me knowing everything about ED, I would also guess that there may very well be other factors and the ED is a secondary condition. For example tendon attachment to bone, muscularity around the joint, etc.

My guess would be that a heritable component is a conclusion drawn from an analysis of frequency of the phenotype in certain lines at best.


----------



## SheetsSM

Claudia M said:


> I do not know what the puppy mills produce but so far with all our BYB dogs I have had nothing but pure luck. In health, longevity, temperament and retrieving aptitudes.


A pet peeve of mine is looking only at offspring. How lucky are the sire & dam that produced the pups? How old was Rose's mom when she had Rose? What health testing has she had completed? How many litters has she now had? What kind of life does she live? How is that breeding program lending to "improving the breed"? As long as one puppy gets a great home does it then make it all worth it?


----------



## TrailDogs

SheetsSM said:


> A pet peeve of mine is looking only at offspring. How lucky are the sire & dam that produced the pups? How old was Rose's mom when she had Rose? What health testing has she had completed? How many litters has she now had? What kind of life does she live? How is that breeding program lending to "improving the breed"? As long as one puppy gets a great home does it then make it all worth it?


I think the bigger question is, how does breeding to win - in any venue - improve the breed? Are we really doing the best for the breed? Considering we don't really have many dual purpose dogs (show and field) in the breed.


----------



## SheetsSM

TrailDogs said:


> I think the bigger question is, how does breeding to win - in any venue - improve the breed? Are we really doing the best for the breed? Considering we don't really have many dual purpose dogs (show and field) in the breed.


Not really worried about that question when I'll make a huge assumption that far more pups are bred without purpose by BYBs and puppy mills as compared to those seeking to breed goldens that excel at [insert sport here]. Goldens being bred at less than a year old, being warehoused outside in all weather conditions, bred every heat cycle, daughter/father type pairings... all in the name of pumping out puppies sold without question to the first person who shows up with the right amount of cash. I think this is doing far more damage to the breed. So we can continue to argue about which sport is "ruining" the breed while the BYBs and puppy mills laugh all the way to the bank happy that the infighting is deflecting any attention off of them.


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> None. Because no one who would give back their dog just because they had Itch, would not get a puppy from me! I would screen my homes better than that.
> 
> 
> Disclaimer, I not a breeder, but hopefully will be years down the road. And I will take back any puppy for any reason if at all possible. I just can not imagine that would be a reason for anyone to return a puppy...


Sorry I missed your post yesterday! 

I do not think it has anything to do with screening homes as much as it has to do with complete full disclosure and complete explanation of what it means for that pup along with pictures on how bad an affected may be. 

I am sure you will find many homes for dogs ITCH affected pups and even worse conditions. 

Since my stomach was killing me last night (too much Christmas food) I had "extra time" to reflect on this. With full prior disclosure I personally would not since I am looking at this as an intentional result. Without prior disclosure I would not return a pup back but would definitely never purchase a pup from said breeder and probably become more of an "ITCH police". 

And one way for full disclosure would be for said breeder if they did breed carrier to carrier would be to have the entire litter tested prior to letting puppies go to the new homes. I am sure the researchers would also appreciate the possibility of testing an entire litter and can only be used in the efforts to improve the breed.


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> Not sure if you followed this thread but I have already done the OSS on Rose. Yes I cried when I did that.


I knew you were considering doing it, but didn't know if you had gone through with it.


----------



## Claudia M

SheetsSM said:


> A pet peeve of mine is looking only at offspring. How lucky are the sire & dam that produced the pups? How old was Rose's mom when she had Rose? What health testing has she had completed? How many litters has she now had? What kind of life does she live? How is that breeding program lending to "improving the breed"? As long as one puppy gets a great home does it then make it all worth it?


Not sure if you missed my post several pages back but I did say that the parents would be tested prior to breeding. Would probably even look into testing siblings before it. 

Yes, definitely more expensive than going with known history but necessary if going that route to add to the gene pool. 

And yes, we have discussed Rose's mom before and you already know the answer that she was bred before she was 2. To my knowledge she had one other breeding since then with the same stud and happen to know a younger full sibling who is just as beautiful, very athletic, wonderful with its human young siblings.

Rose's mom seems to have a very hard time playing in the snow, playing fetch, retrieving chickens in the evenings and putting them in the chicken coup completely unharmed. The last time I have seen her she looks well taken care of, beautiful, energetic and with an amazingly wonderful golden temperament. 

I also happened to see couple pictures of other siblings and they seem (from pictures) quite well adjusted and well taken care of.


----------



## Brave

Claudia M said:


> And one way for full disclosure would be for said breeder if they did breed carrier to carrier would be to have the entire litter tested prior to letting puppies go to the new homes. I am sure the researchers would also appreciate the possibility of testing an entire litter and can only be used in the efforts to improve the breed.



I was just thinking about this idea this morning. Aside from the cost being prohibitive, is there a downside to testing the puppies before they are sold? I think as a perspective buyer, I would respect a breeder more for full disclosure. And we would, theoretically, learn more statically from the influx of data.


----------



## TrailDogs

SheetsSM said:


> Not really worried about that question when I'll make a huge assumption that far more pups are bred without purpose by BYBs and puppy mills as compared to those seeking to breed goldens that excel at [insert sport here]. *Goldens being bred at less than a year old*, being warehoused outside in all weather conditions, *bred every heat cycle, daughter/father type pairings*... all in the name of pumping out puppies sold without question to the first person who shows up with the right amount of cash. I think this is doing far more damage to the breed. So we can continue to argue about which sport is "ruining" the breed while the BYBs and puppy mills laugh all the way to the bank happy that the infighting is deflecting any attention off of them.


Ok, I thought this discussion was about what serious breeders are doing to improve the breed. My mistake. 
Although I will point out that some of the things you mentioned, which I bolded, happen with breeders deemed reputable.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> No, you have interpreted the information incorrectly. The different forms of PRA are not needed together. They are all different genes (hence we have three different DNA tests for them), and do not 'work together' in any way. The different PRA's are different conditions.
> 
> Breeding a PRA1 affected but clear for PRA2 dog with a PRA2 affected but clear of PRA1 female will not produce an affected for either form (nor will offspring magically have a new form of PRA), however the dog will have 1 copy of both the PRA1 and PRA2 gene, thus a carrier for both.
> 
> To bring this back to your ICT comment: "if you have more clears in the gene pool then you will not have as many ITCH 2 and 3 and 1001." Having a population of 100% clear PRA1 gene, has zero effect on the PRA2 or prcd_PRA gene within that same population. So, by current appearances, if/when another form of ICT is discovered, those with the (currently mythical) ICT1 will not have an impact on (the mythical) ICT2 (which ties in with the dog that is genetically clear for the current form of ICT yet is still affected via pathology).


True, different gene mutations and stated that. Do you know if there are any data bases or statistics of how many prcd-PRA are also PRA1 and/or PRA2 and vice versa? 

Reason I ask this, if I remember correctly (Rose has only prcd-PRA and PRA1, PRA2 was not available at the time), prcd-PRA result came in first along with ICT-A (ITCH). I was confused and called to ask why the PRA1 did not come in as well. I was advised that that test was test overseas and should come in shortly but more than likely will also be clear.

Hopefully I will get the PRA2 done as well next year along with the new pup's tests. I believe they do discounts on more than one test/dog. I have not checked into that yet. I did see yesterday that they keep the blood sample on previously tested dogs so I hope at least I do not have to have blood re-drawn on Rose.


----------



## Eowyn

TrailDogs said:


> Ok, I thought this discussion was about what serious breeders are doing to improve the breed. My mistake.
> Although I will point out that some of the things you mentioned, which I bolded, happen with breeders deemed reputable.


I am sorry, but absolutely no breeder I would consider reputable would breed a dog under one year. And I would vehemently disagree with any breeder who did a father/daughter breeding intentionally for any reason.


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> Hopefully I will get the PRA2 done as well next year along with the new pup's tests. I believe they do discounts on more than one test/dog. I have not checked into that yet. I did see yesterday that they keep the blood sample on previously tested dogs so I hope at least I do not have to have blood re-drawn on Rose.


You are getting a puppy? Congratulations and looking forward to seeing pictures!


----------



## SheetsSM

Claudia M said:


> Not sure if you missed my post several pages back but I did say that the parents would be tested prior to breeding. Would probably even look into testing siblings before it.
> 
> Yes, definitely more expensive than going with known history but necessary if going that route to add to the gene pool.
> 
> And yes, we have discussed Rose's mom before and you already know the answer that she was bred before she was 2. To my knowledge she had one other breeding since then with the same stud and happen to know a younger full sibling who is just as beautiful, very athletic, wonderful with its human young siblings.
> 
> Rose's mom seems to have a very hard time playing in the snow, playing fetch, retrieving chickens in the evenings and putting them in the chicken coup completely unharmed. The last time I have seen her she looks well taken care of, beautiful, energetic and with an amazingly wonderful golden temperament.
> 
> I also happened to see couple pictures of other siblings and they seem (from pictures) quite well adjusted and well taken care of.


Still living outside? Glad to hear the siblings appear to have landed in good homes, I know you were worried about placement as you feared had you not "rescued" Rose, she would have ended up in a home being bred.


----------



## Brave

TrailDogs said:


> Ok, I thought this discussion was about what serious breeders are doing to improve the breed. My mistake.
> 
> Although I will point out that some of the things you mentioned, which I bolded, happen with breeders deemed reputable.



I've seen discussions on boys being bred before 2 on prelims by well known breeders. But I haven't heard of either gender being bred under a year old by breeders who are attempting to follow the COE. 

I've heard about back-to-back pregnancies, which is a far cry from being bred every heat cycle of their life. 

Maybe I'm not active enough in the breed to hear about such things. 

I believe there are some close linebreedings (is that the right term?) where father/daughter or grandfather/granddaughter, or mom/son, etc were bred. But is that an educated risk or just folly? Idk what happens with so close a breeding. I've heard of incestual consequences in humans, but from what I understand you need more than one incestual generation for those consequences to surface.


----------



## cubbysan

I live in Missouri, a very big puppy mill state. They have tried to pass laws, with no luck. Believe it or not, most of these times these puppies are sold at pet stores for more than what it costs to get a well bred golden retriever from a reputable breeder. One reason these puppy mills do so well, is the lack of reputable breeders within probably five hours of Kansas City. My club had over 100 puppy referral requests in 2014. I believe last year we had less than 25. There were less than a handful of litters, and figure most of those puppies were going to show or performance homes.

I know a reputable breeder, who has a pet consulting company ( I think that is what you would call it ). She works with vets to improve their businesses, helps them with all kinds of things. She has decades of experience running businesses, breeding goldens, working with a reproduction vet and has family ties to some of the biggest vets around here. 

Her new idea is she has started having seminars for puppy mill / BYB owners. She is teaching them about clearances, about hereditary problems, nutrition, how to build their kennels and how to house the dogs correctly. She figures if we cannot get rid of them, then at least improve them. 

Maybe some of this education for them will help improve the breed, at least for the average pet owner. When she first told me about this, I did not know what to think, but as I have thought about it, I think it is a step in the right direction. I know one of the seminars she had was at a farm and feed store. 

At our club, the public is always invited to the different seminars that we have. Occasionally, we will have families come in that want to hear a health seminar. After introductions, it is very obvious that they are breeders and not the reputable kind. We usually don't see them again, they probably get scared off - but I think just by the fact that they have made the effort, and usually traveled quite a distance to listen to a seminar, they are in the mindset that they want to improve things. 

Not sure how off topic this post has taken things, but I believe the best way to improve the breed is education.


----------



## TrailDogs

Eowyn said:


> I am sorry, but absolutely no breeder I would consider reputable would breed a dog under one year. And I would vehemently disagree with any breeder who did a father/daughter breeding intentionally for any reason.


I also disagree with it but some seem to get a free pass. I have actually learned that on this forum.


----------



## Eowyn

Brave said:


> I've heard about back-to-back pregnancies, which is a far cry from being bred every heat cycle of their life.


Which actually _*is*_ (back to back breedings, not the being bred every cycle) healthier for the girl. Reputable breeders have trouble swallowing it though because if you breed her that quickly in a row you don't have a chance to see how the puppies from previous litters turned out. With breedings spaced a year or longer apart you have a pretty good idea what she is producing, and a lot more info when picking a stud for her second litter. But when puppies are only 8ish months apart you don't have that info. If you have a girl that is producing a high rate of hip dysplasia in her puppies and you are doing back to back breedings, you may not know that until she has had 3 or so litters and is done breeding anyway. 

Ahh, the grey areas of breeding...


----------



## Claudia M

SheetsSM said:


> Still living outside? Glad to hear the siblings appear to have landed in good homes, I know you were worried about placement as you feared had you not "rescued" Rose, she would have ended up in a home being bred.


She is outside quite a lot! Gets much more exercise than Rose does every day(I wish I could stay home all day and be able to take the girls outside more than I do now). To my knowledge she sleeps either in the house or the kennels. And not on a chain in a little dog house as I think you are implying. As a matter of fact Rose's mom has a much better life than Darcy had with her previous owner. I would rather have a dog that runs and has the stamina to be outdoors most of the day than dog kept in a crate with a bark collar on her, doped with Xanax for long periods of time.

Yeah, I am ashamed of thinking that the other girl may have ended up in a breeding program. There were couple other people looking for a girl and Rose was one of the only two girls. I learned the hard way that there are more reasons people look for a girl pup and not just for breeding purposes. 

Yes, it is embarrassing to admit it. And it was even more embarrassing to see what a good home the other girl has.

I respect the fact that you work with rescue dogs (I really do) and that you probably see an ugly part of the health of this breed. That ugly part also happens with the well bred dogs with the difference that the homes are better screened. 

I have a friend who is looking for a pet golden puppy, she has had goldens all her life and lost her golden not long ago. I have tried to do the right thing and direct her to reputable breeders; except none had the decency to return calls and emails. It has been over two months now. 

So maybe one way to "improve the breed" would also be to be more open to pet home owners and be a little more responsive to their needs. I get it that performance households take priority. Also sometimes the general public gets discouraged by performance breeders - some think they will be expected to perform with the pups, some think that they have too much drive and would be hard to handle (just had this conversation with a lady looking for al lab).


----------



## Claudia M

cubbysan said:


> I live in Missouri, a very big puppy mill state. They have tried to pass laws, with no luck. Believe it or not, most of these times these puppies are sold at pet stores for more than what it costs to get a well bred golden retriever from a reputable breeder. One reason these puppy mills do so well, is the lack of reputable breeders within probably five hours of Kansas City. My club had over 100 puppy referral requests in 2014. I believe last year we had less than 25. There were less than a handful of litters, and figure most of those puppies were going to show or performance homes.
> 
> I know a reputable breeder, who has a pet consulting company ( I think that is what you would call it ). She works with vets to improve their businesses, helps them with all kinds of things. She has decades of experience running businesses, breeding goldens, working with a reproduction vet and has family ties to some of the biggest vets around here.
> 
> Her new idea is she has started having seminars for puppy mill / BYB owners. She is teaching them about clearances, about hereditary problems, nutrition, how to build their kennels and how to house the dogs correctly. *She figures if we cannot get rid of them, then at least improve them.*
> 
> Maybe some of this education for them will help improve the breed, at least for the average pet owner. When she first told me about this, I did not know what to think, but as I have thought about it, I think it is a step in the right direction. I know one of the seminars she had was at a farm and feed store.
> 
> At our club, the public is always invited to the different seminars that we have. Occasionally, we will have families come in that want to hear a health seminar. After introductions, it is very obvious that they are breeders and not the reputable kind. We usually don't see them again, they probably get scared off - but I think just by the fact that they have made the effort, and usually traveled quite a distance to listen to a seminar, they are in the mindset that they want to improve things.
> 
> *Not sure how off topic this post has taken things, but I believe the best way to improve the breed is education.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! Not just the bolded areas but this entire post is awesome.


----------



## gdgli

cubbysan


Nice program. Education is a good thing.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> True, different gene mutations and stated that. Do you know if there are any data bases or statistics of how many prcd-PRA are also PRA1 and/or PRA2 and vice versa?
> 
> Reason I ask this, if I remember correctly (Rose has only prcd-PRA and PRA1, PRA2 was not available at the time), prcd-PRA result came in first along with ICT-A (ITCH). I was confused and called to ask why the PRA1 did not come in as well. I was advised that that test was test overseas and should come in shortly but more than likely will also be clear.
> 
> Hopefully I will get the PRA2 done as well next year along with the new pup's tests. I believe they do discounts on more than one test/dog. I have not checked into that yet. I did see yesterday that they keep the blood sample on previously tested dogs so I hope at least I do not have to have blood re-drawn on Rose.


I do not know of anyone that has kept stats on who carries more than one type of PRA, as that really isn't important when collecting data, rather just the results of each specific test. You can look through GoldenDNA.org: Recording DNA Test Results for Golden Retrievers and see what you find. 

I personally know of a couple dogs that are carriers of more than one type of PRA, but since they are not mine I will not post their link.

Optigen offers specific discount days, multi-test discounts (on the same dog) as well as litter discounts. Keep your eye on the website. They offer a discount during the GRCA National.

If Optigen did indeed tell you your bitch is 'most likely clear' of PRA1 before obtaining the results, that was an irresponsible comment to make on their part. There is no indication your bitch is clear of PRA1 based on being clear of prcd-PRA.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> I do not know of anyone that has kept stats on who carries more than one type of PRA, as that really isn't important when collecting data, rather just the results of each specific test. You can look through GoldenDNA.org: Recording DNA Test Results for Golden Retrievers and see what you find.
> 
> .......


Thank you for the above link. I was not aware of it. Great tool and also like the fact that you have to submit results in before being posted. Avoids possibility of erroneous information (such as someone else than the owner being able to add or edit a dog).


----------



## Claudia M

Ch. Haulstone Dan, 1927 | Canis lupus hominis

Not sure if this was posted on GRF before. Funny how we now call the goldens that actually look like this: "field goldens"


----------



## Megora

Let's be perfectly honest.... I don't think I would immediately think golden (much less field) if I saw a dog who looked like this. 

This is the problem with going all the way back practically 100 years to compare goldens back then to what are shown in conformation rings right now. Back then you had the bare roots of the breed - and there was still a strong relation to some other breeds. Among else (as well), you did not have a singular type product showing in the ring. I've seen pictures of a lot of different champions from those early years and they did not have a very singular look like we have now where goldens are said to be very typey.

Furthermore, I guess my thing is that if people do not like what the breed looks like today... they probably are better off sticking with the breeds that they prefer instead of trying to mash multiple breeds together so they have the same look and style.


----------



## K9-Design

Very attractive dog ---- put some blonde hair on him and I've got one that looks just like him laying under my desk, with a 5 point specialty major from the puppy classes -- they exist -- you just have to not judge a dog by its HAIR!!!!!!!


----------



## SheetsSM

Field goldens are "field" goldens based on pedigree not based on looks.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> Ch. Haulstone Dan, 1927 | Canis lupus hominis
> 
> Not sure if this was posted on GRF before. Funny how we now call the goldens that actually look like this: "field goldens"


So, this is posted just to once again incite the "field vs conformation" Israeli vs Palestinian argument that has no end, just after it finally died out. What do we call it when people post things that stir the pot on other websites?


----------



## Megora

K9-Design said:


> Very attractive dog ---- put some blonde hair on him and I've got one that looks just like him laying under my desk, with a 5 point specialty major from the puppy classes -- they exist -- you just have to not judge a dog by its HAIR!!!!!!!


His muzzle doesn't look like that though....  I guess I'm the only one who can't look past the dog's nose.

Just for fun, the following 5 snippets are taken from 5 different retriever breeds. I think we all are familiar enough with the golden retriever breed standard so as to recognize the wording. But it is interesting to compare to the other breeds - and it explains certain differences between the breeds as far as head and expression. 

*(1) Skull and Muzzle*-The impression of the skull and muzzle being "cast in one piece" is created by the fairly flat skull of moderate breadth and flat, clean cheeks, combined with the long, strong, deep muzzle which is well filled in before, between and beneath the eyes. Viewed from above, the muzzle is nearly equal in length and breadth to the skull. _Stop_-There is a gradual, slight, barely perceptible stop, avoiding a down or dish-faced appearance. Brows are slightly raised and mobile, giving life to the expression. Stop must be evaluated in profile so that it will not be confused with the raised brow. _Occiput _not accentuated, the skull forming a gentle curve where it fits well into the neck. *Expression* alert, intelligent and kind. *Eyes* are set widely apart. Medium sized, almond shaped, dark brown or hazel; not large, round or yellow. Eye rims are self-colored and tight

(2) Broad in *skull*, slightly arched laterally and longitudinally without prominence of frontal bones (forehead) or occipital bones. Stop well defined but not abrupt. Foreface deep and wide, nearly as long as skull. *Muzzle* straight in profile, blending smooth and strongly into skull; when viewed in profile or from above, slightly deeper and wider at stop than at tip. No heaviness in flews. Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred. *Eyes* friendly and intelligent in expression, medium large with dark, close-fitting rims, set well apart and reasonably deep in sockets. Color preferably dark brown; medium brown acceptable. Slant eyes and narrow, triangular eyes detract from correct expression and are to be faulted.

(3) The *head* is a longer-than-wide wedge, readily distinguishable from that of all other retriever breeds, and of a size in balance with the body. Length of foreface is equal, or nearly equal, to length of backskull and, when viewed in profile, the planes are parallel. The stop is shallow and sloping. At the point of joining, the width of foreface may be slightly less than the width of the backskull but blending of the two should be smooth. The head has a nearly straight, continuous taper to the nose and is clean cut, not coarse, blocky or cheeky. *Expression*

(4)Should have an intelligent expression. *Eyes* are to be medium large, very clear, of yellowish or amber color and wide apart. *Ears* are to be small, set well up on the head, hanging loosely, and of medium leather. *Skull* is broad and round with a medium stop. Nose is medium short. *Muzzle*is approximately the same length as the skull, tapered, pointed but not sharp. Lips are thin, not pendulous

(5) The skull should be wide; well developed but without exaggeration. The skull and foreface should be on parallel planes and of approximately equal length. There should be a moderate stop-the brow slightly pronounced so that the skull is not absolutely in a straight line with the nose. The brow ridges aid in defining the stop. The *head* should be clean-cut and free from fleshy cheeks; the bony structure of the skull chiseled beneath the eye with no prominence in the cheek. The skull may show some median line; the occipital bone is not conspicuous in mature dogs. Lips should not be squared off or pendulous, but fall away in a curve toward the throat. A wedge-shape head, or a head long and narrow in muzzle and back skull is incorrect as are massive, cheeky heads. The jaws are powerful and free from snippiness- the *muzzle* neither long and narrow nor short and stubby. Nose-The nose should be wide and the nostrils well-developed.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Megora said:


> Let's be perfectly honest.... I don't think I would immediately think golden (much less field) if I saw a dog who looked like this.
> 
> This is the problem with going all the way back practically 100 years to compare goldens back then to what are shown in conformation rings right now. Back then you had the bare roots of the breed - and there was still a strong relation to some other breeds. Among else (as well), you did not have a singular type product showing in the ring. I've seen pictures of a lot of different champions from those early years and they did not have a very singular look like we have now where goldens are said to be very typey.
> 
> Furthermore, I guess my thing is that if people do not like what the breed looks like today... they probably are better off sticking with the breeds that they prefer instead of trying to mash multiple breeds together so they have the same look and style.



Not only was breed type not set, it seems the gene pool was not even yet closed. From the article "The Eccleses’ breeding program was quite notable because of their experimental outcrossing to FT. CH. Haylers Defender, a yellow Labrador." A quick look at k9data indicates this dog wasn't from a mixed breeding, but it says to me that the breed had not yet fully emerged as a separate entity at this point in history if breeders were still trying to bring in influence from other breeds. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## gdgli

Megora said:


> Let's be perfectly honest.... I don't think I would immediately think golden (much less field) if I saw a dog who looked like this.
> 
> This is the problem with going all the way back practically 100 years to compare goldens back then to what are shown in conformation rings right now. Back then you had the bare roots of the breed - and there was still a strong relation to some other breeds. Among else (as well), you did not have a singular type product showing in the ring. I've seen pictures of a lot of different champions from those early years and they did not have a very singular look like we have now where goldens are said to be very typey.
> 
> Furthermore, I guess my thing is that if people do not like what the breed looks like today... they probably are better off sticking with the breeds that they prefer instead of trying to mash multiple breeds together so they have the same look and style.


Definitely a Field Golden. 
I am curious, how do the Field Goldens you have seen differ from Ch. Haulstone Dan?


----------



## gdgli

K9-Design said:


> Very attractive dog ---- put some blonde hair on him and I've got one that looks just like him laying under my desk, with a 5 point specialty major from the puppy classes -- they exist -- you just have to not judge a dog by its HAIR!!!!!!!


That sounds like a nice compliment for the boy.


----------



## K9-Design

gdgli said:


> Definitely a Field Golden.
> I am curious, how do the Field Goldens you have seen differ from Ch. Haulstone Dan?



Modern field goldens would typically have finer bone, longer leg, smaller ear, longer, finer body. Haulstone Dan is a very standard, typey golden retriever in my eye. You can find dogs like him today in the ring and field. You have got to look past coat.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

K9-Design said:


> Modern field goldens would typically have finer bone, longer leg, smaller ear, longer, finer body. Haulstone Dan is a very standard, typey golden retriever in my eye. You can find dogs like him today in the ring and field. You have got to look past coat.



I think the hardest part for someone like me (who does not have a very well trained eye) -besides looking past his coat - is that there's nothing in the photo that offers an idea of scale. I appreciate your description of what someone with strong knowledge of structure and the standard sees. 

Julie and he boys


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> Let's be perfectly honest.... I don't think I would immediately think golden (much less field) if I saw a dog who looked like this.
> Furthermore, I guess my thing is that if people do not like what the breed looks like today... they probably are better off sticking with the breeds that they prefer instead of trying to mash multiple breeds together so they have the same look and style.


I would absolutely think Golden. And the dog in the photo does look like many goldens of today.
Lucky for all of us that the current golden has a broad range of looks so we can all be happy with what we have.


----------



## Driggsy

Just wanted to say thank you to the many folks who have lent their knowledge and opinions to this thread. I have learned a great deal - not about conflict in the GR world, about genetics and what good breeders try to do. 

I don't compete in either conformation or field, so it's easy for me to say, but to my mind the split betwen those two among GRs is not nearly as bad as in a few other breeds. Maybe less "Israel vs Palestine", more "Red Sox vs Yankees" 

I hope we never see a Golden on the cover of the NYT magazine with the title, "Can the Golden Retriever Be Saved?". I don't know how a breed gets to that point, or how deep divisions among breed fanciers develop, but I'm encouraged by all the thoughtful people who love the breed and who approach breeding in a thoughtful way.


----------



## Megora

I'll say that reverting to "looks" is a very easy way of bypassing the discussion on health. Namely cancer. Something that you will find across the board in this breed. And some breeders do more than others as far as avoiding cancer (as in early cancer) heavy breedings.... something you can't really do if you do not know the pedigrees or are unable to talk to people behind a dog.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Very attractive dog ---- put some blonde hair on him and I've got one that looks just like him laying under my desk, with a 5 point specialty major from the puppy classes -- they exist -- you just have to not judge a dog by its HAIR!!!!!!!


 Very nice. I was not looking at the HAIR! Even though it is quite nice. More looking at stature and structure. 

On a different blog a person posted a picture of a dog today similar to this and it was interesting to read that some people did not know the breed or some referred to it as a field golden. It is JUST A GOLDEN.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Modern field goldens would typically have finer bone, longer leg, smaller ear, longer, finer body. *Haulstone Dan is a very standard, typey golden retriever in my eye.* *You can find dogs like him today in the ring and field.* You have got to look past coat.


.............Agreed!


----------



## kwhit

Driggsy said:


> ...I hope we never see a Golden on the cover of the NYT magazine with the title, "Can the Golden Retriever Be Saved?". I don't know how a breed gets to that point, or how deep divisions among breed fanciers develop, but I'm encouraged by all the thoughtful people who love the breed and who approach breeding in a thoughtful way.


It's not just Goldens, the same thing goes on within the Border Collie world...working vs. show. It's been that way for years and I'm sure many other breeds are the same way. I think it's just the way it is when a breed "works"...


----------



## Driggsy

wow, the difference between the working BCs and the BCs in the show ring is amazing! some of that is grooming of course, but still...


----------



## TrailDogs

Driggsy said:


> wow, the difference between the working BCs and the BCs in the show ring is amazing! some of that is grooming of course, but still...[/QUOTE
> 
> No it is not just grooming, they truly are very different animals. And they do come in a rough coat or a short coat. Either is acceptable.
> The working border collie groups fought against acceptance into the AKC because they knew this would happen. Here is a link that somewhat explains it.
> AKC Versus the Border Collie


----------



## K9-Design

BCs were "split" show vs. work long before AKC got in the picture. 
In cases of theirs, it was blame the show rather than blame the breeders. Peer pressure from within is the only way to "MAKE" someone breed a better dog. Instead of trying to seek a common goal and educate (like the GRCA), they split it and quit it! Oh well. I can appreciate all types of BCs like I can all types of Goldens.


----------



## Brave

TrailDogs said:


> No it is not just grooming, they truly are very different animals. And they do come in a rough coat or a short coat. Either is acceptable.
> The working border collie groups fought against acceptance into the AKC because they knew this would happen. Here is a link that somewhat explains it.
> AKC Versus the Border Collie



Yep. And be very careful with their owners/handlers/breeders. They do not take kindly to those on the other spectrum. I got my head bitten off by a handler with working BCs when I asked if she planned on showing her two dogs. Mind you, we were in obedience training but she took it to mean conformation shows and she lit into me. Oh boy!


----------



## TrailDogs

Brave said:


> Yep. And be very careful with their owners/handlers/breeders. They do not take kindly to those on the other spectrum. I got my head bitten off by a handler with working BCs when I asked if she planned on showing her two dogs. Mind you, we were in obedience training but she took it to mean conformation shows and she lit into me. Oh boy!


That is funny!


----------



## hollyk

K9-Design said:


> Modern field goldens would typically have finer bone, longer leg, smaller ear, longer, finer body. Haulstone Dan is a very standard, typey golden retriever in my eye. You can find dogs like him today in the ring and field. You have got to look past coat.


I always appreciate in litter announcements when there are photos of the Sire and Dam stacked when they are wet. Helps me see past the coat.


----------



## gdgli

Mostly absent from this discussion is improving the breed for it's hunting qualities---water attitude, drive, etc. 


Just sayin'.


----------



## Megora

gdgli said:


> Mostly absent from this discussion is improving the breed for it's hunting qualities---water attitude, drive, etc.


I think this was part of the discussion of that other thread where hunting qualities and drive defined by mood swing seemingly was by turns a dog having interest in retrieving dead birds to dogs needing to be working dynamos in field tests (insert derogatory reference to what conformation dogs do in field tests). LOL.  

It's been all talked out to infinity.


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> Mostly absent from this discussion is improving the breed for it's hunting qualities---water attitude, drive, etc.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.


So please feel free to add to the discussion. But please don't make this a field vs. conformation argument again. Good luck!


----------



## Brave

gdgli said:


> Mostly absent from this discussion is improving the breed for it's hunting qualities---water attitude, drive, etc.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.



Can you elaborate more on what exactly you're looking for or at? What kind of water attitude do you want? What does it look like? Same for drive. 

I'm trying to understand the criteria so I can see where we might improve.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

gdgli said:


> Mostly absent from this discussion is improving the breed for it's hunting qualities---water attitude, drive, etc.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.



Those particulars haven't been discussed, though I highly suspect it has a lot to do with the way ability in the field as a blanket topic was used to attack a particular style of golden early on in the thread. As you can see from the last few responses, it's left many a bit gun shy (no pun intended) about raising the topic for fear of things again taking an ugly turn. I think those are important aspects that bear discussion in a thread like this so hopefully the current tone of the thread can be maintained. I second Brave's request for your insights about what you are seeing and are not seeing in the field as I think it would be a great starting point of the discussion of those of us who are, perhaps, more limited in our experience (by years, number of dogs, or just general exposure to the venue). 

Julie and the boys


----------



## DanaRuns

I'd like to bring up a different subject which, I hope, will go in a different direction: the importance (or not) of lowering COIs to improve the breed.

Breeders have a constant cost-benefit tug-of-war between COI and uniformity. When the COI is zero, fitness is at its maximum and prepotency and uniformity are at their lowest. As inbreeding increases, variation in the offspring goes down but so does fitness. One of the problems that we are seeing very commonly in Goldens is inbreeding depression -- reduced number of puppies in a litter, reduced vigor, increases in things like allergies, early cancers, etc. Following is some information paraphrased from "The Costs and Benefits of Inbreeding" from the Institute of Canine Biology (with which several people here should be familiar).

Here is data on litter size of 6 breeds of dogs from the records of the Swedish Kennel Club. Goldens are in blue The first thing I would warn about is that these are probably 10 generation COIs, which are likely to underestimate the true COI especially for breeds that have been around for a while, like Goldens. So understand that the placement of these lines relative to each other and the X axis is not likely to be the "truth".










The slopes of these lines tell us what this "cost-benefit" ratio is. For these breeds, including Goldens, those slopes are about 0.1, which means that an increase in inbreeding of 10% reduces litter size by about 1. If normal litter size is about 6, a COI of 30% (which is rare but not unheard of in Goldens) would reduce the litter size by HALF. That is half as many offspring from which to choose your "pick", and on top of this realize that these puppies will have reduced fitness - they are likely to be less vigorous, have more birth defects and higher mortality, grow more slowly, have shorter lifespans, and of course increased incidence of genetic disorders caused by recessive mutations.

Evidence of inbreeding depression and the other consequences of inbreeding are very evident - singletons or small litters, high rates of cancer in young dogs, allergies, and many other issues that seem to be "normal" in the breeding of Goldens these days.

So how much inbreeding is too much?


----------



## gdgli

Brave said:


> Can you elaborate more on what exactly you're looking for or at? What kind of water attitude do you want? What does it look like? Same for drive.
> 
> I'm trying to understand the criteria so I can see where we might improve.


OK, I will take this as a serious question and will try to answer it without prejudice. For water work, Goldens don't have a good reputation. Ask any field trialer, Goldens lose it at the water. Now I must also tell you that I am a hunt test judge. Many Golden retrievers that I judge look poor around the water. However it may be a regional thing. Goldens in a field trial look better but they are not your average Golden, they are being trialed because they have shown some talent. What I consider a good water attitude is one where the dog enters the water without any hesitation, not missing a step, and swims well to the bird. This does not mean the dog must launch or be a flyer, or be fast, just go in without any pause.

As far as drive goes, the dog should be focused entirely on his job. This focus, IMO, is not a trained quality but an inherent one. Nothing will stop the dog from getting his bird. The dog does not stop to sniff something on the way and the dog will not stop to eat a sandwich that someone has dropped. Again, IMO, cover has no effect on this dog, the dog will drive right through, over, or under obstacles to get his bird. That is what I consider drive.

If we as Golden owners want to really find out how our dogs look as hunting dogs, just ask the owner-hunter of a Lab why he doesn't own a Golden.


----------



## Brave

gdgli said:


> OK, I will take this as a serious question and will try to answer it without prejudice. For water work, Goldens don't have a good reputation. Ask any field trialer, Goldens lose it at the water. Now I must also tell you that I am a hunt test judge. Many Golden retrievers that I judge look poor around the water. However it may be a regional thing. Goldens in a field trial look better but they are not your average Golden, they are being trialed because they have shown some talent. What I consider a good water attitude is one where the dog enters the water without any hesitation, not missing a step, and swims well to the bird. This does not mean the dog must launch or be a flyer, or be fast, just go in without any pause.
> 
> As far as drive goes, the dog should be focused entirely on his job. This focus, IMO, is not a trained quality but an inherent one. Nothing will stop the dog from getting his bird. The dog does not stop to sniff something on the way and the dog will not stop to eat a sandwich that someone has dropped. Again, IMO, cover has no effect on this dog, the dog will drive right through, over, or under obstacles to get his bird. That is what I consider drive.
> 
> If we as Golden owners want to really find out how our dogs look as hunting dogs, just ask the owner-hunter of a Lab why he doesn't own a Golden.



Thank you for taking my post seriously. I don't know if I've said something to make you think otherwise, but I am very serious about developing and maintaining dialogue between people. 

Does this water attitude need to be a born instinct? Or can it be trainable? I ask because my own boy (who in all fairness is a mix) was hesitant around and in water. Until he was trained. Now he plows into water after a ball regardless of temperature, clarity, depth, etc. But it took some training and practice to get him comfortable in water. 

Below is him dock diving for the first time ever. This was only the second time he went swimming (meaning actual swimming in deep water). 









If it's a training thing, I don't see how we can use this as a means of improving the breed. I can understand breeding dogs who show exceptional fearlessness around the water, with no training. Because that speaks to me that the drive overcomes sensibility. 

I wonder if there could be such a thing as too much drive. Where the dog gets so wound up around birds, that it loses its off switch. I've seen dogs with so much drive jump 10 ft fences, and run out into traffic cause they caught sight of a pigeon. 

I'm not saying drive isn't important. But, IMO, it comes back to balance and moderation. 

As for asking a hunter why they have a lab instead of a golden, maybe it's my family, but they purchase retrievers out of convenience. And they've had Goldens as well as labs. I'd be happy to ask my uncle why his last dog was a lab, but it'll need to wait a bit since he just lost the dog tragically and I don't want to open that wound. 

My childhood golden was originally adopted as a hunting prospect for my Dad. But my Dad wasn't around enough to build a relationship with him, and though he was biddable in most cases, he wasn't biddable to strangers. And after being beaten by his former owners with a garden hose, he abhorred cold water. 

^^ in that anecdote, it speaks more towards socialization and training than to an inherent desire/drive. 

It's a hard line to straddle, IMO, keeping the dog a good hunting partner while still allowing them to be good pets. The dog would need to be able to turn the drive off (or at least mute it) for its own safety and the sanity of the owner during non-hunting situations. 

Thanks again for providing some insight into what you want to see. I really appreciate your response.

Eta- it occurred to me as I was re-reading my post; could there be a correlation between drive and biddability? Where they are inversely proportional? High drive = low biddability. And vice versa?


----------



## Megora

Before an old thread where Shelly explained to me what actually happens in a field test.... my opinion having owned goldens for most of my life was they are born retrievers or are easily trained retrievers (because of desire to please). And then while I admittedly don't see a lot of water courage in very young puppies, by the time they are a year old you see these dogs swimming their minds out. My two boys I have now have been known to paddle across fairly sizable ponds while searching for thrown sticks that sank and I've joked about them having newfie in them because at least one of the lakes I use the most to exercise the dogs is also a lake used by people training for triathlons (meaning they are swimming straight across lakes and back). Both my boys have to be kept close because they've gone swimming out to follow swimmers across the lake and check on them. 

And of course they've gone swimming in the great lakes which can be daunting for some dogs because of the waves. I don't necessarily push them out too far into the water out of concern they can get caught up out there, but they are strong and brave swimmers when it comes to going out there and fetching whatever even when it goes out further than I intended. 
So my perspective has always been - these are water dogs. They go from sleeping in water dishes as puppies to happily swimming out to the horizon if allowed. 

But big difference though is that by the time my dogs are really into swimming and going out and beyond, I've already imprinted them to stay close to me (which is absolutely necessary for hiking purposes). Which means that their first inclination if they've forgotten what they are doing out there or lost track of where a retrieve item went or they think they've gone too far away from me - is they've been trained to turn around and come back to check in on me. 

I think this can be worked through if Bertie knows he is working and I really work on it. But that perspective of sending a dog out a good distance and expecting him to work fairly independent of me, it isn't something I've encouraged while training both Bertie and Jacks. 

So my point is in the hands of somebody who has not spent the dog's lifetime training for field tests or things like that, there's some counter productive stuff that has to be figured out.

@lab people - I've said before and will again. LOL. You have people out there who had labs and always will have labs. I have friends who jokingly refer to labs being a "manly dog". And I'll go further and say I'd rather people buy labs and go hunting with them rather than buy goldens and whine about how much they wish goldens were more like labs.


----------



## Vhuynh2

I think there is a huge difference between a dog loving to swim for fun vs a dog who will re-enter water for a double or a triple retrieve without hesitation. A dog jumping in the water after a ball being thrown out a few yards is not the same as a dog watching three birds go down 60-100 yards away, not visible, over points of land, etc, and retrieving #2 and especially #3 without hesitation. Of course, it helps if your dog loves to swim for fun. That's my beginner's perspective.


----------



## Brave

Vhuynh2 said:


> I think there is a huge difference between a dog loving to swim for fun vs a dog who will re-enter water for a double or a triple retrieve without hesitation. A dog jumping in the water after a ball being thrown out a few yards is not the same as a dog watching three birds go down 60-100 yards away, not visible, over points of land, etc, and retrieving #2 and especially #3 without hesitation. Of course, it helps if your dog loves to swim for fun. That's my beginner's perspective.



For clarification a double or a triple retrieve would be 2 or 3 birds, respectively, shot down (or cannoned out) consecutively while the dog remains in a stay, and the dog is released to retrieve each bird one at a time? Having to remember where each fell even though many minutes may have passed between when he saw them go down and when he's retrieving them. Correct?


----------



## Megora

I think it helps if the dogs are strong swimmers, good lungs, good legs, and have the stamina to keep going out there. <- I've seen my dogs swimming 200-300 feet easily just for fun retrieves. And going well farther than that while searching or so on. And we've done multiple retrieves (with Jacks he remembers where the other bumper or stick landed, but Bertie still tries to gather them all at once LOL). But you are talking about them seeing what they are going after or searching for it. It's not the same thing as what Shelly and others described to me as far as these dogs going out there and searching independently without coming back in for reminders.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Brave said:


> For clarification a double or a triple retrieve would be 2 or 3 birds, respectively, shot down (or cannoned out) consecutively while the dog remains in a stay, and the dog is released to retrieve each bird one at a time? Having to remember where each fell even though many minutes may have passed between when he saw them go down and when he's retrieving them. Correct?



Yes you are correct. In master the dog might have to pick up the blind before getting to the marks. Sounds downright impossible for Miss Molly right now.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Megora said:


> I think it helps if the dogs are strong swimmers, good lungs, good legs, and have the stamina to keep going out there. <- I've seen my dogs swimming 200-300 feet easily just for fun retrieves. And going well farther than that while searching or so on. And we've done multiple retrieves (with Jacks he remembers where the other bumper or stick landed, but Bertie still tries to gather them all at once LOL). But you are talking about them seeing what they are going after or searching for it. It's not the same thing as what Shelly and others described to me as far as these dogs going out there and searching independently without coming back in for reminders.



I think you're talking about a blind? I have never done a water triple with Molly but we have done water blinds. I believe they both require water courage, but I am too new at this stuff to say any more!!


----------



## Brave

Vhuynh2 said:


> Yes you are correct. In master the dog might have to pick up the blind before getting to the marks. Sounds downright impossible for Miss Molly right now.



Thanks! And a blind is a bird fallen where the dog cannot see it? So it has to literally sniff/hunt it out? 

I meant no disrespect in my post, and hope it wasn't taken to mean disrespect. 

So what inheritable traits is the breed missing to make their water attitude better? Is it more drive? Higher intelligence? (This is generally speaking, I'm not calling anyone's dog unintelligent). More stamina? 

What makes the dog not want to go back into the water a second or third time? What makes it harder for a golden to retrieve a blind then it does a lab?


----------



## Vhuynh2

Brave said:


> Thanks! And a blind is a bird fallen where the dog cannot see it? So it has to literally sniff/hunt it out?
> 
> I meant no disrespect in my post, and hope it wasn't taken to mean disrespect.
> 
> So what inheritable traits is the breed missing to make their water attitude better? Is it more drive? Higher intelligence? (This is generally speaking, I'm not calling anyone's dog unintelligent). More stamina?
> 
> What makes the dog not want to go back into the water a second or third time? What makes it harder for a golden to retrieve a blind then it does a lab?



The dog has to take the handler's directions to get to the blind in (ideally) a straight line. Sniffing or hunting is not allowed. At least, it is discouraged in training for hunt tests. No idea how real hunting is like.


----------



## DanaRuns

(ETA: Oh my, I'm responding to an old post.)

Megora, I'm with you on the water thing. I think it's innate in the breed. I suppose some don't have it, but every one I've ever known has. 

I lived on a boat when I got a Golden puppy. That poor pup fell off the dock into the water and panicked at 9 weeks old, and she didn't want to go in water ever again, after that. Until one day, she did. I was swimming off an island and she was on shore, and the thought of me leaving her must have been scarier than the thought of the water, and she swam out to me. From that moment on she was a swimmer. Fastforward a year, and she began working with the Coast Guard in water rescue and recovery. When fully trained, she would fearlessly leap off Coast Guard vessels in water too rough for people, and rescue people (or retrieve their bodies), and was in the local paper for heroism more than once. She simply had "it" for water, and her early bad experience was eventually overwhelmed by her instinct.

This was no specially bred dog. She was just an average Golden who happened to do extraordinary things. I think it's pretty hard to breed love of water and water courage out of Goldens. I don't really think that's a big problem for the breed.



Megora said:


> @lab people - ...I'd rather people buy labs and go hunting with them rather than buy goldens and whine about how much they wish goldens were more like labs.


LOL! Amen.


----------



## Brave

Vhuynh2 said:


> The dog has to take the handler's directions to get to the blind in (ideally) a straight line. Sniffing or hunting is not allowed. At least, it is discouraged in training for hunt tests. No idea how real hunting is like.



How do you communicate distance to the dog? 

Thanks for answering my questions. This is a fascinating subject.


----------



## Brave

DanaRuns said:


> Megora, I'm with you on the water thing. I think it's innate in the breed. I suppose some don't have it, but every one I've ever known has.
> 
> I think it's pretty hard to breed love of water and water courage out of Goldens. I don't really think that's a big problem for the breed.



So if this innate, leading credit to it inheritable, what do we do going forward? Endure all breeding dogs are in fact water dogs before breeding? Couldn't this fall into that grey area where a more driven dog could lend its drive to the offspring of a less driven dog?


----------



## Vhuynh2

I wish I could point you towards a good article that explains a blind retrieve. I don't know of any, but maybe someone else does. 

This is oversimplified, but you line your dog up in the direction if the blind, send him, and if the dog goes off course you whistle to stop the dog (dog sits facing you) and use arm signals to direct the dog where to go.


----------



## Loisiana

DanaRuns said:


> I think it's pretty hard to breed love of water and water courage out of Goldens. I don't really think that's a big problem for the breed.


I don't know, I've seen quite a few examples in the little bit of field work I've done. More often from goldens from conformation lines, but to be fair I also witnessed it at a JH test from a golden from field lines sired by a popular FC AFC golden. You often hear breeders talk about water courage when making breeding decisions, I get the impression it's a pretty big deal that is being worked on.

Out of my own 4 dogs, my first was from a backyard breeder and I never could get her interested in swimming, she never wanted to do more than wade in water. My second golden was also from a backyard breeder and he does like to swim and if he only has fairy simple water marks then you wouldn't see the lack of water courage, but as the water gets more difficult he would give up.

My third dog is a combination of field and conformation lines from a reputable breeder and he loves water and I've never seen him have any water related issues. My fourth dog, from the same breeder but more field lines, I'm pretty sure has gills under his coat. My trainers continually remark on how much he loves water.


----------



## Claudia M

Brave said:


> How do you communicate distance to the dog?
> 
> Thanks for answering my questions. This is a fascinating subject.


I am trying not to post any public videos of goldens.

Here is an instructional video on casting on land. The same is with water. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faJ6wW1tXzs


----------



## DanaRuns

Brave said:


> So if this innate, leading credit to it inheritable, what do we do going forward? Endure all breeding dogs are in fact water dogs before breeding? Couldn't this fall into that grey area where a more driven dog could lend its drive to the offspring of a less driven dog?


You're going to get better answers to this from people who are actively doing it, but I'll add my thoughts.

I think the focus of your question is slightly off. My guess is that rather than focus on water, the focus should be more on courage and prey drive. Your average Golden has enough water aptitude, I think. But dogs differ as to how courageous or timid they are, and how interested/determined they are in making the retrieve. My own take would be that breeding for courage/confidence and desire/drive are more important than breeding for love of water. Goldens love water, and aside from some BYB dogs, I don't see any responsible breeder (even those horrible conformation breeders who are just looking for ribbons and big fluffy teddy bears) breeding Goldens who don't love the water.


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> I'd like to bring up a different subject which, I hope, will go in a different direction: the importance (or not) of lowering COIs to improve the breed.
> 
> Breeders have a constant cost-benefit tug-of-war between COI and uniformity. When the COI is zero, fitness is at its maximum and prepotency and uniformity are at their lowest. As inbreeding increases, variation in the offspring goes down but so does fitness. One of the problems that we are seeing very commonly in Goldens is inbreeding depression -- reduced number of puppies in a litter, reduced vigor, increases in things like allergies, early cancers, etc.


So how do you propose this be dealt with since it has been established in this thread that we can't have any of those icky, non purpose bred genes swimming in the gene pool with the well bred goldens. 
There has to be another source to add diversity and less inbreeding.
Outcrossing is a no go due to a closed registry. There are not a lot of options.


----------



## Claudia M

As far as the water. I see a HUGE difference in the working water attitude as opposed to the play water attitude in Rose. I am adding pictures to show this. First is working in water. Second is playing in water. Complete different entry water attitudes.

ETA - I admit that is a water return and not an entry. I wish I had a water entry on a retrieve. But her attitude is definitely not the same as the one when we are playing.


----------



## gdgli

Brave

Good water attitude does not mean that the dog likes the water right off the bat. My own girl wouldn't go into the water at first. I took my time and it took three training sessions to get what I considered acceptable. It took off from there and as many have stated with their dogs, she now loves water. I feel that this is nurturing rather than training to like it. In fact, I take my time at the water with pups so as not to make a mistake.

On the other hand it can be painful to watch some Goldens (as well as other breeds) enter the water. And I will again remind you that I am not talking about style, I mean just going into the water without pause.


----------



## Brave

Does that speak more to biddability? The desire to please outweighing their apprehension to entering the water? 

Please feel free to PM a video of a dog that is painful to watch vs one you like. I'm having a hard time visualizing what you mean and the difference you see. 

I really appreciate everyones time, patience, and guidance.


----------



## Selli-Belle

I do think we need to make sure that "loves water" is a trait selected for when breeding, just as we need to make sure that we keep the "Golden temperament" an important trait for breeding selection.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> So how do you propose this be dealt with since it has been established in this thread that we can't have any of those icky, non purpose bred genes swimming in the gene pool with the well bred goldens.
> There has to be another source to add diversity and less inbreeding.
> Outcrossing is a no go due to a closed registry. There are not a lot of options.


But there are ways to keep the COI down. Breeding type-to-type rather than line breeding, and purposefully staying away from popular sires (both in breeding and as genetically influential contributors in ancestry), for instance. I've seen both field and conformation breeders who produce really nice dogs with 12-generation COIs of under 4.0. It can be done.

I'm not necessarily advocating for this, I'm just bringing it up as I think it's integral to any discussion about improving the breed. Maintaining as much genetic diversity as possible has to be part of the discussion, imho.


----------



## hotel4dogs

You don't. The dog is taught to run (or swim) a straight line until either you tell him to stop, or he gets to the bird. 
If he gets off the straight line, you whistle for him to turn around and face you and sit. Then you give him a hand signal telling him what direction he needs to head in to end up back on the line.
It's great fun!




Brave said:


> How do you communicate distance to the dog?
> 
> Thanks for answering my questions. This is a fascinating subject.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Brave said:


> How do you communicate distance to the dog?
> 
> Thanks for answering my questions. This is a fascinating subject.



The short answer, in my very very limited experience with blinds, is that you don't. You send the dog and he keeps going until (A) he finds to bird or (B) the handler blows the whistle to cue him to turn/sit if on land/pay attention so the handler can give him a directional cue to continue. 

I appreciate the further explanation provided on this question of water courage and drive. I do wonder about what seems to be a very common practice of focusing on the ways a golden differs from a lab in field performance and dubbing it a weakness in the breed. I can't help but wonder if owners of flat coats, chessies, curly coated retrievers, duck tolling retrievers, or even poodles spend their time lamenting that their dogs are selected by hunters even less than goldens, nevermind labs (though I suppose this could vary in certain regions). I questioned earlier how much of this difference has always been inherent in the breeds and how much of that was, to some extent, intentional. To add to my previous question, I'll ask this: do we lose something of the golden retriever breed if our end result is a dog who behaves exactly like a lab? Personally, I love seeing the different breeds compete at hunt tests (I've never had the chance to watch a field trial) and seeing the different styles each has. I've never thought to see one as superior or inferior to another.... In my mind the question has always been how does the dog perform compared to their original intended use? 

Julie and the boys


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> But there are ways to keep the COI down. Breeding type-to-type rather than line breeding, and purposefully staying away from popular sires (both in breeding and as genetically influential contributors in ancestry), for instance. I've seen both field and conformation breeders who produce really nice dogs with 12-generation COIs of under 4.0. It can be done.
> 
> I'm not necessarily advocating for this, I'm just bringing it up as I think it's integral to any discussion about improving the breed. Maintaining as much genetic diversity as possible has to be part of the discussion, imho.


It should be part of the discussion, science doesn't lie. What you are suggesting may preserve the status quo but I am not sure it will reverse the damage that is already done.
It is a start and clearly better than doing nothing.


----------



## TheZ's

DanaRuns said:


> I'd like to bring up a different subject which, I hope, will go in a different direction: the importance (or not) of lowering COIs to improve the breed.
> 
> Breeders have a constant cost-benefit tug-of-war between COI and uniformity. When the COI is zero, fitness is at its maximum and prepotency and uniformity are at their lowest. As inbreeding increases, variation in the offspring goes down but so does fitness. One of the problems that we are seeing very commonly in Goldens is inbreeding depression -- reduced number of puppies in a litter, reduced vigor, increases in things like allergies, early cancers, etc.]
> 
> It is possible to find a dog with a strong pedigree with a low COI. Gracie is such a dog. Her genetic data is at_ Genetic information for Sunfire's Amazing Grace_ Her 10 and 12 generation COI's are 2.71% and 3.74%. Her 5 generation pedigree is at _Five generation pedigree: Sunfire's Amazing Grace_ She comes from a breeder who was just named the AKC Breeder of the Year for Obedience.
> 
> As I've followed this and other threads on breeding, I tend to relate the comments to the dogs I've had. Here I ask how did this breeder get this COI? What was gained, what was given up? I certainly don't have all the answers to that but know that both parents were relatively young (young sire a no-no to some). The litter was 7 pups (not small but not really large). The pedigree was a combination of show, field and obedience (probably not enough concentration on any one thing for some). As we have been out and about Gracie has had many, many compliments on what a beautiful dog she is and at 58 lbs. and about 22" she seems to be within standard. But she'd never make it in the show ring - probably viewed as too leggy, no blocky head, and not a lot of coat. She's incredibly fast, agile, fearless and intelligent. High energy by most standards but able to get her CGC at 15 months and good with people and other dogs. We have no plans to do field work but she enjoys retrieving and is always interested in birds. (Can you tell I love Gracie?)


----------



## hotel4dogs

Jen, I've posted this before (so anyone who wants to can just ignore it, LOL), but here's a good water attitude. This is "working", going after a bird, not "play retrieve". You can just see the joy in his whole demeanor, no hesitation to enter, exit, re-enter.
Not saying a dog has to "leap" into the water, that's just something he likes to do, and many dogs with good water attitude will do it just for the sheer joy of doing it. But you can tell his attitude is an appropriate working water attitude for a Golden.
I do believe it's largely genetic. His pups are water fiends, too. I do know Goldens that are not. 
edit to add...while I think you can teach a dog to swim, and you can teach them to retrieve in water for hunt tests, they either love water or they don't. I don't believe you can teach that joy.


----------



## TrailDogs

Jersey's Mom said:


> In my mind the question has always been how does the dog perform compared to their original intended use?
> 
> Julie and the boys


The easy answer to this is that it takes a lot of dog to put in a full days work hunting. A golden should have the stamina and muscle to spend the day hunting through thick, heavy cover. He should be able to chase down cripples and bring them back. He should be able to retrieve ducks in icy water and find birds that fall out of sight.
Upland and waterfowl hunting is very much alive and well in this country and many hunters use dogs. It ensures finding more birds and better crippled bird recovery.
A golden needs a good nose, good prey drive, biddability, courage, and stamina to do what the breed was intended to do.


----------



## Brave

Nothing comes up when I click that link. Do you have the URL I can copy/paste?


----------



## hotel4dogs

assuming you mean me....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9eDJmblleQ


----------



## Mayve

hotel4dogs said:


> assuming you mean me....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9eDJmblleQ


Fantastic....love the video and am finding this discussion facinating.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

TrailDogs said:


> The easy answer to this is that it takes a lot of dog to put in a full days work hunting. A golden should have the stamina and muscle to spend the day hunting through thick, heavy cover. He should be able to chase down cripples and bring them back. He should be able to retrieve ducks in icy water and find birds that fall out of sight.
> 
> Upland and waterfowl hunting is very much alive and well in this country and many hunters use dogs. It ensures finding more birds and better crippled bird recovery.
> 
> A golden needs a good nose, good prey drive, biddability, courage, and stamina to do what the breed was intended to do.



I agree 110%. But that really wasn't at all the question I was asking. I see over and over and over in threads like this people that judge the traits you describe solely on a golden's ability to meet or beat a lab's performance and style. Why is the bar for our breed set by what another breed is or does? If the goal of all retrieving breeds is to have different looking dogs that are just labs in disguise, I have to wonder why anyone went through the trouble to develop these other breeds in the first place. I don't personally think we improve the golden retriever by turning them into a lab in a slightly scruffier package. I don't believe that was what they were ever intended to be. Is Fisher's re-entry impressive because he does it exactly as a lab would or because his behavior is genuinely golden? I would like to think the latter but perhaps I'm wrong. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## K9-Design

DanaRuns said:


> You're going to get better answers to this from people who are actively doing it, but I'll add my thoughts.
> 
> I think the focus of your question is slightly off. My guess is that rather than focus on water, the focus should be more on courage and prey drive. Your average Golden has enough water aptitude, I think. But dogs differ as to how courageous or timid they are, and how interested/determined they are in making the retrieve. My own take would be that breeding for courage/confidence and desire/drive are more important than breeding for love of water. Goldens love water, and aside from some BYB dogs, I don't see any responsible breeder (even those horrible conformation breeders who are just looking for ribbons and big fluffy teddy bears) breeding Goldens who don't love the water.



Lack of courage/confidence in the water is a symptom of lack of courage/prey drive/whatever you want to call it, overall. 

Pet and show breeders -- a lot of them -- inadvertently select dogs with this temperament because they are easy going in the house, at shows and traveling. Easier to confine, easier to train to be calm, less busy, basically that lovable teddy bear pet that is easy to sell and eagerly snapped up by pet homes. This comes back to bite you if you sell to a home who wants to do much field work. This is of course not EVERY dog -- but it is an overall trend. 

View water like you would really thick cover, or a bird that is thrown really far away. The dog needs some real gumption to retrieve it because it is more physically demanding than a short bird thrown on short cover. The going gets a little tough, and the dog can get tough too and dig it out, or they can say "no thanks, I don't want it that much."

In field competition, water courage IS a problem with the breed. But I would say it's a problem with every retrieving breed except field bred Labradors. So maybe it's not that all 10 other retrieving breeds have a problem, it's that Labs have been selected to excel in the water where the others haven't (as much). The tests and trials reward these dogs so they are further selected on that trait: wash, rinse, repeat for the past 20 generations and you have lots of dogs very strong in the water.


----------



## gdgli

Jersey's Mom said:


> I agree 110%. But that really wasn't at all the question I was asking. I see over and over and over in threads like this people that judge the traits you describe solely on a golden's ability to meet or beat a lab's performance and style. Why is the bar for our breed set by what another breed is or does? If the goal of all retrieving breeds is to have different looking dogs that are just labs in disguise, I have to wonder why anyone went through the trouble to develop these other breeds in the first place. I don't personally think we improve the golden retriever by turning them into a lab in a slightly scruffier package. I don't believe that was what they were ever intended to be. Is Fisher's re-entry impressive because he does it exactly as a lab would or because his behavior is genuinely golden? I would like to think the latter but perhaps I'm wrong.
> 
> Julie and the boys


I do agree with you. I have always said a Chessie does Chessie work, a Lab does Lab work, and a Golden does Golden work. Goldens are far too good in the uplands to not have been originally bred for this purpose. And trust me, when I work a Continental Shoot, I'm sorry, the average Goldens tend to do better entering the heavy cover and show a superior nose to the other dogs.


----------



## K9-Design

Two more blind videos I dug up. This was from like 3 years ago -- yay Fishie 

So the dog has no idea where the bird is, I am directing him where to go. These are pretty easy blinds, but the only ones I could find on my youtube channel.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

gdgli said:


> I do agree with you. I have always said a Chessie does Chessie work, a Lab does Lab work, and a Golden does Golden work. Goldens are far too good in the uplands to not have been originally bred for this purpose. And trust me, when I work a Continental Shoot, I'm sorry, the average Goldens tend to do better entering the heavy cover and show a superior nose to the other dogs.



It's really nice to hear something positive be said about a golden (any golden of any style) in the field. I know the threads in the actual hunting section tend to carry a different tone but in these types of threads it just seems like so many field oriented people see goldens as some sort of massive disappointment. And given what you say here, I don't really understand your earlier question: 
"If we as Golden owners want to really find out how our dogs look as hunting dogs, just ask the owner-hunter of a Lab why he doesn't own a Golden."
It would seem to me, based on your most recent response that these hunters preferred a dog who would do Lab work. 

But your comment about upland hunting really brings up an entirely different thought -- in light of another recent thread on the forum. What if field trials really just aren't the right venue to truly show off the unique qualities a golden possesses in the field? That's not to say that all breeders/owners with that aim in mind are wrong or that they should stop.... Just that maybe it isn't enough to tell the whole story. What if upland tests are actually the better compliment to retriever tests for the golden specifically? What of a dog like Tito, with a fairly novice owner, who was able to cross over and compete in spaniel tests so successfully and so naturally? I freely admit I have no more knowledge about what those tests entail than was given in the AKC article but what if those specific skills come closer to the true intention of this breed than field trials are? Would that be a "failure" of the breed in some people's eyes or would it be a better way of examining how true we have stayed to the breed's original purpose? This is literally a developing thought for me right now so most of these questions are just train of thought writing as they run through my head... So I apologize if they seem repetitive. I surely don't have the answers to them and I don't expect that anyone else does either. Mostly just sharing as food for thought. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## gdgli

The answer the Lab owner will give is one of the following: 
1. They bring too much water in the boat with all that hair.
2. The ones I have seen stink in the water.
3. That hair picks up so much junk.
4. They are not tough enough.
5. Not enough drive.

This is because the Field Golden in my area is rare, they see pet and show Goldens. They have judged an entire breed on these dogs. And if I were a hunter and went to a Hunt Test and watched the Goldens work I certainly would not be impressed by the majority of what I have seen. But I know better, I started many years ago and have been to several field trials where you see talented Goldens. (And at this point I could make the same comments about other breeds.)



No contradiction in my statement. I said you ask the Lab man to get an idea of the Golden's reputation. Just try it. Go to a boat ramp and ask the duck hunters. Go to a check station on state land and ask the hunters doing upland work. At least in my area you never see a Golden hunting in the uplands. The retrievers are Labs. Goldens in duckboats? I haven't seen one yet.

Disclaimer: I understand that it may be a regional thing seen here on Long Island.


----------



## Megora

if I'm willing to get 2 wet hairy golden retrievers in my sedan after they've swam (swum?) in muck-bottom ponds and waded through pond muck up to their elbows (I've posted pictures - gave my grooming mentor a heart attack to see my show boy with black pond muck up his legs)... 

Those lab people are just sissy for not wanting hairy wet golden retrievers in their duck boats.  

Seriously though - I imagine that labs haul in the same amount of water if they truly are double coated. 

Reasonably speaking, I don't think it makes a lot of sense going to lab people and asking why they don't do field with a different breed. People do have their feet in with the breeds they like and you aren't going to have an easy time convincing them that your breed is better for a purpose where their dogs are plainly better.


----------



## lhowemt

Not even close as far as water coming in with the dogs. My labs shed water so fast it was amazing. even fast shedding godens seem like sponges is comparison, at least until they have had a chance to drip and shake a couple of times.

How much, if any, does the potential that labs are seen as more masculine (darker, more visible musculature, not as pretty, less grooming/maintenance) come into play? Just curious as that is my impression here in MT. Very few hunting goldens and tons and tons of labs. Possibly sort of a Marlboro Man type effect?


----------



## gdgli

lhowemt said:


> Not even close as far as water coming in with the dogs. My labs shed water so fast it was amazing. even fast shedding godens seem like sponges is comparison, at least until they have had a chance to drip and shake a couple of times.
> 
> How much, if any, does the potential that labs are seen as more masculine (darker, more visible musculature, not as pretty, less grooming/maintenance) come into play? Just curious as that is my impression here in MT. Very few hunting goldens and tons and tons of labs. Possibly sort of a Marlboro Man type effect?


Thank you for your input. Seems like you agree somewhat with what I say. Good to hear from a Lab person. And I think the masculine image is on target too.


----------



## hollyk

lhowemt said:


> How much, if any, does the potential that labs are seen as more masculine (darker, more visible musculature, not as pretty, less grooming/maintenance) come into play? Just curious as that is my impression here in MT. Very few hunting goldens and tons and tons of labs. Possibly sort of a Marlboro Man type effect?


I don't know I think the Marlboro Man has a Chessie.


----------



## gdgli

hollyk said:


> I don't know I think the Marlboro Man has a Chessie.


OMG, you know Chessie people!


----------



## Jersey's Mom

gdgli said:


> The answer the Lab owner will give is one of the following:
> 1. They bring too much water in the boat with all that hair.
> 2. The ones I have seen stink in the water.
> 3. That hair picks up so much junk.
> 4. They are not tough enough.
> 5. Not enough drive.
> 
> This is because the Field Golden in my area is rare, they see pet and show Goldens. They have judged an entire breed on these dogs. And if I were a hunter and went to a Hunt Test and watched the Goldens work I certainly would not be impressed by the majority of what I have seen. But I know better, I started many years ago and have been to several field trials where you see talented Goldens. (And at this point I could make the same comments about other breeds.)
> 
> 
> 
> No contradiction in my statement. I said you ask the Lab man to get an idea of the Golden's reputation. Just try it. Go to a boat ramp and ask the duck hunters. Go to a check station on state land and ask the hunters doing upland work. At least in my area you never see a Golden hunting in the uplands. The retrievers are Labs. Goldens in duckboats? I haven't seen one yet.
> 
> Disclaimer: I understand that it may be a regional thing seen here on Long Island.



I think I have a better understanding of what you mean. Basically it's the difference between what you know a golden is capable of vs what you actually see in hunt tests in your area? If I misunderstood again, I apologize. Sometimes I can be thick and this head cold isn't helping. 

I guess this is really where personal experiences shade what we think and/or see in the breed. I see my own bias clearly. I just haven't seen that many inept goldens, of any style, at the hunt tests that I've attended. Goldens weren't massively outnumbered or out performed at the hunt tests I've attended in NC... Which, granted, was only a handful. I also carry a particular taint on the view of whether dogs who have not been bred with field work specifically in mind can retain the drive and ability to perform. That's due largely to Jersey's grandma, Keeper, the first dog in whom I ever had an ownership stake (I co-owned with my father). She never quite hit the top levels in any venue of competition - there is not OTCH, MACH, or even MH in her name - but she really did it all and did it all pretty well. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=53948 If you look at that pedigree, there was really NO performance of any sort in it and yet not only was she very successful but the 2 generations that the line continued under my father's breeding were as well (admittedly small sample size). She was the dog that my father learned these sports with, like me with Jersey who I feel was in many ways limited by my level of knowledge and experience as well as our frequent moves throughout his life. What could either of them have accomplished in better hands? Hard to say, but they are absolutely the root of the reason that I have such a hard time believing that the average golden from a reputable breeder outside of strict field lines is some sort of useless dullard. Of course there are some out there, and perhaps more prevalent in some areas, but I just haven't personally seen it to be the norm. 

Does upland hunting infer the use of a boat? As I said above, I really have no knowledge of what it means or what those tests entail. From the article on Tito, I got the impression it largely focused on skills like quartering and flushing in addition to some semblance of retrieving. Not trying to derail the thread, perhaps you could PM me when you have some time and share some information about what upland hunting is and how it differs from retriever tests and/or field trials -- if you don't have time, don't worry, I'm sure I can google it up sometime. One last random aside, since I mentioned quartering: At one of the hunt tests I attended with Jersey, some kind person remarked to me that he had a great, natural ability to quarter... I have no idea what that actually means but I do take every opportunity I can to brag about it (I would add the curtain smiley here but I have no idea how to on my tablet). Thank you for indulging me in my proud momma moment... or, at least, for rolling your eyes where I can't see it, lol. And thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Megora

**** Decided to pull my question.  

I did find it interesting to see that conversation on single vs double coats with labs and that being part of the whole divide they have, but obviously it doesn't apply here. Guess it just bears repeating that labs and goldens are two separate breeds (completely different breed standards) and you're not going to talk a lab person into switching gears to goldens if labs are what they do. It can be as simple as that and it actually a good thing rather than them trying to manipulate other breeds into being more like labs.


----------



## gdgli

Jersey's Mom

Thanks for asking. I will PM you tomorrow. It's late now.

BTW, many good dogs don't have titles. Research Poika Of Handjem.


----------



## K9-Design

gdgli said:


> Thank you for your input. Seems like you agree somewhat with what I say. Good to hear from a Lab person. And I think the masculine image is on target too.



Lots of people drive Fords. That doesn't make it better than a Mercedes


----------



## K9-Design

Jersey's Mom said:


> One last random aside, since I mentioned quartering: At one of the hunt tests I attended with Jersey, some kind person remarked to me that he had a great, natural ability to quarter... I have no idea what that actually means but I do take every opportunity I can to brag about it (I would add the curtain smiley here but I have no idea how to on my tablet).


If someone said that after your dog ran a Junior test it probably meant he didn't mark the bird real well but had no trouble hunting it up  But it probably meant he didn't run great big donuts in the field until he stumbled on the bird, which is good.


----------



## Claudia M

Megora said:


> **** Decided to pull my question.
> 
> I did find it interesting to see that conversation on single vs double coats with labs and that being part of the whole divide they have, but obviously it doesn't apply here. Guess it just bears repeating that labs and goldens are two separate breeds (completely different breed standards) and you're not going to talk a lab person into switching gears to goldens if labs are what they do. It can be as simple as that and it actually a good thing rather than them trying to manipulate other breeds into being more like labs.


Actually a trainer works with all different retriever breeds. Some trainers have labs, some chessies, some that started out with goldens have moved to labs, and was surprised to see that one that started out with labs has goldens. Even more encouraging is that two trainers I spoke with, have shown an inclination to go with a golden or a flattie for their next dog.

Bottom line they are all retrievers. Hunt tests are not a competition; your dog either passes on its own abilities or not. But you do represent the breed in those tests. Not only in did they pass but how did they pass. And based on that you build a reputation for the breed in general.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> *Lack of courage/confidence in the water is a symptom of lack of courage/prey drive/whatever you want to call it, overall.
> *
> Pet and show breeders -- a lot of them -- inadvertently select dogs with this temperament because they are easy going in the house, at shows and traveling. Easier to confine, easier to train to be calm, less busy, basically that lovable teddy bear pet that is easy to sell and eagerly snapped up by pet homes. This comes back to bite you if you sell to a home who wants to do much field work. This is of course not EVERY dog -- but it is an overall trend.
> 
> *View water like you would really thick cover, or a bird that is thrown really far away. The dog needs some real gumption to retrieve it because it is more physically demanding than a short bird thrown on short cover. The going gets a little tough, and the dog can get tough too and dig it out, or they can say "no thanks, I don't want it that much."
> *
> In field competition, water courage IS a problem with the breed. But I would say it's a problem with every retrieving breed except field bred Labradors. So maybe it's not that all 10 other retrieving breeds have a problem, it's that Labs have been selected to excel in the water where the others haven't (as much). The tests and trials reward these dogs so they are further selected on that trait: wash, rinse, repeat for the past 20 generations and you have lots of dogs very strong in the water.


I agree with your post but I am not so sure about the bolded statements. I have seen both goldens and labs (not so much flatties or chessies - the ones that I have seen have a wonderful water attitude) that would go thru wall after wall, short to tall grass, mowed to soy bean field thru wooded area or fallen trees to get a duck on land but not so much on water. 

Some may be they do not have it, some (like one field lab I have seen) are not exposed to swimming water until later in life (did not start Rose until she was 2 - had no clue about water places to train in), some got injured (a flattie owner said she would like her flatties to have a less spectacular water entry as she has seen first hand a dog jump right n top of a log injuring himself and out of commission for a very long time).


----------



## gdgli

Jersey's Mom

"...great natural ability to quarter..."

I might consider that a backhanded compliment. Consider the source and the context. At which point between the line and the mark did the dog start quartering? 

If in the AOF, I would have said "Good job hunting". Just my opinion.


----------



## gdgli

"...it takes a lot of dog to put in a full day's hunting..."

This is one point that many have not seen. If one just does hunt tests he will not understand this.


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> Guess it just bears repeating that labs and goldens are two separate breeds (completely different breed standards) and you're not going to talk a lab person into switching gears to goldens if labs are what they do. It can be as simple as that and it actually a good thing rather than them trying to manipulate other breeds into being more like labs.


Goldens compete with labs every weekend in field trials across the country. They don't have to be like labs, they have to be better than labs


----------



## tippykayak

Can I ask a quick question about water courage? One thing I've noted about dogs (not Goldens specifically) is that even dogs that love to be in the water are not necessarily particularly courageous about entering the water, especially if they're not as familiar with the particular entrance point?

Does that make sense? For example, take a dog who loves to swim but doesn't jump off things until he's confident of the landing spot. So he hesitates _slightly_ at the water's edge sometimes, but not at other times, depending on what it looks like. And if he's familiar with the entrance point, he goes crashing in like crazy. Would that get a called a lack of water courage? Because I think there may be a useful distinction between a dog who loves to get in the water and a dog who's more courageous about jumping off things.

And the extreme version of that kind of courage would be recklessness, right? Like a crazy dog who will jump off of anything without even looking, which doesn't seem ideal.

Anybody have any thoughts on that? Obviously a Golden should be courageous, water or not, and he should trust his handler enough to jump when the handler says "go that way," but I've known crazy, reckless dogs who will throw themselves off of things without looking (i.e., jump blind off something while chasing a bird), and that doesn't sound like a quality you want a working dog to have.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

K9-Design said:


> If someone said that after your dog ran a Junior test it probably meant he didn't mark the bird real well but had no trouble hunting it up  But it probably meant he didn't run great big donuts in the field until he stumbled on the bird, which is good.



Spot on. It was our first time anywhere near a field in some 2 plus years, first bird of the weekend, and he had pulled up pretty short on the mark. From what I was able to figure out, her remark referred to the controlled sweeping path (for lack of a better term, still on my first cup of coffee today) he took as he worked his way up the field to find the bird. 

I should have made it clear, I like to brag about his supposed natural ability, not necessarily his overall performance on that mark - or that weekend for that matter. Thankfully after getting some advice in the hunting section, and realizing I had to warn him, so to speak, that we were suddenly back in the business of retrieving birds, his next two weekends went MUCH better. 

Edited to add: it wasn't at all a backhanded compliment - it was comfort that although he had not quite marked well on that bird that he wasn't a spastic, loose cannon out there and relied on an innate, untrained behavior to achieve an organized approach to finding the bird due to his drive and desire to complete the retrieve. And, in the end, he did exactly that. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## TrailDogs

tippykayak said:


> Can I ask a quick question about water courage? One thing I've noted about dogs (not Goldens specifically) is that even dogs that love to be in the water are not necessarily particularly courageous about entering the water, especially if they're not as familiar with the particular entrance point?
> 
> Does that make sense? For example, take a dog who loves to swim but doesn't jump off things until he's confident of the landing spot. So he hesitates _slightly_ at the water's edge sometimes, but not at other times, depending on what it looks like. And if he's familiar with the entrance point, he goes crashing in like crazy. Would that get a called a lack of water courage? Because I think there may be a useful distinction between a dog who loves to get in the water and a dog who's more courageous about jumping off things.
> 
> And the extreme version of that kind of courage would be recklessness, right? Like a crazy dog who will jump off of anything without even looking, which doesn't seem ideal.
> 
> Anybody have any thoughts on that? Obviously a Golden should be courageous, water or not, and he should trust his handler enough to jump when the handler says "go that way," but I've known crazy, reckless dogs who will throw themselves off of things without looking (i.e., jump blind off something while chasing a bird), and that doesn't sound like a quality you want a working dog to have.


I think a dog that navigates the water entry is a smart dog. Courage in the water, from my perspective, is not about a spectacular water entry. It is seen in the dog who will swim 200 yards to get a crippled duck and readily return to the water for the next one. It is a dog that is not intimidated by big water, long swims, and fighting factors - wind, current,vegetation - to get to the bird. It is a dog that doesn't hesitate to go when sent whether he has seen a bird go down or not.
A big water entry is no indication that the dog is going to do the job required.


----------



## gdgli

TrailDogs said:


> I think a dog that navigates the water entry is a smart dog. Courage in the water, from my perspective, is not about a spectacular water entry. It is seen in the dog who will swim 200 yards to get a crippled duck and readily return to the water for the next one. It is a dog that is not intimidated by big water, long swims, and fighting factors - wind, current,vegetation - to get to the bird. It is a dog that doesn't hesitate to go when sent whether he has seen a bird go down or not.
> A big water entry is no indication that the dog is going to do the job required.


Totally agree.


----------



## gdgli

Jersey's Mom

PM sent.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Maybe a Golden's specialty is versatility! They are like a decathlon competitor, they can do retriever stuff, upland stuff (my understanding is that they may not mark as well as labs, but they quarter better (setter influence) and have better noses (Bloodhound influence)), plus they can excel at all those other performance events. Remember, people say similar things about Goldens in obedience that we hear here about Labs in the field.


----------



## hotel4dogs

And at the end of the day, that means more to me (personal opinion only) than a dog who has been trained to mark off of a holding blind, etc. He showed an innate intelligence to use the wind and hunt the field. THAT's what these guys should be all about.




Jersey's Mom said:


> Edited to add: it wasn't at all a backhanded compliment - it was comfort that although he had not quite marked well on that bird that he wasn't a spastic, loose cannon out there and relied on an innate, untrained behavior to achieve an organized approach to finding the bird due to his drive and desire to complete the retrieve. And, in the end, he did exactly that.
> 
> Julie and the boys


----------



## hotel4dogs

I think there are two different skill sets involved. First is the love of water. The dogs who do the big entries (and there are LOTS of Goldens who do!) probably love water enough to not be discouraged by some factors. I don't think you will see many dogs who don't love water doing the air entries. 
But the second skill is the courage and perseverance to not be intimidated by the big water, long swims, lily pads, current, etc. Regardless of the entry style, once in the water you should see a fast swim with clear purpose, heading directly to the objective. Not all dogs who love water will have the second set of skills, which are critical to hunting and hunt tests. And of course, they must be willing to re-enter the water again and again, despite the temperature, how tired they are, etc. 
FWIW, Tito's water entries tend to scare me. He will navigate it carefully if he's taken to the bank, but if he's run from a distance to the water, he does the air entry thing.



TrailDogs said:


> I think a dog that navigates the water entry is a smart dog. Courage in the water, from my perspective, is not about a spectacular water entry. It is seen in the dog who will swim 200 yards to get a crippled duck and readily return to the water for the next one. It is a dog that is not intimidated by big water, long swims, and fighting factors - wind, current,vegetation - to get to the bird. It is a dog that doesn't hesitate to go when sent whether he has seen a bird go down or not.
> A big water entry is no indication that the dog is going to do the job required.


----------



## Ljilly28

All the dogs I own have tremendous water courage in terms of long swims in freezing water, and big water entries. I do wonder how much of that is bc we swim almost every day in the lakes and the oceans, plus live on property bordered by a river, and they start out so young with the other dogs swimming? 
I do not think my dogs with MH parents have a big advantage in the water over Lush and Mystic- all are driven, happy in the water, strong fast swimmers, and undaunted by cold or distance. 

On the other hand, I admit in my last generation I had a lazy show-bred dog with just a spleeny attitude toward water, so I have seen it. It was so annoying to me lol and she had the same advantages re water has the others. She was a sissy( bit a pretty one).


----------



## hotel4dogs

My Tiny (pet store puppy) loved water, I posted a video in the senior section last year of her swimming at 16 years, 4 months old, still her favorite thing to do. And she never really had a lot of exposure to it, just really loved it. 
My Toby (BYB dog) had a real bleh attitude about water. He didn't hate it, but he didn't seek it out. He would go in if *everyone else* was going in, but would prefer to stay only chest deep. He liked to retrieve a lot more than Tiny did, so it wasn't about that. Just wasn't real fond of water. So I, too, have seen it and found it incorrect and annoying.



Ljilly28 said:


> All the dogs I own have tremendous water courage in terms of long swims in freezing water, and big water entries. I do wonder how much of that is bc we swim almost every day in the lakes and the oceans, plus live on property bordered by a river, and they start out so young with the other dogs swimming?
> I do not think my dogs with MH parents have a big advantage in the water over Lush and Mystic- all are driven, happy in the water, strong fast swimmers, and undaunted by cold or distance.
> 
> On the other hand, I admit in my last generation I had a lazy show-bred dog with just a spleeny attitude toward water, so I have seen it. It was so annoying to me lol and she had the same advantages re water has the others. She was a sissy( bit a pretty one).


----------



## thorbreafortuna

It's funny because the other day Thor and I made friends with a white lab and owner out on the trail by a lake and she asked me how I had trained Thor to enter the water so fearlessly and spectacularly. Her lab loved the swim but was very cautious at the entry point. Answer: I didn't train it! The little guy swam the first time he saw water, too young to be taken out, in hindsight, and given the slightest motivation he'll navigate all kinds of obstacles. At a little over a year and a half he's very confident in the water. Once in the water both dogs swam equally well and eagerly. These are a golden and a lab without any field training at all.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Here's one to ponder....
For the dogs who enter the water with big entries, how many of them approach life that way? That is, not ever afraid of anything. Bold, fearless.
For the dogs who enter the water more cautiously, how many of them approach life that way, too? Tend to lay back a little and analyze the situation before thrusting themselves into it?
I wonder if it's really just a personality difference. I'm not in any way implying one is better than the other, just different. 
I think of Tito, who has never been afraid of anything, which can be a great thing or a bad thing. This is the dummy who has taken flying leaps off the top of the A-frame in agility, dock diving style. Falls off the dog-walk in agility, just shakes off, gets right back on it, and moves on. So that's his basic personality style, and I think it's reflected in his water entry. 
Anyone else?


----------



## DanaRuns

I'm not sure what any of this means in terms of improving the breed. Both of my show dogs, Gibbs and Ziva, have tremendous water courage and enthusiasm. Big entries, leaping off the shore or docks into dark or clear water they've never seen before (and yes, they approach life that way). Unafraid of vegetation or long swims, will always re-enter over and over again. Not just in lakes, ponds and streams, but in the ocean with big rolling waves, too. And they absolutely love it more than anything in life. These are not field bred dogs, and they don't have a lot of working titles in their pedigrees. To me, that's just what a Golden is. It's nothing to strive for, it's just all in a Golden day's work. It's who they are.

I certainly wouldn't compare them to Labs in terms of water work, as they are not Labs. You don't judge a fish by how well it climbs a tree. So in terms of improving the breed, I don't like the notion that we have to try to make them more like Labs in field trials. We have to make them more like Goldens.

When I hunted, we did less duck hunting (though some) and more hunting of quail, pheasant and dove. No water involved. And the Goldens were absolutely amazing at tirelessly working a field, flushing, and finding and retrieving downed birds. Why on earth would how they compare to Labs in a field trial be any sort of indication whatsoever of their abilities as hunting dogs or their "Goldenness"?

I'm sorry I forgot who said it earlier in this thread, but I agree with the notion that Goldens are generalists, not specialists, and that it is the combination of their traits and talents, not how they perform on a particular test compared to Labs, that makes the breed the wonderful thing that it is. Goldens are not Labs, and the measure of a Golden is not whether it performs as well as a Lab in a field trial. That's my belief, anyway.

So I'm not sure what this has to do with improving the breed. To me, improving Goldens doesn't mean making them more like Labs, it means making Goldens more Golden. Unique. Different than other breeds. Bred for their own traits, not those of other breeds.

Am I wrong about this?


----------



## hotel4dogs

The only thing I disagree with is your statement, "it's nothing to strive for...". It's exactly what we should be striving for! It's what Goldens used to be like. Some still are. Not enough of them. I do think in order to improve the breed (see how we've come full circle!) we need to strive for getting them back to how they used to be before people started breeding only to win in their chosen venue, or breeding strictly for $$ with no thought of the future of the breed at all. 
"... We have to make them more like Goldens..." says it all!

As always, JMO. 




DanaRuns said:


> I'm not sure what any of this means in terms of improving the breed. Both of my show dogs, Gibbs and Ziva, have tremendous water courage and enthusiasm. Big entries, leaping off the shore or docks into dark or clear water they've never seen before (and yes, they approach life that way). Unafraid of vegetation or long swims, will always re-enter over and over again. Not just in lakes, ponds and streams, but in the ocean with big rolling waves, too. And they absolutely love it more than anything in life. These are not field bred dogs, and they don't have a lot of working titles in their pedigrees. To me, that's just what a Golden is. It's nothing to strive for, it's just all in a Golden day's work. It's who they are.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't compare them to Labs in terms of water work, as they are not Labs. You don't judge a fish by how well it climbs a tree. So in terms of improving the breed, I don't like the notion that we have to try to make them more like Labs in field trials. We have to make them more like Goldens.
> 
> When I hunted, we did less duck hunting (though some) and more hunting of quail, pheasant and dove. No water involved. And the Goldens were absolutely amazing at tirelessly working a field, flushing, and finding and retrieving downed birds. Why on earth would how they compare to Labs in a field trial be any sort of indication whatsoever of their abilities as hunting dogs or their "Goldenness"?
> 
> I'm sorry I forgot who said it earlier in this thread, but I agree with the notion that Goldens are generalists, not specialists, and that it is the combination of their traits and talents, not how they perform on a particular test compared to Labs, that makes the breed the wonderful thing that it is. Goldens are not Labs, and the measure of a Golden is not whether it performs as well as a Lab in a field trial. That's my belief, anyway.
> 
> So I'm not sure what this has to do with improving the breed. To me, improving Goldens doesn't mean making them more like Labs, it means making Goldens more Golden. Unique. Different than other breeds. Bred for their own traits, not those of other breeds.
> 
> Am I wrong about this?


----------



## my4goldens

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's one to ponder....
> For the dogs who enter the water with big entries, how many of them approach life that way? That is, not ever afraid of anything. Bold, fearless.
> For the dogs who enter the water more cautiously, how many of them approach life that way, too? Tend to lay back a little and analyze the situation before thrusting themselves into it?
> I wonder if it's really just a personality difference. I'm not in any way implying one is better than the other, just different.
> I think of Tito, who has never been afraid of anything, which can be a great thing or a bad thing. This is the dummy who has taken flying leaps off the top of the A-frame in agility, dock diving style. Falls off the dog-walk in agility, just shakes off, gets right back on it, and moves on. So that's his basic personality style, and I think it's reflected in his water entry.
> Anyone else?


I am finding this whole thread fascinating, but since I have never done field work can't really comment on much. Just thinking about my dogs and their approach to water and their limited access to it. We have a large creek that runs thru our property and also an in ground pool, so they do get some experience in water. Tugg and Libby most certainly love it, and Tess who is gone loved it too, none of these three have been afraid of much in their life times. But all three come from field backgrounds, all Topbrass dogs. Raider also loves life, never afraid of anything in his life either, but hates water. In the summer he stays outside the pool fence, while the others jump in and out with abandon. His pedigree reflects I think 1/4 field bred. Not sure what any of this means, I guess he just doesn't like water.


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's one to ponder....
> For the dogs who enter the water with big entries, how many of them approach life that way? That is, not ever afraid of anything. Bold, fearless.
> For the dogs who enter the water more cautiously, how many of them approach life that way, too? Tend to lay back a little and analyze the situation before thrusting themselves into it?
> I wonder if it's really just a personality difference. I'm not in any way implying one is better than the other, just different.
> I think of Tito, who has never been afraid of anything, which can be a great thing or a bad thing. This is the dummy who has taken flying leaps off the top of the A-frame in agility, dock diving style. Falls off the dog-walk in agility, just shakes off, gets right back on it, and moves on. So that's his basic personality style, and I think it's reflected in his water entry.
> Anyone else?


Amen!

Very very true. I judge my girl on her water attitude compared to the land attitude. Mind you she did not get exposed to water until very late and when she was she also had OSS suture infection so she associated water with pain. It has improved but not to my liking.

I see the difference in her return on land at full speed with the bird (from 100 yards or 260 yards) no matter of cover ready to go again and then walking to me like a whipped puppy dog out of the water still ready to go but with not the same enthusiasm. Maybe that will come with more exposure and water retrieves. :crossfing She did take a dive in the frozen water to get her duck at our last hunting test.


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> Goldens compete with labs every weekend in field trials across the country. *They don't have to be like labs, they have to be better than labs*


I could not agree with this statement more!


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's one to ponder....
> For the dogs who enter the water with big entries, how many of them approach life that way? That is, not ever afraid of anything. Bold, fearless.
> For the dogs who enter the water more cautiously, how many of them approach life that way, too? Tend to lay back a little and analyze the situation before thrusting themselves into it?
> I wonder if it's really just a personality difference. I'm not in any way implying one is better than the other, just different.
> I think of Tito, who has never been afraid of anything, which can be a great thing or a bad thing. This is the dummy who has taken flying leaps off the top of the A-frame in agility, dock diving style. Falls off the dog-walk in agility, just shakes off, gets right back on it, and moves on. So that's his basic personality style, and I think it's reflected in his water entry.
> Anyone else?



Bear is oftentimes fearful. It's what feeds into his reactivity. Even doing fetch in the house, if the toy falls someplace he is unused to, he will hesitate. We've been working on sit over the year and he's getting better about it but for him he takes the cautious route. He feels out the situation before plunging in. He will take cues from other dogs who take the plunge before him, and once he's comfortable he is gung-ho. 

It can be annoying when he second guesses himself or me. But if I had to choose a cautious dog or a fearless dog, I would choose caution every time. I've seen fearless dogs and their disregard for their own safety is heart stopping. I'm talking dogs so driven they've jumped through glass windows to get their target. 

Tippy touched on this earlier and I tried to convey that in one of my earlier posts, but I don't think I presented it well. 

And maybe in the end, my preference to a cautious dog is a personality trait that prevents me from even trying field work. I cannot imagine what a fearless dog would be like when it's not working. Ideally,Tito is a great example. From your stories he is calm at home but can go all day. But how often do dogs like Tito come along? 

Maybe that's where this discussion could move towards. In bringing more Tito-like dogs and behavior and traits to the table.


----------



## hotel4dogs

And yet another very important point, WE'RE not all the same, so there is no one-size-fits-all dog, either. 
Tito is so lazy at home I have to kick him to be sure he's breathing. Lazy, lazy dog. But yes, he has almost committed suicide twice out in the field, and both times my heart stopped. And as I said, leaped off the top of the A-frame in agility, *just because*. More than once.
Dogs like Tito _used to_ come along all the time, that's my point about "in our past lies our future". I can't tell you how many people who have been in Goldens for many, many years comment how much like their "old-time Golden" Tito is. These people, who have had Goldens since before most of us were born, so often tell me he's an "old fashioned Golden". It's the biggest compliment I can get. Back in the day, he wouldn't have been anything special, just a normal Golden.




Brave said:


> Bear is oftentimes fearful. It's what feeds into his reactivity. Even doing fetch in the house, if the toy falls someplace he is unused to, he will hesitate. We've been working on sit over the year and he's getting better about it but for him he takes the cautious route. He feels out the situation before plunging in. He will take cues from other dogs who take the plunge before him, and once he's comfortable he is gung-ho.
> 
> It can be annoying when he second guesses himself or me. But if I had to choose a cautious dog or a fearless dog, I would choose caution every time. I've seen fearless dogs and their disregard for their own safety is heart stopping. I'm talking dogs so driven they've jumped through glass windows to get their target.
> 
> Tippy touched on this earlier and I tried to convey that in one of my earlier posts, but I don't think I presented it well.
> 
> And maybe in the end, my preference to a cautious dog is a personality trait that prevents me from even trying field work. I cannot imagine what a fearless dog would be like when it's not working. Ideally,Tito is a great example. From your stories he is calm at home but can go all day. But how often do dogs like Tito come along?
> 
> Maybe that's where this discussion could move towards. In bringing more Tito-like dogs and behavior and traits to the table.


----------



## Megora

Selli-Belle said:


> Maybe a Golden's specialty is versatility! They are like a decathlon competitor, they can do retriever stuff, upland stuff (my understanding is that they may not mark as well as labs, but they quarter better (setter influence) and have better noses (Bloodhound influence)), plus they can excel at all those other performance events. Remember, people say similar things about Goldens in obedience that we hear here about Labs in the field.


^^^ Exactly.  

It is interesting following this oft repeated conversation on field dogs.... and I've made that comment before and again that it seems people want a shorter coated dog with more drive in field to compete in field trials, and are looking for that in a golden retriever. And there's a lot of mythology about dogs many years ago drawn up to attack what... whether it is an obedience bred dog or a conformation bred dog.... people have in their golden retrievers today. 

And then yesterday I saw the conversation turn to "why lab owners (I didn't read it as trainers and meaning something quite different than regular dog owners _who are working their own dogs_, but I guess that had been the point) do not get golden retrievers. They bring up the coats (carry more water into boats, pick up more debris, etc) and drive. Which I think you have to be honest - if somebody were making the same question about an obedience person, as far as why they chose to work with a golden retriever as opposed to a collie for obedience work.... there would be very good reasons offered. 

People make the breed selections they do out of personal reasons - and they are welcome to those. Some of those personal reasons may be primarily based on what they actually want to do with the dogs. And field trials.... there just are dog breeds who can be everything easier than goldens. They may be more independent and harder stuff, more pain tolerant, more driven, more energetic. There's reasons why many of us do not own labs. And these reasons frequently make them the very easy companion for somebody who wants a no-fuss dog for what they want to do. Goldens being what they are and what makes them golden retrievers.... are ideal for obedience. And I honestly do not see very many labs in obedience. This despite them accounting for a lot more households than even goldens. But you don't see those higher numbers necessarily reflected in obedience. And I would gather the reason is the people who get them generally are into what this breed is really good at. That is why they selected the breed. The lab people I know in obedience - absolutely started out in field first. Obedience (which their dogs do well) is secondary to the fieldwork. This as opposed to my being able to go back through pedigrees to the 70-90's when you had a lot more active golden breeders in obedience putting on conformation titles, secondary to the obedience titles. People here talk about field and conformation going the way of the cuckoo, but let's be honest.... you did not have a glut of very competitive CH's in field. You had some stand out dogs. Maybe this is me just selectively searching on K9data and going back 20-40 years, but there used to be a lot more CH's who were also titled high in obedience. <- And rather than go on the whole tirade about conformation moving farther and farther away from obedience. I think it's actually a combination of things, this including those obedience people from 20-40 years ago retiring from conformation and not being replaced by others who have that same drive and love for their sport. 

And I do think that to really go after titles in a sport - you have to be driven. You're not just talking about dogs having drive. The people themselves have to be dedicated to go after those titles and work with the dogs they own. <- This is a reminder always to myself to get myself in gear as far as spending as much time actually working with Bertie (for example) to get him ready to trial. If I were as driven as others I train with, we would be there already. 

And other thing (again) - I do think that people need to stop looking backwards so many years and thinking you can go back to the type of dog who got dual champions way back then. Things have changed a lot in the breed. It doesn't mean that the quality of dog has digressed so much.... like most breeds, as the numbers in the rings go UP, it becomes that much more cost prohibitive to show a dog who isn't competitive with the others out there. Things are getting a smidge easier now in some areas, but I've heard stories from people who got out of conformation in the 90's because it just was too cutthroat and fruitless showing a dog who had to many things going against him. <- It's very different from other breeds who have much lower competition and have to compete against fewer dogs to get majors, etc. Good luck showing a dog who has stuff going on. 

I'll give an example of DDHF from the 50-60's. I think the dog was primarily affected by the fact it was perched on top of a little grooming table. But it had something funky going on with its rear in the picture. With the way his head was set up too, there was a kinda "U" going on between the head and the rear. I'm a novice, but it's something I saw. I think (and I'm being positive and assuming this was just handler making dog look bad) that it is likely the handler's fault that the dog's only picture on K9Data was not that complimentary to the dog. : But I'd really hate for somebody TODAY going back to a picture like that and going "AHA, see what dogs used to be like!" And not seeing faults (which were probably fabricated by a bad set up) that would absolutely have people outside the ring screaming if a dog won today. 

With conformation today, a lot of people are looking at the overall picture of the dog - this first before they even look at shoulders and knees.... and first thing that you notice is if the back is not level. <- It's stuff like that which would really give a dog a hard time in the ring. And all politics aside make it very difficult for a handler to finish that dog.



> Here's one to ponder....
> For the dogs who enter the water with big entries, how many of them approach life that way? That is, not ever afraid of anything. Bold, fearless.
> For the dogs who enter the water more cautiously, how many of them approach life that way, too? Tend to lay back a little and analyze the situation before thrusting themselves into it?
> I wonder if it's really just a personality difference. I'm not in any way implying one is better than the other, just different.
> I think of Tito, who has never been afraid of anything, which can be a great thing or a bad thing. This is the dummy who has taken flying leaps off the top of the A-frame in agility, dock diving style. Falls off the dog-walk in agility, just shakes off, gets right back on it, and moves on. So that's his basic personality style, and I think it's reflected in his water entry.
> Anyone else?


 I think about it from the perspective of hiking over some relatively rough terrain (especially around lakes where you will have a lot of erosion and 4 foot + drop offs onto hard rocky ground).... Jacks I absolutely trust. He will go running towards the lake (for example) and if he comes to a drop off, he will look down and start going to the side to find a safer way to get down to the lower level. Bertie I don't trust. He will and has gone running, come upon a drop off and taken that jump without any fear. He hasn't killed or injured himself yet, but I'm panicking each and every time. I don't want him to get hurt and would actually prefer him to be more cautious and use his brain a little more out there. 

Ironically, Bertie is more of a thinker. I've been sitting here doing my work (I'm working from home today) and he's discovered that going up to our Christmas tree and nose touching the ornaments gets my attention. I stop what I'm doing to scold him and he comes prancing out to twirl around me since he's got my attention. This is just something he's started to do in the 5 days our tree has been up. 

For training too - I see a lot more calculation and visible thinking going on with him when I'm teaching him something new. This is a dog who quickly learned tracking even when I was not actually teaching him directly. When I'd turn him loose out in the training fields to run around after training tracking with Jacks, Bertie would go running and following the same trail his brother went, searching for any bait that Jacks didn't pick up. 

So he does have brains - but they don't have self-preservation properties when he's all excited about getting into the water or catching up with Jacks or so on.


----------



## TrailDogs

hotel4dogs said:


> The only thing I disagree with is your statement, "it's nothing to strive for...". It's exactly what we should be striving for! It's what Goldens used to be like. Some still are. Not enough of them. I do think in order to improve the breed (see how we've come full circle!) we need to strive for getting them back to how they used to be before people started breeding only to win in their chosen venue, or breeding strictly for $$ with no thought of the future of the breed at all.
> "... We have to make them more like Goldens..." says it all!
> 
> As always, JMO.


I absolutely agree with this. And liking water is just a piece of the pie. The dog has to have the focus, perseverance, and drive to go along with that.

In one of my MH tests the judge turned to me at the end and said 'she runs like a black dog'. I told him, 'no, she runs like a golden'.


----------



## Claudia M

Once the weather gets warmer I will ask permission to tape another golden or a lab and compare to Rose. I have posted on my FB couple short videos of shorter retrieves of Rose and Darcy in the water as a fun bumper but also used that as an encouragement to come back quickly.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Just another "back in the day" example....
Until about 17 or 20 years ago, in obedience dogs were required to jump 1-1/2 times their height in Open and Utility. Yep, that's not a typo, 1.5 times their height.
Goldens owned the obedience ring, still do. And THERE WASN'T ONE who couldn't jump the required 36 inches!!! For many of the Goldens, the requirement (would be for Tito) was 36 inches!!! They did it easily and gracefully. 
In training one day someone was griping that the dogs have to jump their height, saying it's too high for the Goldens. A very, very well known competitor (who has won the NOI more than once) commented that, instead of constantly lowering the heights, they ought to breed the dogs correctly.


----------



## Megora

I know Bertie can jump 36/72 easily (I've seen him take jumps that high and far).... but I'm glad he doesn't have to.  

***It would be worth looking back to see if goldens actually owned the obedience ring though the same way they do now? A lot of old pictures I've seen have a lot of german shepherds. And even some of the people I know who are golden trainers now - they trained GSD years ago? It may have been what was popular at the time though....? My perspective though is - yeah - not only did you have more conformation goldens competing in obedience, but yeah - they had a tougher route of it as well.


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> I know Bertie can jump 36/72 easily (I've seen him take jumps that high and far).... but I'm glad he doesn't have to.  It would be worth looking back to see if goldens actually owned the obedience ring though the same way they do now? A lot of old pictures I've seen have a lot of german shepherds. It may have been what was popular at the time though....?


The first OTCH was a golden owned by Russ Klipple.


----------



## Megora

> In 1977, the Obedience Trial Champion​ (OTCH) title was introduced and the first dog of any breed to​ earn that esteemed title was a Golden: Moreland’s Golden​ Tonka, owned by Russ Klipple. Goldens have earned approximately​ 905 OTCH titles from 1977 to 2012.​


 
^ I googled, because I didn't recognize the name and didn't know when the OTCH title was introduced... ​ http://k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=30011​ 197 HIT's.... ​ 

> _Test classes could become popular-not only to prove the value of developing a dog’s brain, but also in interesting the average visiting public at a show. The judging of dogs in the breed classes is a mystery to many, but a series of tests displaying the dog’s brain is something they can actually see._


_ - excerpt from a letter by Mrs. Walker to AKC Gazette. Note this was a poodle show breeder who initially devised a series of tests to prove that her dogs were more than just a haircut. _​ "She borrowed the idea from England’s sponsorship of the Associated Sheep, Police, Army Dog Society. This English Society had developed competitive tests, which were open to all breeds of dogs. Mrs. Walker approached dog clubs and private kennel owners with her idea of holding competitive tests in conjunction with dog shows in the area. With months of hard work and perseverance in October of 1933, the first Obedience Trial (then called “test”) was held on her father’s estate in Mt. Kisco, NY. There were eight dogs entered in this first obedience test, two Labrador Retrievers, three Poodles, two English Springer Spaniels, and one German Shepherd Dog. The winner of this event was a Labrador Retriever owned by William F. Hutchison of Far Hills, NJ." 

"At that time there was only one obedience class. The exercises included heeling on-leash and off-leash, sitting for two minutes and lying down for five minutes while the owner went out of sight, a drop on recall (the dog is called to the handler and is commanded to lie down when it is half way to the handler and then is signaled to come and sit in front of the handler) retrieving a 2 lb. dumbbell (regardless of breed size) and retrieving another slightly lighter dumbbell over a 42” jump (regardless of breed size).

Mrs. Walker emphasized the importance of dog owners to develop a deeper relationship with their dogs. She encouraged amateurs to participate in obedience tests and stressed accuracy and precision in performance while the dog demonstrated enjoyment and willingness to work. She submitted the first set of guidelines and procedures for obedience tests to the American Kennel Club for consideration on December 7th, 1935. On March 10th, 1936 The American Kennel Club approved the first set of regulations titled _Regulations and Standards for Obedience Test Field Trials_.

Obedience tests were then divided into the three classes we know today, Novice, Open and Utility. The exercises have not been altered that much over time; however any dog that earned a Utility title had to also pass a tracking test to achieve the UD title."


^ I vaguely remember the tracking test or something about it from my first obedience teacher when she would discuss the various disciplines in dog training and explain how they came about. I love history, so this is pretty cool.

It's kinda ironic reading that quote from her letter about the benefits for the public. Compare that to now... conformation is still a fairly widespread spectator draw. You still have 2-3 big shows every year that people with dogs sit down and watch on TV or go to in person. But obedience competition is a private sport. It does not draw spectators, and for the most part.... you kinda have people in the sport who would discourage spectators. I personally know why and am enthusiastic about a local show sticking obedience into a separate hall by itself, away from the hubbub of the main floor where people are buzzing around the conformation rings and vendors. 

​


----------



## Selli-Belle

My sister trained and competed in obedience with a GSD in the 70s, the Goldens dominated the sport then too.

As to obedience being a spectator sport, it's not at all. I grew up around obedience so I know what I am looking at, but for people I have brought to trials...they were soooo bored.


----------



## Megora

Carolyn - even the people entered in trials aren't always that riveted by what's going on in the ring.  

I get super nervous when entered, and I'll be sitting there watching everything and counting and recounting dogs left to go before I have to go in.... but I've looked around and seen people knitting, reading books, and glued to their ipads and ignoring for the most part what is going on in the ring....


----------



## Swampcollie

Jersey's Mom said:


> I agree 110%. But that really wasn't at all the question I was asking. I see over and over and over in threads like this people that judge the traits you describe solely on a golden's ability to meet or beat a lab's performance and style. Why is the bar for our breed set by what another breed is or does? If the goal of all retrieving breeds is to have different looking dogs that are just labs in disguise, I have to wonder why anyone went through the trouble to develop these other breeds in the first place. I don't personally think we improve the golden retriever by turning them into a lab in a slightly scruffier package. I don't believe that was what they were ever intended to be. Is Fisher's re-entry impressive because he does it exactly as a lab would or because his behavior is genuinely golden? I would like to think the latter but perhaps I'm wrong.
> 
> Julie and the boys


It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Labradors. It is about the Golden Retriever's inborn traits and abilities and how they have been weakened over the years in much of the breeding gene pool. 
In years past you could buy any Golden Retriever, teach it basic obedience, and that dog would hunt upland game and retrieve waterfowl in a serviceable manner. They would do this because of their breeding not due to trained behaviours.

That is no longer the case and it shouldn't be that way.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> Here's one to ponder....
> For the dogs who enter the water with big entries, how many of them approach life that way? That is, not ever afraid of anything. Bold, fearless.
> For the dogs who enter the water more cautiously, how many of them approach life that way, too? Tend to lay back a little and analyze the situation before thrusting themselves into it?
> I wonder if it's really just a personality difference. I'm not in any way implying one is better than the other, just different.


To a large degree you're correct.


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> In years past you could buy any Golden Retriever, teach it basic obedience, and that dog would hunt upland game and retrieve waterfowl in a serviceable manner. They would do this because of their breeding not due to trained behaviours.


When specifically was this true, and about when did it stop being true?


----------



## hotel4dogs

According to the trainer we take field lessons from, it was true up until about 20 years ago. Since he trains gun dogs for a living, and manages a hunt club, I think he has a pretty good perspective on it.



tippykayak said:


> When specifically was this true, and about when did it stop being true?


----------



## Bentman2

Yea, I think *Swampcollie* has a point here. Bentley has been around water all of his life and I have encouraged him toward water, but he has very slow to get in the water, far enough out, to swim. Only this summer, 12-13 months old, did he finally go out. This was in a river and only after I led him out by carrying a tennis ball as a lure. When he did get out, he was all arms, not being graceful or smooth, in his efforts. He has only been out swimming 3 times so far but still seems unsure of himself. :wavey:


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> According to the trainer we take field lessons from, it was true up until about 20 years ago. Since he trains gun dogs for a living, and manages a hunt club, I think he has a pretty good perspective on it.


So, like mid-nineties, all but a handful of purebred Goldens would have made decent or better hunting dogs, but today, some large proportion no longer have the instinct/ability? 

Anybody have an estimate on what proportion of Goldens no longer have the appropriate instinct and ability as of today?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I'm guessing where you are heading here and I doubt that any of us have any scientific evidence or proof. This is anecdotal evidence, personal observations, which cannot be documented nor footnoted.
Any scientific evidence to the contrary will, of course, be welcomed.




tippykayak said:


> So, like mid-nineties, all but a handful of purebred Goldens would have made decent or better hunting dogs, but today, some large proportion no longer have the instinct/ability?
> 
> Anybody have an estimate on what proportion of Goldens no longer have the appropriate instinct and ability as of today?


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm guessing where you are heading here and I doubt that any of us have any scientific evidence or proof. This is anecdotal evidence, personal observations, which cannot be documented nor footnoted.
> Any scientific evidence to the contrary will, of course, be welcomed.


I wasn't challenging the claim. It's obvious on its face that it's anecdotal, so challenging it would simply be one person's anecdotal experience vs. another's. And I'm in no position to contradict it, since even though I am batting 1000 when it comes to owning Goldens with drive, intelligence, retrieving ability, birdiness, and love of water, my sample size is 3, and they all came from substantial hunting dog and obedience pedigrees. So I really have no idea how many Goldens today have or lack those qualities, and I certainly have no idea how many had those qualities 20 years ago. I remember my childhood Golden (BYB) loved to swim but was rather timid.

I'm just wondering how many Goldens seem to lack these abilities today relative to nearly all of them having it 20 years ago. I figured the folks saying that it has dropped off significantly within 5-10 generations would have some sense of where they think it is now.


----------



## lhowemt

Our bridge girl Hazel was a charger. She would leap off or down anything and keep going at a sprint (land or water). It made it a bit difficult in her younger years rafting and camping along rivers because she would just go in anything. She was fearful of some noises, fireworks, the fan in the truck, and didn't like spraying water sounds. The last 2 were kind of odd. I always wished we had done some dock diving but weekends in the woods and on rivers was so much more interesting than in town with a pool and leash. Her niece Lila hated water until she was about 2. No matter how hot she was she didn't want to go in. Then something changed and now she loves it. She is not a charger but is in the water immediately just swimming around, not even so much for fetching. Silly girl. Pearl loves to fetch in the water, the land seems to bore her. Although she doesn't leap like Hazel did. We will see how Betty develops.


----------



## DanaRuns

I think that's a great question, and I was wondering the same thing. I'm batting 1.000, too. I'd love to hear about the decline, how serious it is, and what caused it.


----------



## SheetsSM

I would be curious too, did the lifestyle's of the people owning the "great examples of the past" change to those who own today's goldens? Is it the same lifestyle, the same breeding programs, the same training, the same hunting conditions & for some reason today's goldens fall short (as seen in some people's opinions)? There are so many variables at play. I have to wonder if perhaps the aperture has widened where more goldens from various breedings and styles of ownership are now participating in events they wouldn't have participated in in the past.


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> I think that's a great question, and I was wondering the same thing. I'm batting 1.000, too. I'd love to hear about the decline, how serious it is, and what caused it.


Dana, you have expressed an interest in epigenetics. Do you not ever think that after several generations of dogs not working, those genes that are never expressed may get turned off or expressed in a different way?
Or do you think those abilities will just happen to be there when needed.

When people come to this forum looking for a puppy they are steered towards conformation dogs, often stated because a hunting bred dog is too high energy for a pet home. 
So if you breed the drive out of a dog by selecting for calm, low energy dogs that make good couch potatoes, what does that leave in it for the dog as a hunting companion that requires the energy and stamina to work all day?

The breed has two things working against it, epigenetics and selective breeding with disregard to purpose.


----------



## kwhit

I'll put in what little experience I have...

In the mid to late 70's and through the 80's I had Danes. A friend of mine had Labs, (still does), and another friend had Goldens, (lost touch with her). We used to go to the beach or a lake almost every weekend that our work/school schedules would allow. My Danes would never go near the water but had fun anyway. We could hardly get the Goldens and Labs out of the water when it was time to go. Fearless swimmers. _All_ their dogs hunted. I think my one friend's Dad had 5 or 6 Goldens. I can't really remember, but I know that he was always on a hunting trip with one or two of the dogs because she would bring different dogs every time.

When I first started in pet stores, (late 70's), we sold _a lot_ of training supplies for hunters. Scents, canvas dummies, vinyl dummies, etc. We sold a ton and most had Labs but there were a lot of Goldens, too. Then all of a sudden there was no more interest. Now, I hardly get any customers that hunt their Goldens, (I ask). But the Labs that come in still usually hunt, not all, but definitely way more than the Goldens.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Dana, you have expressed an interest in epigenetics. Do you not ever think that after several generations of dogs not working, those genes that are never expressed may get turned off or expressed in a different way?
> Or do you think those abilities will just happen to be there when needed.


I don't think that's quite how epigenetics works. So that's not a cause, to my thinking.



> When people come to this forum looking for a puppy they are steered towards conformation dogs, often stated because a hunting bred dog is too high energy for a pet home.
> So if you breed the drive out of a dog by selecting for calm, low energy dogs that make good couch potatoes, what does that leave in it for the dog as a hunting companion that requires the energy and stamina to work all day?


That may be a cause, for sure.

However, I'm not entirely on board with your premise (not against it, just not committed). Certainly, some breed for calm dogs, and even market them as therapy dog puppies, etc. And certainly, also, dogs bred as family pets are not so high drive, high energy that they make poor companions. The part I'm not necessarily on board with is the notion that dogs with a good "off switch" make for poor hunting dogs. That's never been my experience. Even back in the day when all we had were hunting Goldens (notice I don't say "field Goldens," as that term has a particular connotation) they were great family pets and couch potatoes, who could turn it on and enthusiastically hunt all day long. Probably not a single one of them would ever have won a field trial, but boy did they hunt, and boy did they have boundless energy. Just because a dog is suitable for a family doesn't mean it has lost its purpose. The same goes with Greyhounds. Those racers that are the fastest dogs on earth? When they're not running, it's near impossible to get them off the couch.

My guess is that those whose focus is field competition events have gotten used to such high energy dogs that they look at the rest of the Golden world and say to themselves, "Well, those dogs could never compete!" And that's probably true. But I don't think it means they've lost their purpose, their instincts, their working abilities, and their drive. I think Goldens -- as far back as I remember, in the 1960s -- have always had the capability to be excellent couch potatoes and still be good hunters, if perhaps not field trial champions.

However, there is definitely a great deal of truth to the notion that careless breeding leads to generic dogs in just several generations. And just as Goldens can easily lose the look of a Golden -- IT DRIVES ME NUTS WITH ALL THE PEOPLE STARTING THREADS SAYING, "IS MY DOG A GOLDEN RETRIEVER?" GAH! :no: -- they can also lose the other traits of a Golden, including drive, nose, courage and all the other things that make a good hunter. That's all very, very true. Lots of folks here pretend that it isn't, but it definitely is, and you can't know if you don't put the dog out there in some fashion. Keep your dog in a crate and a show ring its whole life, and you will never know if your dog has lost its purpose, no matter how excellent a visual example of the breed it is.

Where I stop on this journey is the assumption that the breed as a whole has lost it, and specifically that Goldens bred for conformation have lost it. I'm not at all sure that's the case, and indeed my own anecdotal evidence all points to a good retention of those core traits. Again, I'm sure none of them would ever win a field trial. So, I suppose we may just be arguing over line drawing. 

Our club put on a WC/WCX test recently. (Yes, I know a lot of you scoff at that. Go ahead, I'll wait. ... Done, now? Okay, I'll proceed, then.) Most of the dogs that ran the test did so with limited training, as these were mostly conformation folks running their dogs in it -- I won't say "for fun," but more as a method of ensuring that the dogs they breed have _not_ lost it all. All but two ran the tests really well, much better than I expected for a bunch of show dogs. Two were not good, and one failed the first leg and never even made it to the water retrieves. But as for the others, I think that watching them you would probably have agreed that they still have the innate qualities they were bred for.



> The breed has two things working against it, epigenetics and selective breeding with disregard to purpose.


I agree with the second part of that, to some degree. But even a lot of those fluffy conformation breeders are still out there making sure their dogs can run hunt tests. So the question becomes, to what degree has the breed "lost it?" Is it to the point that your typical ethically hobby bred Golden has lost its purpose?

I don't know the answer. I know what you think it is. I'm just not as certain. And I think that comes from our varied experiences and the different places where we might draw that line.


----------



## DanaRuns

kwhit said:


> I'll put in what little experience I have...
> 
> In the mid to late 70's and through the 80's I had Danes. A friend of mine had Labs, (still does), and another friend had Goldens, (lost touch with her). We used to go to the beach or a lake almost every weekend that our work/school schedules would allow. My Danes would never go near the water but had fun anyway. We could hardly get the Goldens and Labs out of the water when it was time to go. Fearless swimmers. _All_ their dogs hunted. I think my one friend's Dad had 5 or 6 Goldens. I can't really remember, but I know that he was always on a hunting trip with one or two of the dogs because she would bring different dogs every time.
> 
> When I first started in pet stores, (late 70's), we sold _a lot_ of training supplies for hunters. Scents, canvas dummies, vinyl dummies, etc. We sold a ton and most had Labs but there were a lot of Goldens, too. Then all of a sudden there was no more interest. Now, I hardly get any customers that hunt their Goldens, (I ask). But the Labs that come in still usually hunt, not all, but definitely way more than the Goldens.


A lot has changed in the Bay Area. When I lived in San Rafael in the 70s, it was kind of in the sticks and we had a deer trail that ran right outside my bedroom window. Not so, today. The area has urbanized, and the population has changed. So I'm not sure your experience is about the dogs so much as it is the kind of people who live in the area today. All those folks from back in the 70s have moved to Humboldt.


----------



## Swampcollie

tippykayak said:


> When specifically was this true, and about when did it stop being true?


They hunted well "out of the box" up until the period of the mid sixties to the mid seventies. Prior to that it was common to use the same dog for hunting, trialing and conformation. Breeders had worked to keep the breed a "do it all" dog.

By the time the late seventies and early eighties rolled around things had changed and there were a lot of dogs being bred without any regard for the working ability the breed had been famous for. (This trend continues by the way.)


----------



## TrailDogs

Good answer Dana, different takes on the epigenetics, I have seen presentations at the cellular level but at some point it affects the whole organism. So I like to hedge my bets and see that those genetics are active and working. And there is much we still don't know.

Below is a very simplified explanation for anyone who does not know what this is:
*There are many definitions of epigenetics, but simply put, says Professor Marcus Pembrey, a geneticist at University College London and the University of Bristol, it is a change in our genetic activity without changing our genetic code. It is a process that happens throughout our lives and is normal to development. Chemical tags get attached to our genetic code, like bookmarks in the pages of a book, signalling to our bodies which genes to ignore and which to use.
*
But let's hypothetically take this forum as sample of the general population. Why is there often such an emphasis on the fact that someone looking for a pet puppy should not get a performance bred pup. The dog will be too high energy.
It is after all a sporting breed.
It is a breed that should need exercise and mental stimulation. 
These conversations lead me to believe that people are breeding their dogs to be couch potatoes. Especially when I see no inclination in the pedigrees to work the dogs.


----------



## gdgli

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm guessing where you are heading here and I doubt that any of us have any scientific evidence or proof. This is anecdotal evidence, personal observations, which cannot be documented nor footnoted.
> Any scientific evidence to the contrary will, of course, be welcomed.


I could take out my hunt test notes but I won't. I keep an eye out for all Goldens that have the stuff and make a note of it.


----------



## Swampcollie

SheetsSM said:


> I would be curious too, did the lifestyle's of the people owning the "great examples of the past" change to those who own today's goldens? Is it the same lifestyle, the same breeding programs, the same training, the same hunting conditions & for some reason today's goldens fall short (as seen in some people's opinions)? There are so many variables at play. I have to wonder if perhaps the aperture has widened where more goldens from various breedings and styles of ownership are now participating in events they wouldn't have participated in in the past.


The breed standard hasn't changed where "Purpose" is concerned. It has always been defined as a hunting dog and continues to be today. The changing lifestyles of people shouldn't matter if you're going to breed to the standard. If you're going to allow adjustment of what's important by peoples changing lifestyles, why have a breed standard?


----------



## Brave

I get the feeling that those who want emphasis on purpose, would prefer there were no pet homes. And that the breed is solely a sporting dog. 

I don't mind a high strung dog. I have one. He has energy from here until the end of time. Nothing stops him. But he also has an amazing off switch. If I'm unable to exercise him for days on end, he isn't tearing up my house because he's bored. He's crashed on the couch/floor/bed relaxing. Sure he has his toys and fun but he doesn't need to be ran hours on end just to ensure he doesn't destroy my house. 

From what I've been hearing, field dogs are generalized as high strung, needing extensive exercise and needing a job. Realistically, that doesn't translate to a pet home. Especially not most of the pet homes we see come across the forum. People who work 9-5, away from their home, with limited "free time". If you go to that family and give them a high strung puppy that doesn't have an off switch, and needs hours of exercise. The puppy will be returned. Or worse, tied to the tree in the backyard. 

IMO, the golden is more than just a sporting dog. As someone said previously, their allure is in their versatility. 

I'd love to see more Ch. Conformation dogs with field titles. And I'd love to see field dogs that dominate their field with conformation titles. Ideally, I'd like to see most breeding stock come to the table with titles in all venues: obedience, agility, field/hunt, conformation, and therapy. That would be a well rounded dog who has proven they can truly do it all. But whose going to do that? 

As Barb said, we're all different and want different things for our dogs. There is no one-fit-all. 

So why force golden lovers elsewhere to a different breed because we don't hunt? Why not work together to make sure all the bases are covered? 

And in that lies the problem. Cause you will never breed an ideal dog to another ideal dog. Each dog has weaknesses. And it's up the individual breeder to determine which weakness is more important to strengthen.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, for the purpose of preserving the breed, people refer to their dogs as "hunting dogs" if they can run a WC/WCX or hunt test. 
In reality, these tests tell you that the dog can be taught to play OUR GAME, not that the dog can hunt.
While I realize we don't really have a better yardstick with which to measure, other than hunt tests or field trials, they are not the same as hunting. Just because a dog can pass a JH or a WC doesn't mean the dog is a suitable hunting companion.
The standard calls for Goldens to be "primarily a hunting dog". Nowhere does it say that they should be capable of running in field trials. Or hunt tests for that matter.
The skill set required for a hunting dog is vastly different than that for a field trial. Ex-forum member Shelly wrote a great article for GRCC at some point explaining why the traits that make Goldens great hunters also make them perfect pet dogs, I wish I had a copy of it.
But I recall it included things like the dog needs to be calm and focused. Can't have a hyper dog bouncing around the duck blind, barking. No, they need that "off switch" to sit quietly until told to do something, at which point they need to have the physique, drive, and stamina to go get the birds. 
They need to be very smart, and highly trainable. They need to get along with other dogs, and with all people. It's common to hunt alongside other dogs, and there can't be any snarkiness. They can't have any fearfulness or skittishness. 
They need to love to retrieve. Period. Sure a dog can be taught, from a few weeks old, to retrieve. But I'm talking about a dog who just loves to retrieve. The 8 week old puppy who, freshly home from the breeder with NO previous experience in retrieving, happily goes and gets something that was tossed, and returns with it. The returning with it is pretty important, you don't want a dog who retrieves a bird and then takes off with it.
In the upland field, they need to have the independence and courage to check heavy cover, and to travel MILES for HOURS, often in weather that's either hot or cold. Upland hunting is very physically taxing, it truly shows whether or not a dog's structure is suitable for a dog that is "primarily a hunting dog", whereas hunt tests don't begin to. Retrieving a few marks, or training for an hour, don't begin to compare to upland hunting. Running a few water blinds doesn't begin to compare to waterfowl hunting.
Also, a hunting dog needs to be able to shrug off minor pain. Brambles, cold water, a mis-step, shouldn't cause the dog to stop and shut down. 
Ok, so I know I'm rambling (and kicking myself for not having Shelly's article), but let's think about the pet Golden.
Who wouldn't want a dog who is quiet and calm in the house, and then raring to go when you want the dog to do something? Who wouldn't want a dog who is eager, smart, easy to train, and willing to please? Who wouldn't want a dog who is fearless, not reactive to loud or sudden noises? Who wouldn't want a dog who likes all other dogs, and likes all people?
For families, who wouldn't want a dog who has the desire and stamina to enjoy an active lifestyle, which might include hiking, biking, or just lots of ball playing in the back yard? And for families with children, who wouldn't want a dog who ignores the minor pain that children often accidentally inflict, without the dog snapping? 
And that is exactly what people think they are getting when they get a Golden Retriever. But sadly, all too often, that's not what they end up with. But it should be.

edit to add....I'm not attacking anyone's personal dog. Far from it. I often and loudly make the distinction between people who own a companion dog, and people who breed. The breeders hold the "keys to the kingdom", and it is they that I am addressing. People who breed a Golden, any Golden, need to be held to the very highest of standards.


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, for the purpose of preserving the breed, people refer to their dogs as "hunting dogs" if they can run a WC/WCX or hunt test.
> In reality, these tests tell you that the dog can be taught to play OUR GAME, not that the dog can hunt.
> While I realize we don't really have a better yardstick with which to measure, other than hunt tests or field trials, they are not the same as hunting. Just because a dog can pass a JH or a WC doesn't mean the dog is a suitable hunting companion.
> The standard calls for Goldens to be "primarily a hunting dog". Nowhere does it say that they should be capable of running in field trials. Or hunt tests for that matter.
> The skill set required for a hunting dog is vastly different than that for a field trial. Ex-forum member Shelly wrote a great article for GRCC at some point explaining why the traits that make Goldens great hunters also make them perfect pet dogs, I wish I had a copy of it.
> But I recall it included things like the dog needs to be calm and focused. Can't have a hyper dog bouncing around the duck blind, barking. No, they need that "off switch" to sit quietly until told to do something, at which point they need to have the physique, drive, and stamina to go get the birds.
> They need to be very smart, and highly trainable. They need to get along with other dogs, and with all people. It's common to hunt alongside other dogs, and there can't be any snarkiness. They can't have any fearfulness or skittishness.
> They need to love to retrieve. Period. Sure a dog can be taught, from a few weeks old, to retrieve. But I'm talking about a dog who just loves to retrieve. The 8 week old puppy who, freshly home from the breeder with NO previous experience in retrieving, happily goes and gets something that was tossed, and returns with it. The returning with it is pretty important, you don't want a dog who retrieves a bird and then takes off with it.
> In the upland field, they need to have the independence and courage to check heavy cover, and to travel MILES for HOURS, often in weather that's either hot or cold. Upland hunting is very physically taxing, it truly shows whether or not a dog's structure is suitable for a dog that is "primarily a hunting dog", whereas hunt tests don't begin to. Retrieving a few marks, or training for an hour, don't begin to compare to upland hunting. Running a few water blinds doesn't begin to compare to waterfowl hunting.
> Also, a hunting dog needs to be able to shrug off minor pain. Brambles, cold water, a mis-step, shouldn't cause the dog to stop and shut down.
> Ok, so I know I'm rambling (and kicking myself for not having Shelly's article), but let's think about the pet Golden.
> Who wouldn't want a dog who is quiet and calm in the house, and then raring to go when you want the dog to do something? Who wouldn't want a dog who is eager, smart, easy to train, and willing to please? Who wouldn't want a dog who is fearless, not reactive to loud or sudden noises? Who wouldn't want a dog who likes all other dogs, and likes all people?
> For families, who wouldn't want a dog who has the desire and stamina to enjoy an active lifestyle, which might include hiking, biking, or just lots of ball playing in the back yard? And for families with children, who wouldn't want a dog who ignores the minor pain that children often accidentally inflict, without the dog snapping?
> And that is exactly what people think they are getting when they get a Golden Retriever. But sadly, all too often, that's not what they end up with. But it should be.
> 
> edit to add....I'm not attacking anyone's personal dog. Far from it. I often and loudly make the distinction between people who own a companion dog, and people who breed. The breeders hold the "keys to the kingdom", and it is they that I am addressing. People who breed a Golden, any Golden, need to be held to the very highest of standards.



I have only been dove hunting and that OFF switch is absolutely imperative. We had 10 or more people on the farm. Dog had to sit still, quiet no matter how many other guns were shot and how many birds were dropped and your dog had to wait until you dropped your bird. 

That not only takes a dog that stays and awaits for you to tell it what to do but also a dog that can take the mental stress (and yes - mental stress is involved) because at the moment they see a bird drop they simply assume it is theirs for the taking. 

The notion that a hunting dog cannot be a pet dog is completely incorrect.


----------



## Megora

And Barb - most people who love their dogs are going to say that they have every ounce of that in the dogs they have. It just gets frustrating that temperament and trainability is thrown out there and it seems people expect dogs to be full fledged field dogs on instinct alone regardless of what the owner has done to nurture or destroy that. 

I know with our first golden (who was crappy bred dog - had cataracts, had an edgy temperament, likely suffered all his life from kidney defects and died from renal failure).... he came home as a terrified and badly socialized 12 week old puppy. And the only thing that suddenly pulled him out of his shell and made him happy again was us throwing toys for him. He basically lit up and turned into a totally different puppy right away and was OK after that. 

I'll tell you that since he was never used for hunting (we don't hunt in my family, we don't even fish! - not political about it, we just have no interest) and was mostly trained by kids.... he lost that perfect retrieve as he learned to play the "keep away game". 

I'll bet majority of goldens have a decent retrieve in them, but the owners are at fault for not training or nurturing what those puppies have. 

The goldens who came home with zero retrieve instincts apparent (Danny and Bertie) - they were taught to retrieve properly and it became something they LOVED and took a lot of joy in. 

It was quite different training them then what I see with people with other breeds who have zero retrieve, were not bred to retrieve, don't even have mouths that were meant to carry heavy stuff in. 

I have friends who are great trainers who train beagles to retrieve just as well as golden retrievers. But even there, the beagle is doing it to please their owner and earn a reward. You don't have the same amount of enthusiasm and joy of CHASING DOWN THAT THING AND BRINGING IT BACK WITH TRIUMPH.... that you see with golden retrievers. Even those who did not "have it" when they were puppies. 

I think things have vastly changed with your average dog owner. It is really true that ages ago people didn't go to dog classes with dogs.... but they also trained their dogs all the same. Some of the best trained dogs I know outside of obedience classes (and these are people who barely take their dogs to the vet, forget about dog school!) - they are owned by people who train horses and as a matter of course train their dogs too. The animals all have purposes and jobs to do. In the dogs cases, you have herders for the other animals and retrievers for hunting. 

And yep things have changed with people getting into breeding who have no grounding in the purpose of these dogs - whether that is obedience or field. I don't buy the whole "therapy dog" stuff. Honestly, I get concerned about those dogs I've met who were bred to be therapy dogs. They have no "Go" to them. 

I'm not a field person, but I think these dogs need to have that busy mind and bottomless pit of energy reserve. They should be flashy and energetic when young. I don't want to see a young dog acting like a 10 year old! 

And Dog Training has changed. 

My earliest introduction to a well bred golden was a Meadowpond line girl who was a CH, UD, WC, etc. Our instructor back then would have people come to the first class of puppy class and sit through a lecture on what the purpose of a dog is, purpose of training, and places you could go with a pedigree registered dog in obedience. And this was back before any mixed breed without papers could compete in AKC events. There was a discussion on reading dogs and understanding dog behavior - and the role that plays in dog training and dog ownership. 

And after all of that... she would bring out her golden and demo various things. 

The thing I loved to see was this very blond and very hairy golden came running out to meet everyone, bustling around, just wiggling and wagging.... and when called to heel, she showed all that same energy and joy but controlled and driving with purpose while working. 

It was my first time to see a dog doing obedience with joy and energy expressed with every movement. This without the owner overtly cheerleading or chain feeding treats. It was inspiring and made me want to have the same relationship with my dog. To have MY DOG working with me FOR ME the same way. 

These puppy classes as they followed touched on every avenue of dog training - this was field, conformation, obedience, and agility. 

Retrieving was not just throwing toys around and all that. She introduced bumpers and using a whistle while training. The dogs were introduced to baby obstacles for agility. They were introduced to tables for grooming. 

And these classes were all well-rounded and geared towards inspiring people to go out beyond just playing with dogs and showing their puppy fluff off in class, which I think a lot of puppy classes have turned into.

*** I could totally get carried away with more venting here about the difference between what "inspired" me (when I was 10-11 years old) and what I see people exposed to today, even at good training clubs. Have to run shopping for New Years though!


----------



## TrailDogs

Brave said:


> I get the feeling that those who want emphasis on purpose, would prefer there were no pet homes. And that the breed is solely a sporting dog.


Brave, not at all, many field bred goldens go to pet homes and they do just fine. The qualities that make the golden a good hunting dog, trainability, energy, focus, drive, steadiness, working along with other dogs in the field, also make for a great family dog. 
These qualities are the essence of the golden temperament. These are also the qualities that make the golden so versatile.
These dogs can, and do, turn it off in the house.


----------



## hollyk

My idea of water courage has a lot more wrapped into it than a dog who likes to swim. I agree prey drive is a part of it but there is something else there too. The only way I can think to describe it is that they have to be very comfortable in water and that this is somehow separate from being a good swimmer. 
In field work we ask them to do very weird things in the water. To turn, trend water and look for a cast, to change directions, to get on points and then get off them, to cast away from land or swim parallel a shore. They have to be very comfortable in all kinds of water conditions and confident enough to pick up and handle a very much alive bird who really doesn't want to be brought in. Can you imagine going out after a bird, tracking it down and wrangling it up while you're swimming? 
I think you have to be working higher level concepts to get a good feel on how much water courage a dog has. 
I think you do have to select for it or you risk losing it.


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> Ex-forum member Shelly wrote a great article for GRCC at some point explaining why the traits that make Goldens great hunters also make them perfect pet dogs, I wish I had a copy of it.
> But I recall it included things like the dog needs to be calm and focused. Can't have a hyper dog bouncing around the duck blind, barking. No, they need that "off switch" to sit quietly until told to do something, at which point they need to have the physique, drive, and stamina to go get the birds.
> They need to be very smart, and highly trainable. They need to get along with other dogs, and with all people. It's common to hunt alongside other dogs, and there can't be any snarkiness. They can't have any fearfulness or skittishness.
> They need to love to retrieve... In the upland field, they need to have the independence and courage to check heavy cover, and to travel MILES for HOURS, often in weather that's either hot or cold. Upland hunting is very physically taxing... a hunting dog needs to be able to shrug off minor pain. Brambles, cold water, a mis-step, shouldn't cause the dog to stop and shut down.
> Ok, so I know I'm rambling (and kicking myself for not having Shelly's article), but let's think about the pet Golden.
> Who wouldn't want a dog who is quiet and calm in the house, and then raring to go when you want the dog to do something? Who wouldn't want a dog who is eager, smart, easy to train, and willing to please? Who wouldn't want a dog who is fearless, not reactive to loud or sudden noises? Who wouldn't want a dog who likes all other dogs, and likes all people?
> For families, who wouldn't want a dog who has the desire and stamina to enjoy an active lifestyle, which might include hiking, biking, or just lots of ball playing in the back yard? And for families with children, who wouldn't want a dog who ignores the minor pain that children often accidentally inflict, without the dog snapping?
> And that is exactly what people think they are getting when they get a Golden Retriever. But sadly, all too often, that's not what they end up with. But it should be.



Barb - I really want to thank you for this post. This truly brings to light the crossover between the two, that I was not seeing when people fixated on how the average golden cannot be a hunting dog (so on and so forth) but it seems to do well as a pet. 

I think this also brings to light how well rounded the dog has to be. It isn't all drive to keep the golden "true to its purpose" and with that in mind I think we've kept a majority of goldens true to their purpose. 

Generally speaking, It's hard for me to understand when someone complains there isn't enough drive in the general population, so they want to infuse the breed as a whole with more drive. To me, life comes in variations. Each dog is an individual and will have different levels of certain traits. People will pick and choose which dogs meet their needs. Maybe for the hunter, they want the puppy with the most drive. Maybe for the pet home they want the puppy whose most balanced between driven and calm. Maybe for the performance home they want the puppy that is most eager to please (and biddable). All these different puppies could be from the same litter, same parents, same lineage. You pick what meets your needs. That doesn't mean that the other 7 puppies in the litter are any less Golden Retrievers because they don't meet your specific tastes and needs. 

I think that's why it's so hard for me to hear others criticize the breed for not excelling as well as another breed or another dog. I'm trying to separate personal feelings from objective criticism. But it still stings when people toss around a dogs inability (or just lack of experience, having never run it) to do hunt and field work as the measuring tool to decide if it's truly a golden retriever.


----------



## gdgli

*Sorry, repost.
*


----------



## TheZ's

As has been noted, one of the wonderful things about Goldens is their versatility. They're good at lots of things and I think it's sad that we can't appreciate the skills and accomplishments of Goldens in venues other than those we choose to participate in. I guess because one of my Goldens did therapy work I was particularly unhappy to see: "_And yep things have changed with people getting into breeding who have no grounding in the purpose of these dogs - whether that is obedience or field. I don't buy the whole "therapy dog" stuff. Honestly, I get concerned about those dogs I've met who were bred to be therapy dogs. They have no "Go" to them." _Facilities love to have Golden therapy dogs because of their empathy, love of people, stability, intelligence etc., etc. It's having the best of the Golden temperament that makes them good therapy dogs. Our Zeke, who was from a very strong field pedigree and very high energy, while never certified as a therapy dog, many times displayed the empathy and provided the comfort to friends and strangers that a good therapy dog does.

And as I recall the breed standard doesn't say the purpose of the breed is "obedience or field". My recollection is "primarily a hunting dog".


----------



## Megora

(


TheZ's said:


> I think it's sad that we can't appreciate the skills and accomplishments of Goldens in venues other than those we choose to participate in. I guess because one of my Goldens did therapy work I was particularly unhappy to see: "_And yep things have changed with people getting into breeding who have no grounding in the purpose of these dogs - whether that is obedience or field. I don't buy the whole "therapy dog" stuff. Honestly, I get concerned about those dogs I've met who were bred to be therapy dogs. _


But I understand you did not purchase a puppy from a program that has no other accomplishments to tout on the dogs they breed other than saying they are therapy dogs and have RN titles. 

If you want to do obedience with dogs, you want to see something behind the dog or have a breeder knowledgeable about what needs to be there for a dog who can do well in obedience. One thing I'll probably point out and this is temperament and structure and how it affects performance in obedience. Jacks is cautious and it doesn't take very much for him to balk about doing something if it makes him uncomfortable or hurt in some way. So touching the jump was something that would cause us to have a setback. Other thing with him is he was never as leggy as Bertie (meaning proportions not actual length of legs). So him being fairly deep chested meant he was not as graceful taking jumps as Bertie is. My instructor would tell me she always would hold her breath watching Jacks go over jumps, even when he was jumping 25" (1.5 inches over his shoulder), because he just wasn't a good jumper. 

When I was looking for a puppy - not just with goldens, but other breeds as well, it seems to be the newest fad to use these things (therapy dogs, etc and rally novice titles) as distinctions for their breeding dogs. This despite it being no proof of temperament or drive. My perspective was I wanted a dog who everything I wanted in a golden retriever, but I also wanted an athletic dog. A dog who can GO and a dog who can jump with ease.

And you listen to some of these breeders describe what they hope to attain in their breeding, and it really is singling out more sluggish types. Which was antagonistic to what I was personally looking for. 

I have an appreciation for people doing stuff with their dogs and good on the dogs, but there are certain qualities which I don't want in a golden retriever. Just the same as I wouldn't want a dog that is bouncing off the walls and isn't owner focused. I think these dogs should have "go" in them. 



> A symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident


 ^ If you want to quote the breed standard, which many here seem to want. This is the first line.



> Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition.


 Second line - which goes back to this being a sporting breed. 



> Overall appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts


 And this is the last line of the section. Which is how I've learned to look at these dogs, for whatever it is worth. A lot of people get caught up talking about bits and pieces of the dogs, but need to look at the whole picture.


But even bigger picture -


If your dog isn't sound structurally or mentally, doesn't matter what instincts or talents he has. Same thing if your dog dies from cancer at a young age after you put all that training in.


----------



## K9-Design

hollyk said:


> They have to be very comfortable in all kinds of water conditions and confident enough to pick up and handle a very much alive bird who really doesn't want to be brought in. Can you imagine going out after a bird, tracking it down and wrangling it up while your swimming?
> I think you have to be working higher level concepts to get a good feel on how much water courage a dog has.


Slater


----------



## kwhit

DanaRuns said:


> So I'm not sure your experience is about the dogs so much as it is the kind of people who live in the area today.


Maybe, but that doesn't explain all the Labs that come in that still hunt. With Goldens, maybe 5%. My sister lives in the Santa Cruz mountains and a lot of people she knows still hunt. She doesn't recall if anyone had a Golden but she did mention a ton of Labs, a lot of Chessies, and a couple of Brittanys. But...she does know a lot of Goldens that are strictly family pets. She said she'll ask around to get a better idea if there are more Goldens. 

When I took Chance and Lucy for their walk tonight, I asked my neighbor who is an avid hunter, (he has a Lab), if there were any Goldens in his group. He said there were only a couple. He also said that he doesn't know of many in other groups, either. Mainly Labs, he said.


----------



## DanaRuns

There are a lot of great posts in this thread, but Barb's really spoke to me most. So far.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, for the purpose of preserving the breed, people refer to their dogs as "hunting dogs" if they can run a WC/WCX or hunt test.
> In reality, these tests tell you that the dog can be taught to play OUR GAME, not that the dog can hunt.
> While I realize we don't really have a better yardstick with which to measure, other than hunt tests or field trials, they are not the same as hunting. Just because a dog can pass a JH or a WC doesn't mean the dog is a suitable hunting companion.
> The standard calls for Goldens to be "primarily a hunting dog". Nowhere does it say that they should be capable of running in field trials. Or hunt tests for that matter.
> The skill set required for a hunting dog is vastly different than that for a field trial. Ex-forum member Shelly wrote a great article for GRCC at some point explaining why the traits that make Goldens great hunters also make them perfect pet dogs, I wish I had a copy of it.
> But I recall it included things like the dog needs to be calm and focused. Can't have a hyper dog bouncing around the duck blind, barking. No, they need that "off switch" to sit quietly until told to do something, at which point they need to have the physique, drive, and stamina to go get the birds.
> They need to be very smart, and highly trainable. They need to get along with other dogs, and with all people. It's common to hunt alongside other dogs, and there can't be any snarkiness. They can't have any fearfulness or skittishness.
> They need to love to retrieve. Period. Sure a dog can be taught, from a few weeks old, to retrieve. But I'm talking about a dog who just loves to retrieve. The 8 week old puppy who, freshly home from the breeder with NO previous experience in retrieving, happily goes and gets something that was tossed, and returns with it. The returning with it is pretty important, you don't want a dog who retrieves a bird and then takes off with it.
> In the upland field, they need to have the independence and courage to check heavy cover, and to travel MILES for HOURS, often in weather that's either hot or cold. Upland hunting is very physically taxing, it truly shows whether or not a dog's structure is suitable for a dog that is "primarily a hunting dog", whereas hunt tests don't begin to. Retrieving a few marks, or training for an hour, don't begin to compare to upland hunting. Running a few water blinds doesn't begin to compare to waterfowl hunting.
> Also, a hunting dog needs to be able to shrug off minor pain. Brambles, cold water, a mis-step, shouldn't cause the dog to stop and shut down.
> Ok, so I know I'm rambling (and kicking myself for not having Shelly's article), but let's think about the pet Golden.
> Who wouldn't want a dog who is quiet and calm in the house, and then raring to go when you want the dog to do something? Who wouldn't want a dog who is eager, smart, easy to train, and willing to please? Who wouldn't want a dog who is fearless, not reactive to loud or sudden noises? Who wouldn't want a dog who likes all other dogs, and likes all people?
> For families, who wouldn't want a dog who has the desire and stamina to enjoy an active lifestyle, which might include hiking, biking, or just lots of ball playing in the back yard? And for families with children, who wouldn't want a dog who ignores the minor pain that children often accidentally inflict, without the dog snapping?
> And that is exactly what people think they are getting when they get a Golden Retriever. But sadly, all too often, that's not what they end up with. But it should be.
> 
> edit to add....I'm not attacking anyone's personal dog. Far from it. I often and loudly make the distinction between people who own a companion dog, and people who breed. The breeders hold the "keys to the kingdom", and it is they that I am addressing. People who breed a Golden, any Golden, need to be held to the very highest of standards.


Pretty much agree with you except you forgot one thing, a inborn desire for birds. Without that you still won't have a hunting dog.


----------



## Swampcollie

Megora said:


> I'll bet majority of goldens have a decent retrieve in them, but the owners are at fault for not training or nurturing what those puppies have.


Actually they don't. 

You're falling into the trap that many breeders have made over the last four decades. They don't hunt, they don't participate in field work of any kind with the dogs they're breeding, and they still try to pass off the dogs they're producing as hunting dogs. The reality is they really have no idea whether the dogs they're producing possess the traits needed to serve as a good hunting dog or not. They've never checked the dogs they're currently breeding to find out.  They just "assume" they're fine. Where would the breed be if we elected to just "assume" other important traits like for example sound hips and eyes were always fine?


----------



## gdgli

Swampcollie said:


> Actually they don't.
> 
> You're falling into the trap that many breeders have made over the last four decades. They don't hunt, they don't participate in field work of any kind with the dogs they're breeding, and they still try to pass off the dogs they're producing as hunting dogs. The reality is they really have no idea whether the dogs they're producing possess the traits needed to serve as a good hunting dog or not. They've never checked the dogs they're currently breeding to find out. They just "assume" they're fine. Where would the breed be if we elected to just "assume" other important traits like for example sound hips and eyes were always fine?


Well said.


----------



## Selli-Belle

The versatility in Goldens also refers to how they hunt. I remember reading in a GRN about a Field Champion Stake in the UK where the dogs were sent after rabbits not just birds. So you have a breed that is good at finding prey (quartering and a good nose), will flush (some may point, but classically they flush) and are excellent retrievers on both water and land with a very soft mouth. They actually sound like the European point, flush, retrieve breeds like the Brittany or the Munsterlander.


----------



## Swampcollie

Selli-Belle said:


> The versatility in Goldens also refers to how they hunt. I remember reading in a GRN about a Field Champion Stake in the UK where the dogs were sent after rabbits not just birds.


Yup!

In the UK it's fur and feather.


----------



## rob1

This has been a great thread to read- and really interesting for me as my last dog was a field bred, super drivey English Setter. (Talk about a split between confirmation and field!) And my dad field trialed English Pointers- also super high drive.

I really debated hard on what breed to get after Jackson passed away. He was the absolute best dog- seriously. But it would have been a freaking crime for me to have a dog like that and not have a place to hunt him. He LIVED to tear ass around the wheat fields in WA. All of those bird dogs did. They LIVED to hunt and they were birdy as all get out.

I really specifically did not want that this go round. I don't particularly want to hunt and I don't have access to miles of wheat fields. I wanted a dog who lived to go with me and do whatever the heck I was interested in (which is not generally chasing after birds). And GRs fit the bill. 

Lucky is my 'go boy' and he'll try anything I want to do and be happy doing it. (I'm always amazed at folks who can get pointers to do agility- cause no way I could do that.) 

Don't get me wrong- I know a lot of the characteristics I love about the breed derive from GR's hunting background and it's important those characteristics not be lost (Lucky's confirmation sire x field dam). But folks who don't hunt probably shouldn't have a birdy dog with high drive. It's not great for the people and it's not fair to the dog. 

IDK- maybe more breeders should produce 'multi-purpose pet litters' designed to be moderate dogs that incorporate both field and confirmation lines- which is what Lucky is. He's not going to win a field trial and he's not a confirmation prospect. But he's a nice looking dog with a good temperment who can do well in a wide variety of dog sports and I don't feel like I'm a bad dog mommy for not dropping pheasants for him.


----------



## Megora

Swampcollie said:


> Actually they don't.
> 
> You're falling into the trap that many breeders have made over the last four decades. They don't hunt, they don't participate in field work of any kind with the dogs they're breeding, and they still try to pass off the dogs they're producing as hunting dogs. The reality is they really have no idea whether the dogs they're producing possess the traits needed to serve as a good hunting dog or not. They've never checked the dogs they're currently breeding to find out. They just "assume" they're fine. Where would the breed be if we elected to just "assume" other important traits like for example sound hips and eyes were always fine?


The other problem is assuming the worst of untested and untrained dogs and using physical traits as proof. Swampy, I agree that more people should endeavor to get these dogs outside and proven for sports they were bred for - particularly if they belong to breed clubs and will breed them.

Should remind people that goldens have a very active community thanks to both the split off people, but also because of participating conformation people. It is shameful when you have breed clubs for hunting breeds like goldens who have field/conformation members threatening to drop the field part (events put on by the club) because of low participation and as I understand from somebody of a different breed who has helped out... lack of organization.

And participating means working at these field events - particularly from the field people who know what needs to be done and how. 

Rob1 mentioned the split in English setters, but one of the people instrumental in talking me into trying conformation had champion english setters (think of that coat!) With field titles on them. The wife did conformation and her husband did field. 

So it can be done if the dogs have what the breeder/owners say they have. 

Problem is here people saying they DONT have it on the basis that they are not proven. Or whining about coat and bone. And for that matter breeding dogs they assume are more correct or ideal than others despite never actually putting their dogs up in a venue against other dogs.


----------



## Megora

Selli-Belle said:


> The versatility in Goldens also refers to how they hunt. I remember reading in a GRN about a Field Champion Stake in the UK where the dogs were sent after rabbits not just birds. So you have a breed that is good at finding prey (quartering and a good nose), will flush (some may point, but classically they flush) and are excellent retrievers on both water and land with a very soft mouth. They actually sound like the European point, flush, retrieve breeds like the Brittany or the Munsterlander.


I know my dogs would absolutely be enthralled with hunting rabbits. And I know people who use goldens that way.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Megora said:


> I know my dogs would absolutely be enthralled with hunting rabbits. And I know people who use goldens that way.


Selli agrees, and thinks that they should also be used on squirrels! She wants to be part of a professional squirrel hunting competition circuit.


----------



## TrailDogs

rob1 said:


> This has been a great thread to read- and really interesting for me as my last dog was a field bred, super drivey English Setter. (Talk about a split between confirmation and field!) And my dad field trialed English Pointers- also super high drive.
> A field setter or pointer are not even close to a golden. Those dogs are bred to be hunted on horseback. They run miles. So the comparison is apples and oranges.
> 
> Don't get me wrong- I know a lot of the characteristics I love about the breed derive from GR's hunting background and it's important those characteristics not be lost (Lucky's confirmation sire x field dam). *But folks who don't hunt probably shouldn't have a birdy dog with high drive. It's not great for the people and it's not fair to the dog.
> Then maybe a golden is not the breed for them.
> 
> IDK- maybe more breeders should produce 'multi-purpose pet litters' designed to be moderate dogs that incorporate both field and confirmation lines- which is what Lucky is.
> 
> 
> I don't believe the standard calls for a multi-purpose pet dog. It says primarily a hunting dog and from the COE:
> 
> GRCA members who breed Golden Retrievers are encouraged to maintain the purpose of the breed, and select breeding stock with the objectives of GRCA in mind; that is:Recognizing that the Golden Retriever breed was developed as a useful gun dog, to encourage improvement by careful and selective breeding of Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance, structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability, and personality that are characterized in the standard of the breed.
> 
> *


*

My responses are in green.*


----------



## Ljilly28

Let the Rhodesian Ridgeback hunt lions ( um better not show one of these)
Let the Cane Corso hunt wild hogs ( um some die hards DO do this original purpose)
Let the Golden Retriever hunt ducks
Let the bulldog be used for bullbaiting( is that still legal?)

I put the breed standard below so we can comb through it and see how much it mentions field trials. There is not lots (anything)about water courage in the breed standard. As DanaRuns said above, there is a dependent clause with the word "hunting" in it that says why the dog should be presented in the _show ring_ in hard working condition.

I DO think retrieving ability is important and hunting with a golden is a commendable way to keep the breed standard in mind . I am not anti hunting, my grandfather hunted with all out goldens. BUT, even in a very literal reading of the breed standard, it is hard for me to find too much about that. The dogs are presented certain ways and have certain characteristics( breed type) bc of their original purpose but it is a stretch to say they have to literally do these things( lion hog and duck hunt). 

Official Standard for the Golden Retriever
General Appearance: A symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. Overall appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts. Faults-Any departure from the described ideal shall be considered faulty to the degree to which it interferes with the breed's purpose or is contrary to breed character.

Size, Proportion, Substance: Males 23 to 24 inches in height at withers; females 21½ to 22½ inches. Dogs up to one inch above or below standard size should be proportionately penalized. Deviation in height of more than one inch from the standard shall disqualify. Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65 to 75 pounds; bitches 55 to 65 pounds. 
Head: Broad in skull, slightly arched laterally and longitudinally without prominence of frontal bones (forehead) or occipital bones. Stop well defined but not abrupt. Foreface deep and wide, nearly as long as skull. Muzzle straight in profile, blending smooth and strongly into skull; when viewed in profile or from above, slightly deeper and wider at stop than at tip. No heaviness in flews. Removal of whiskers is permitted but not preferred. Eyes friendly and intelligent in expression, medium large with dark, close-fitting rims, set well apart and reasonably deep in sockets. Color preferably dark brown; medium brown acceptable. Slant eyes and narrow, triangular eyes detract from correct expression and are to be faulted. No white or haw visible when looking straight ahead. Dogs showing evidence of functional abnormality of eyelids or eyelashes (such as, but not limited to, trichiasis, entropion, ectropion, or distichiasis) are to be excused from the ring. Ears rather short with front edge attached well behind and just above the eye and falling close to cheek. When pulled forward, tip of ear should just cover the eye. Low, hound-like ear set to be faulted. Nose black or brownish black, though fading to a lighter shade in cold weather not serious. Pink nose or one seriously lacking in pigmentation to be faulted. Teeth scissors bite, in which the outer side of the lower incisors touches the inner side of the upper incisors. Undershot or overshot bite is a disqualification. Misalignment of teeth (irregular placement of incisors) or a level bite (incisors meet each other edge to edge) is undesirable, but not to be confused with undershot or overshot. Full dentition. Obvious gaps are serious faults.
Neck, Topline, Body: Neck medium long, merging gradually into well laid back shoulders, giving sturdy, muscular appearance. No throatiness. Backline strong and level from withers to slightly sloping croup, whether standing or moving. Sloping backline, roach or sway back, flat or steep croup to be faulted. Body well balanced, short coupled, deep through the chest. Chest between forelegs at least as wide as a man's closed hand including thumb, with well developed forechest. Brisket extends to elbow. Ribs long and well sprung but not barrel shaped, extending well towards hindquarters. Loin short, muscular, wide and deep, with very little tuck-up. Slab-sidedness, narrow chest, lack of depth in brisket, excessive tuck-up to be faulted. Tail well set on, thick and muscular at the base, following the natural line of the croup. Tail bones extend to, but not below, the point of hock. Carried with merry action, level or with some moderate upward curve; never curled over back nor between legs.
Forequarters: Muscular, well coordinated with hindquarters and capable of free movement. Shoulder blades long and well laid back with upper tips fairly close together at withers. Upper arms appear about the same length as the blades, setting the elbows back beneath the upper tip of the blades, close to the ribs without looseness. Legs, viewed from the front, straight with good bone, but not to the point of coarseness. Pasterns short and strong, sloping slightly with no suggestion of weakness. Dewclaws on forelegs may be removed, but are normally left on. 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.
Hindquarters: Broad and strongly muscled. Profile of croup slopes slightly; the pelvic bone slopes at a slightly greater angle (approximately 30 degrees from horizontal). In a natural stance, the femur joins the pelvis at approximately a 90-degree angle; stifles well bent; hocks well let down with short, strong rear pasterns. Feet as in front. Legs straight when viewed from rear. Cow-hocks, spread hocks, and sickle hocks to be faulted.
Coat: Dense and water-repellent with good undercoat. Outer coat firm and resilient, neither coarse nor silky, lying close to body; may be straight or w actions should be penalized according to their significance.
Disqualifications: Deviation in height of more than one inch from standard either way.
Undershot or overshot bite.
avy. Untrimmed natural ruff; moderate feathering on back of forelegs and on underbody; heavier feathering on front of neck, back of thighs and underside of tail. Coat on head, paws, and front of legs is short and even. Excessive length, open coats, and limp, soft coats are very undesirable. Feet may be trimmed and stray hairs neatened, but the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping.
Color: Rich, lustrous golden of various shades. Feathering may be lighter than rest of coat. With the exception of graying or whitening of face or body due to age, any white marking, other than a few white hairs on the chest, should be penalized according to its extent. Allowable light shadings are not to be confused with white markings. Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Some latitude should be given to the light puppy whose coloring shows promise of deepening with maturity. Any noticeable area of black or other off-color hair is a serious fault.
Gait: When trotting, gait is free, smooth, powerful and well coordinated, showing good reach. Viewed from any position, legs turn neither in nor out, nor do feet cross or interfere with each other. As speed increases, feet tend to converge toward center line of balance. It is recommended that dogs be shown on a loose lead to reflect true gait.
Temperament: Friendly, reliable, and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility towards other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character. Such


----------



## Claudia M

Jill, can't help but wander why would the golden retriever have a "Coat: Dense and water-repellent with good undercoat." if they are not to hunt in water? 

I think it was said couple pages back that in no standard (labs, chessies, flatcoats, goldens...) it mentions the field trials. Field trials are open for all retriever dogs. And I doubt you would find "field trials" mentioned anywhere in the other retriever standards.


----------



## Ljilly28

Right so the question is does the dog have correct coat as defined by the breed standard, not if he has a great water entry (as far as the breed standard goes anyway). Discussions about breeding better goldens that use the breed standard as a basis need to acknowledge that there is not a whole lot about hunting the dog in it, but rather a very detailed blueprint of what the dog looks like and is like in essence. Hunting is why these traits and this blueprint came to be on paper as the judging standard, but it no where says you have to hunt the dog. It says you have to show/present the dog for its breed type, temperament, and structure to be assessed.


----------



## TrailDogs

Ljilly28 said:


> Let the Rhodesian Ridgeback hunt lions ( um better not show one of these)
> Let the Cane Corso hunt wild hogs ( um some die hards DO do this original purpose)
> Let the Golden Retriever hunt ducks
> Let the bulldog be used for bullbaiting( is that still legal?)


Well, the big difference here would be that upland and waterfowl hunting are still alive and thriving, and legal in this country and people do use retrievers to hunt. So much so that many states stock their gamelands with upland birds to bring in revenue from hunting licenses which in turns supports habitat restoration and conservation.


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> Right so the question is does the dog have correct coat as defined by the breed standard, not if he has a great water entry (as far as the breed standard goes anyway). Discussions about breeding better goldens that use the breed standard as a basis need to acknowledge that there is not a whole lot about hunting the dog in it, but rather a very detailed blueprint of what the dog looks like and is like in essence. Hunting is why these traits and this blueprint came to be on paper as the judging standard, but it no where says you have to hunt the dog. It says you have to show/present the dog for its breed type, temperament, and structure to be assessed.


So the "water-repellent" is just for baths before the show? Seriously? :doh:

I wonder why they do not drop a bottle of water on them to asses how repellent the coat is - I mean if we are to stick verbatim.


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> I wonder why they do not drop a bottle of water on them to asses how repellent the coat is - I mean if we are to stick verbatim.


Ha Ha! Well we could, but an educated judge can tell whether or not a golden has a proper repellent coat by feeling it. I can guarantee you an educated judge will be just as accurate by feeling the coats as someone walking around the ring dumping water on the dogs. 

So who wants to write up the proposal to AKC to not only stick (measure) every single dog in the ring to make sure they are in the standard, but also have someone walk around with buckets of water to dump on the dogs to make sure they have correct coats??? Would love to see the look on the ring stewardess faces...


----------



## TrailDogs

Eowyn said:


> Ha Ha! Well we could, but an educated judge can tell whether or not a golden has a proper repellent coat by feeling it. I can guarantee you an educated judge will be just as accurate by feeling the coats as someone walking around the ring dumping water on the dogs.


Interesting, because the GRCA news has some breeder/judge interviews, and a common theme was that there is so much over grooming done that it is hard to tell what the actual coat quality is.


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> Well, the big difference here would be that upland and waterfowl hunting are still alive and thriving, and legal in this country and people do use retrievers to hunt. So much so that many states stock their gamelands with upland birds to bring in revenue from hunting licenses which in turns supports habitat restoration and conservation.


Right, but the breeds that cannot literally perform their literal original purpose still maintain integrity to their breed standard. Why the standards say what they do is already based on the dogs' original purposes. It is a huge plus for breeders to be able to herd and hunt, weight pull, cart pull, and guard to make sure that original purposes are still alive in instinct and drive- no denying that. It is just that the breed standard is about breed type and its details, about structure and temperament. I dont see too much about hunting in there.


----------



## Megora

Just for fun.  










^ This is how a water repellent coat works. Water on the outside, but not all the way to the skin.... and that is a good reason why these dogs (no matter how thick their coats are or how long) can shake it off and be mostly dry a short time later.










And Before...










After...










And not long after that










And after a little more time - including hiking under a warm sun and rolling in sand.... 

^ The pictures of Bertie were sent in a "thank you!" message to his breeder. Easy care and water repellant coat were tops on my "important!" list when interviewing them 2 years ago.


*** When bathing, extra time is taken to get the undercoat wet and cleaned in addition to the topcoat. And these dogs are wet right to the skin. I don't necessarily think it takes forever for a young active dog with a good coat (not a spay or thyroid affected coat) to shake off moisture after a bath, but using a dryer controls how fast they dry, how thoroughly they dry, and also trains the coat to go the way it should go. Dogs are bathed day of or shortly before a show because a lot of judges out there are irritated going over dirty dogs. They list that high on their list of pet peeves, right up there with dogs who are gorgeous on the outside but teeth are in bad shape from not being cleaned up. 

The more problematic a coat is or if the dogs have something going on with their structure, the longer the drying takes at shows. This is presentation. Completely separate from function.

Note - I made a huge emphasis on easy care coat to Bertie's breeders, because there definitely are dogs out there who have been bred to have too much coat. It isn't easy care and it gets more problematic as the dogs are neutered or get older.


----------



## Swampcollie

The breeds defined purpose is much more than how the dog is supposed to appear while under judgement. If that's all it meant the GRCA would not have included this paragraph in the COE.



> *GRCA members who breed Golden Retrievers are encouraged to maintain the purpose of the breed, and select breeding stock with the objectives of GRCA in mind; that is:Recognizing that the Golden Retriever breed was developed as a useful gun dog, to encourage improvement by careful and selective breeding of Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance, structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability, and personality that are characterized in the standard of the breed.*


It's pretty clear the GRCA takes the stated purpose to mean "working gundog" and that is what most have said. The traits and qualities (Natural Ability) some of us have been describing ARE for a working gun dog, the "Gentleman's Shooting Companion" the breed was created to be. 

Nobody has suggested that every golden owner must hunt their dogs. What has been suggested is that if you are breeding dogs you need to make certain you're maintaining the natural ability the breed is supposed to possess. If you're choosing not to maintain that natural ability, you're choosing to not follow the Breed Standard and COE.


----------



## LJack

First, I am going to say I have stayed out of this tread for the most part due to its proclivity to flirt with the field vs conformation argument. I am not a hunter, nor do I ever want to be a hunter, but I own a sporting breed and I do feel a responsibility to maintain what I think is the breeds original function. I am positive my feeling, thoughts and understanding of that is extramly different than others and I think that is one of the great things about being a free thinking adult. I can value and appreciate the thought and opinions of other even if I do not agree or agree with everything. 



Swampcollie said:


> Nobody has suggested that every golden owner must hunt their dogs. What has been suggested is that if you are breeding dogs you need to make certain you're maintaining the natural ability the breed is supposed to possess. If you're choosing not to maintain that natural ability, you're choosing to not follow the Breed Standard and COE.


This quote I find suprizing as my understanding of conversations on the COE lately that the COE is really guidelines and deviation is a choice that breeders can and do make and that no one else should use the COE to beat others up or stand in judgement of others. It has been stated again and again that it is not punitive. The recent sharing of views on the COE made me feel as though others judged me in the wrong for trying to apply this same code to all breeders regardless of GRCA membership or not. Yet here we are talking about or at least on the last several pages the deterioration on the hunting ability of the breed as a whole. Hence my surprise that in a conversation on the entire breed which I took to mean globally (yes most posters are in the US but the forum is global and to my knowledge other countries have a show/field split too) to see this tie to the GRCA COE. Perhaps I am wrong but being as deeply affected by the vehement conversation on the COE that cause some serious pause for reflection, I find this a little distracting from the conversation at hand. In fact I find it hard to focus on anything other that that last sentence.


----------



## Swampcollie

The COE is a guideline but that does not relieve the breeder from understanding and honoring the intent over the long term. From a position of knowledge (knowing what they have and what they don't have) a breeder may choose to breed a dog with substandard natural ability. However in doing so they should be seeking a mate that possesses strength in that area, seeking to improve upon what they have.

That is very different from ignoring natural ability as a breeding consideration, generation after generation, for decades.


----------



## LJack

Yes and I agree it certainly does apply to me as a GRCA member who does abide by the COE. But in a discussion about the breed as a whole, the vast majority of Goldens produced even just in the US are not being produced by GRCA member let alone those who understand and adhere to the COE as you have stated above. And what of other countries? 

Sorry if this has caused a side track I was just distracted by what seemed to be a very desperate comment to what I thought I had understood.


----------



## TrailDogs

LJack said:


> First, I am going to say I have stayed out of this tread for the most part due to its proclivity to flirt with the field vs conformation argument.
> 
> Yet here we are talking about or at least on the last several pages the deterioration on the hunting ability of the breed as a whole. Hence my surprise that in a conversation on the entire breed which I took to mean globally (yes most posters are in the US but the forum is global and to my knowledge other countries have a show/field split too) to see this tie to the GRCA COE. Perhaps I am wrong but being as deeply affected by the vehement conversation on the COE that cause some serious pause for reflection, I find this a little distracting from the conversation at hand. In fact I find it hard to focus on anything other that that last sentence.


We were discussing the US standard. Doesn't the parent club set the standard? The COE defines how the standard should be looked at so it is relevant. 

Breeders can continue to assume their dogs can hunt without ever setting foot in a hunting environment and continue to breed what they like. You are right, free country, free choice. It is certainly easier to think that a problem doesn't exist than it is to address the problem.
This is why we have a split in the breed which will continue to grow wider.

I prefer 'form follows function', not 'form follows fashion'. And will always be an advocate for the working retriever.


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> We were discussing the US standard. Doesn't the parent club set the standard? The COE defines how the standard should be looked at so it is relevant.
> 
> Breeders can continue to assume their dogs can hunt without ever setting foot in a hunting environment and continue to breed what they like. You are right, free country, free choice. It is certainly easier to think that a problem doesn't exist than it is to address the problem.
> This is why we have a split in the breed which will continue to grow wider.
> 
> *I prefer 'form follows function', not 'form follows fashion'. And will always be an advocate for the working retriever*.


That is a great way to put it. May I steal it?


----------



## Kmullen

This thread is going round and round In a circle. It has had great points and topics, but I truly feel we are getting nowhere.

We know that the field golden owners/breeders want the show golden to improve and I think even I have stated what they could improve on. So, the following question is for the people that strictly do field. Where can you find fault with the field Goldens? Are they all perfect and do not need to be changed?

I had asked this question pages back and no one responded, so I am asking again.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> This is why we have a split in the breed which will continue to grow wider.


I think it is the people pushing each other apart too. 

You see it in these discussions with people sitting back and looking for stuff to jump on and use as an attack on what other people love about the breed and enjoy about the breed. It is looking at what other people have... and only looking with bias coloring what they see.

I know I open myself and my dogs up to criticism and ridicule when I feel obliged to respond to stuff stated by people (who I agree with on many things, including the "look" of _their_ dogs) that I know will be jumped on by people who are desperate to prop up their own arguments. 

I know it's downright stupid saying anything at all because nobody listens and as I observed before.... no sooner do you meet one qualification that they set, they are already moving the line further and demanding more as a qualification and looking to belittle and de-legitimize anything that doesn't meet that new qualification level. As we observed recently, you can even have dogs passing at a Master level and being mocked and criticized for not doing it with style. 

I'll say _personally speaking_.... and I admittedly take some of this stuff too personally.... people are ignoring the real picture with the types of dogs they are criticizing. 

Like my dogs are not couch ornaments by any means and spend most time away from home running through fields, swimming, and the parts not shown here are them climbing steep wooded hills with me and in every aspect are rugged and athletic dogs, which I would expect of this breed. 

They talk about burrs getting tangled in the coats and dogs not drying or carrying a lot water and debris into vehicles.... I know about all this because my dogs are real dogs. And I'd wager a lot of people reading through this conversation - even those people I have fundamental arguments with on other topics! - have experience with all those things and it isn't the end of the world for them or driving them to get shorter/skimpier coated dogs!

And of course you see discussions on breed standard as it applies to coat - never mind the fact that the breed standard calls for a thick dense coat with moderate furnishings. 

I've joined in very past conversations about conformation breeders here and elsewhere. Like many, I get really frustrated when you see people dismissing the need for a balanced pedigree behind dogs or getting political about hunting or working with these dogs. 

I get spoiled, because I know a lot of people on the local level who are more broad on what they do or encourage with their dogs. Their dogs get packed up on weekends to go hunting with the husbands regardless of show coats. And I know of breeders who are maintaining field titles (even minimally) with this breed. 

It may be that people on the other side of the argument can likewise give examples of people who know the breed standard (all parts of it) and in small or little ways working their way back to a more moderate dog who could (with a little spit shine) get into the conformation ring. I know they aren't completely outspoken on this forum where you have so many people taking more extreme stances on physical appearance and not wanting to go to the middle.... but I know there's people out there who are reasonable. I've met them in person. I've seen their dogs or dogs they have bred their dogs to in the hopes of getting to that "middle".

There's somebody I know who posted a picture of a boy she has on an evaluation page - and he was a very nice boy. Not a lot of coat, but he was young and I kinda told her there's stuff people can do even with a light coated dog. <- I really REALLY hope more and more people really focus on getting more correct dogs out there. Even ones with a little more coat like Barb's boy (who is really nice and had produced nice puppies - I saw pictures of SweetGirl's Tito baby with her hunt pass).... 

This is all enthusiasm coming from somebody who looked at other breeds and came back to goldens because in my opinion, no other breed is anywhere close to awesome like this breed is. 

But what I see here - is antagonism and "argument hunting" - and most often from armchair general types who have their own pet peeves about other people's dogs or pet grudges for that matter. 

Phew. I needed to get that off my chest.


----------



## TrailDogs

kfayard said:


> This thread is going round and round In a circle. It has had great points and topics, but I truly feel we are getting nowhere.
> 
> We know that the field golden owners/breeders want the show golden to improve and I think even I have stated what they could improve on. So, the following question is for the people that strictly do field. Where can you find fault with the field Goldens? Are they all perfect and do not need to be changed?
> 
> I had asked this question pages back and no one responded, so I am asking again.


They are perfect . Just kidding.
There are certainly field dogs out there that have faults. I see some lines that are more difficult to train, or may not be what I like structurally. I stay away from those. 
I think in many ways the breeding is like conformation where you have to know the dogs in the pedigree. 
Cancer is just as prevalent, as are orthopedic problems and eye problems. One commonly used dog, now deceased, has recently been found to produce PU. I give his owner credit for making that information public. 
The breeding focus is just more on mental attributes than physical attributes. The CCA program has shown that many of these dogs do conform to the standard.


----------



## Swampcollie

kfayard said:


> This thread is going round and round In a circle. It has had great points and topics, but I truly feel we are getting nowhere.
> 
> We know that the field golden owners/breeders want the show golden to improve and I think even I have stated what they could improve on. So, the following question is for the people that strictly do field. Where can you find fault with the field Goldens? Are they all perfect and do not need to be changed?
> I had asked this question pages back and no one responded, so I am asking again.


We have many of the faults the breed had in the late 50's and early 60's with probably the exception of bad hips. We have a pretty good handle on that. Work is still needed to keep the dogs the proper size (not too big not too small), fronts, tails, top lines, ichthiosis, prcdPRA, and keep the white markings under control. (They aren't by any means perfect.)


----------



## gdgli

kfayard said:


> This thread is going round and round In a circle. It has had great points and topics, but I truly feel we are getting nowhere.
> 
> We know that the field golden owners/breeders want the show golden to improve and I think even I have stated what they could improve on. So, the following question is for the people that strictly do field. Where can you find fault with the field Goldens? Are they all perfect and do not need to be changed?
> 
> I had asked this question pages back and no one responded, so I am asking again.


I don't strictly do field with my dog although she is a true field dog from a field breeding. My girl also has a nice obedience career. You see, she is biddable.


----------



## DanaRuns

I gotta say, I'm really flibbering tired of having my conformation Goldens bashed here. 

It's not 1905 anymore. The world has changed. Goldens have changed, too. They are much broader, more diverse, and more highly developed than the narrow little rich man's hobby hunting status symbol dog they were back then. Goldens save lives (my previous Golden was a marine rescue dog and Gibbs is on track to achieve a search and rescue dog certification). They detect hidden disease. They lead the blind. They help the disabled, the elderly and the infirm. They play sports. They are companions. If you don't appreciate that, you don't want to _preserve_ Goldens, you want to _limit_ them. The world is a bigger, more diverse place than it used to be. Wake up, look around, you're missing a lot of amazing things about Goldens.

Here's Riley, a Golden you'd disapprove of. Too fluffy. Doesn't hunt. Has never run a single field trial or hunt test. Hasn't been tested. Doesn't have great water entries. Isn't made for going through thick brush. Has too much coat. Is too heavily boned. He's way too calm. Not birdy. His pedigree has no hunting or field titles in at least 10 generations, and therefore he has "lost" what the breed is all about. He's the problem with the breed. Oh heavens, the sky is falling because of dogs like this.










Well, I'll take Riley as a shining example of the breed. And if we're going to start defining what a "true" Golden is, I'm going to start with Riley.

Or this guy.










Or this one.










Or this one.










Or this one.










Or this one.










Or this one.










You want to _improve_ the breed by disrespecting all these things that Golden Retrievers can do, and narrowing the breed back down to one little thing. That's not improving the breed. That's turning an adult back into a toddler, all while insulting the adult. All these things above are what I love about Golden Retrievers. All those things and this, too:










As far as I'm concerned, if you don't love all those things about Golden Retrievers, too, then you don't really love Golden Retrievers. Maybe that's why you have Lab envy. And, imho, you sure don't know anything about improving the breed.


----------



## Thalie

Claudia M said:


> Jill, can't help but wander why would the golden retriever have a "Coat: Dense and water-repellent with good undercoat." if they are not to hunt in water?


Perhaps because it might rain heavily during non-water kinds of hunting and if the hunt is long and the coat is not right, the dog will get cold, loose body heat hence energy hence efficiency, possibly get into hypothermia or get sick later and sick dogs don't hunt well.


----------



## Megora

The hunt people can hopefully confirm this, but I always thought duck/fowl hunting season was late fall when you would be dealing with colder wet temperatures. At least in MI.... 

Having a dog with a decent coat probably makes a good difference in how long you can stay out there. And these were similar conditions that these dogs would have been exposed to hunting in Scotland... er?


----------



## Swampcollie

Megora said:


> The hunt people can hopefully confirm this, but I always thought duck/fowl hunting season was late fall when you would be dealing with colder wet temperatures. At least in MI....
> 
> Having a dog with a decent coat probably makes a good difference in how long you can stay out there. And these were similar conditions that these dogs would have been exposed to hunting in Scotland... er?


Scotland does not get anywhere near the cold temperatures seen in the great lakes area, so expecting a dog to break ice day after day to retrieve waterfowl was not part of the plan. 

Goldens are supposed to be designed to work in non-frozen water and in tough upland cover. That thick water repellent coat is there to protect the dog while it works under those conditions. (Protect it from repeated exposure cold water and the thorny briars and brambles where upland game resides.)


----------



## Jersey's Mom

TrailDogs said:


> The CCA program has shown that many of these dogs do conform to the standard.



To some minimum extent, at least. The CCA is a non-competitive event. It does not imply that a dog's structure is exemplary or better than any other dog. It signifies that the dog comes close enough to the standard with some pretty significant room for faults. Basically, it's the JH or WC equivalent in the conformation world. And yet, it's repeatedly stated that those low level titles are not enough to prove that conformation style breeders are maintaining appropriate working ability in their lines. So let's make things equitable here. 

For those who are so adamant in insisting that breeders are not doing enough to maintain the breed's purpose: what, exactly, would these breeders need to do to demonstrate appropriate hunting ability in their dogs? 

Once that is determined, perhaps some of those who are more familiar with conformation can give us an idea of some equivalent achievement in that arena. Then we can have some sort of baseline level to use when evaluating whether breeders on either side of the divide are doing right by the breed. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Swampcollie

Jersey's Mom said:


> To some minimum extent, at least. The CCA is a non-competitive event. It does not imply that a dog's structure is exemplary or better than any other dog. It signifies that the dog comes close enough to the standard with some pretty significant room for faults. Basically, it's the JH or WC equivalent in the conformation world. And yet, it's repeatedly stated that those low level titles are not enough to prove that conformation style breeders are maintaining appropriate working ability in their lines. So let's make things equitable here.
> 
> For those who are so adamant in insisting that breeders are not doing enough to maintain the breed's purpose: what, exactly, would these breeders need to do to demonstrate appropriate hunting ability in their dogs?
> 
> Once that is determined, perhaps some of those who are more familiar with conformation can give us an idea of some equivalent achievement in that arena. Then we can have some sort of baseline level to use when evaluating whether breeders on either side of the divide are doing right by the breed.
> 
> Julie and the boys


You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. 

If you're breeding, you should know what your dogs faults and strengths are so you can choose an appropriate mate that compliments them. We're talking qualities necessary to serve as a hunting dog, not a competition dog. 

For example, lets look at just Desire for birds.

It isn't all that hard to pick up a few live training birds for your dog and see how it reacts to them. Like Vollard select a new training area and observer the dog is not familiar with, you're not looking for trained response you're looking for the dogs natural reaction that it was born with. Does the dog show some interest? Could it care less? Does it cower and hide?

If the dog shows some interest, how much? Will it only nose the bird? Will it attempt to pick up? Will it be all over the bird, snatch it up and go?

You see it doesn't have to be horribly complicated and you don't have to undergo the expense to actively hunt or trial to find out.


----------



## gdgli

Thalie said:


> Perhaps because it might rain heavily during non-water kinds of hunting and if the hunt is long and the coat is not right, the dog will get cold, loose body heat hence energy hence efficiency, possibly get into hypothermia or get sick later and sick dogs don't hunt well.


Do you birdhunt in the rain?


----------



## gdgli

Megora said:


> The hunt people can hopefully confirm this, but I always thought duck/fowl hunting season was late fall when you would be dealing with colder wet temperatures. At least in MI....
> 
> Having a dog with a decent coat probably makes a good difference in how long you can stay out there. And these were similar conditions that these dogs would have been exposed to hunting in Scotland... er?


Not always. Depends on location and species. Early September goose season, snow goose season that ends March 15 for example.


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns

And perhaps we field people are tired of hearing how our field Goldens minimally meet the standard.


----------



## LJack

Swampcollie said:


> It isn't all that hard to pick up a few live training birds for your dog and see how it reacts to them.


Seriously, if you have any resources for birds in AZ or know we're to look I would appriciate it. Still not sure if I could do it cause I don't really want to kill birds but right now I only know where I can get wings and where I can get frozen not any live.
Preferably with in an hour to hour and a half drive from the Pheonix Meto area.


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> I gotta say, I'm really flibbering tired of having my conformation Goldens bashed here.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, if you don't love all those things about Golden Retrievers, too, then you don't really love Golden Retrievers. Maybe that's why you have Lab envy. And, imho, you sure don't know anything about improving the breed.


It's not about conformation goldens, there are plenty of those that can do it all. It is about dogs bred with no purpose in mind.

Maybe it is time to petition the GRCA to change the standard and COE and remove the references to hunting dogs if it bothers so many people.


----------



## gdgli

LJack said:


> Seriously, if you have any resources for birds in AZ or know we're to look I would appriciate it. Still not sure if I could do it cause I don't really want to kill birds but right now I only know where I can get wings and where I can get frozen not any live.
> Preferably with in an hour to hour and a half drive from the Pheonix Meto area.


Pigeons are everywhere. And don't feel guilty. You can eat them afterwards.


----------



## Swampcollie

LJack said:


> Seriously, if you have any resources for birds in AZ or know we're to look I would appriciate it. Still not sure if I could do it cause I don't really want to kill birds but right now I only know where I can get wings and where I can get frozen not any live.
> Preferably with in an hour to hour and a half drive from the Pheonix Meto area.


Pigeons are usually easy to come by (Craig's List). Contact the Copper State Retriever Club for information regarding local bird sources (Ducks and Pheasants)


----------



## Claudia M

gdgli said:


> Pigeons are everywhere. And don't feel guilty. You can eat them afterwards.


They are so so good! Soaked in Italian Dressing and wrapped in bacon and then grilled! YUMMY!


----------



## Claudia M

Dana, I cannot see Riley as far as head and stature but the rest of the goldens you showed pictures of have the golden head, nice coat, not short in leg - they are all lovely goldens. Honestly I wish those pics you posted would show good in the conformation ring!


----------



## Megora

Swampcollie said:


> Scotland does not get anywhere near the cold temperatures seen in the great lakes area, so expecting a dog to break ice day after day to retrieve waterfowl was not part of the plan.
> 
> Goldens are supposed to be designed to work in non-frozen water and in tough upland cover. That thick water repellent coat is there to protect the dog while it works under those conditions. (Protect it from repeated exposure cold water and the thorny briars and brambles where upland game resides.)


I wasn't thinking of ice in sept-nov....  

We barely have ice right now.


@Laura - you could order wings from cabelas.


----------



## lhowemt

Wasn't Tweedmouth's estate right on Loch Ness? Too bad the breed lost the ability to deal with the Loch Ness Monster, that must have been difficult to select dogs that could avoid it. Or maybe not, the Monster probably did the selection for him. Bwahaha!!! (just a little new year lightheartedness.... :wavey: )


----------



## TheZ's

After reading through this thread, I'm wondering again if it isn't time to modify the breed standard and what that would take. Is it time to modify the standard to acknowledge the current activities at which Goldens excel while still referencing the original hunting purpose of the breed?

Just wondering if there's any data on the numbers of Goldens participating in various activities today. Analyzing recorded titles on AKC registered dogs might provide some information but the vast majority of Goldens aren't AKC registered are they? And even for registered dogs, unless titles are obtained there's no info on activities. And non-AKC titles aren't recorded are they? Does the GRCA have any info on this?


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> It's not about conformation goldens, there are plenty of those that can do it all. It is about dogs bred with no purpose in mind.
> 
> Maybe it is time to petition the GRCA to change the standard and COE and remove the references to hunting dogs if it bothers so many people.


I don't think anyone has a problem with the very minimal reference to hunting dogs in the breed standard. I think what people have a problem with is people parsing the breed standard to look for reasons to say dogs of a type and style they don't appreciate are not breed standard. Overreaching even.

You have people who bring a bunch of stuff to the table, this including past conversations where I saw somebody saying that they preferred hare feet on dogs as opposed to solid medium sized round/tight feet on dogs.... and present conversations on how coat is a deterrent for hunters.... and there's more, I've seen dogs presented in the past as ideal who have a bunch of stuff wrong with them. 

Basically all this is brought to the table while the same people either find fault with everything about conformation bred dogs in appearance.... or they use the phrase "primarily a hunting dog" as incriminating evidence that those dogs are not breed standard and have been bred without purpose. 

And the frustrating thing is it is all based on something that can't be proven or disproven (hey, I made up a word!) without people in conformation getting their dogs out there in field work to minimally prove their dogs are what they should be.

Which does depend on the people in these programs either getting those titles themselves or selling to people interested in field to prove pedigrees that way.

There's a bunch of problems I see which hampers this... but namely two....

1. Conformation breeders who are politically adverse to hunting. This shows in what they do and how they select homes. For that matter, I can think of breeders out there who are so political in how they view training so that is another tool they use as far as selecting one home over another.

2. Performance people being told to strictly purchase dogs from performance pedigrees. I've done it myself when you have people talking about wanting a dog for obedience or field. You immediately recommend the workhouses in those sports, but the same time... it's not like conformation where without exception, your dogs should be bred for conformation. You can find talent and drive in any dog regardless of how they've been bred (I know of somebody who rescued a dog and did a ton with him in obedience, agility, and field). What needs to be in a dog for him to be deemed "finishable" is a lot more specific and you do not usually get without specifically breeding for it. I think things would actually become better in the breed if more people who are experienced and have the talents and ability to train for field, actually took on dogs from conformation pedigree.

3. (a bonus) This is the fuzzy gray line uncomfortable one. And I think this is something that might be discussed and I hope people tell me I'm wrong about this perceptions. 

On the conformation side of things, you have a whole lot of protection for the dogs produced in these kennels/programs. You don't have a lot of dogs sold with full registration. Very few... and if any, they are tied to co-ownership. 

On the field side, and this is looking at some other breeder listings (gun dog breeders).... you do not have the same level of protection. It's anything from certain big breeders simply charging more for full registration to basically wide open sales of breeding dogs. 

I don't really know if this is the norm. I haven't looked into field dogs personally for myself, so I don't know how easy or difficult it would be for me to go to anyone to buy a full registration bitch for breeding without no questions asked. But the perception I've had looking at some of the listings out there is - holy heck! 

With performance breeders - I remember on a list I belong to where some people were having a huge ginormous cow about limited registration. This was just a couple years ago too, not talking back when limited registration was first introduced. I do wonder though if the expectation to breed dogs after titling them in these other sports, if that has some bearing as far as how some people select dogs to train (it may be the - why put so much work in a dog if you can't breed it) thing. 

But more on the point, what Julie said - and I agreed with....

Just like field dogs minimally get the CCA to show they minimally meet breed standard and are not "losing" type.... you have always had conformation people putting WC's on their dogs to show that they minimally meet breed purpose and are not losing that facet of the breed. 

But tit for tat. 

If you expect more from people in conformation as far as fully competing in field and putting all kinds of field titles on dogs....

You should do your part and breed dogs who can compete in the conformation ring and win. 

The conformation ring is denigrated by so many on the basis of how it ruined some other breeds. I'm not going to name names, but I'm thinking about a breed that looks crossed with bulldogs...  And on minimal exposure to dog shows (on TV or sneaking around the edges at a show). But there is a point to it.

Many people have not had their dogs evaluated by a conformation person - this truly from the standpoint of whether the dogs could beat other dogs (not talking about how the dogs compare against breed standard). 

Before I started showing my dog in conformation, I had Bertie evaluated by a number of people who are in conformation, not just his breeders who are AKC judges. 

I know what his faults are. I know what his qualifications for showing are. I would not be showing him if he had more than a couple faults, or if he had one big bad fault. All this I could not have known without having him evaluated by people within the sport. 

For people who have never gone through this process, particularly with a dog not bred for conformation by people who had a history of being really successful handlers and breeder judges as well.... it can be humiliating and uncomfortable as a process. I haven't personally felt humiliated, but I have friends who have gone through it with their dogs and it's difficult to take criticism of your dog without getting defensive or upset. 

A lot of that same stuff goes into dogs picked or brushed off as far as what people would breed to. 

I've noticed people get very sensitive about being criticized or having their dogs criticized by conformation people... and holy heck, you do not have the skin or nerve to get into conformation. Because it isn't like other sports where you have people readily admiring dogs regardless of quality or fault. You get that from the general public, but people in the sport are a lot more into picking apart even the dogs they really like. 

There's a lot of people picking out faults they don't like in dogs..... and what this turns into is education for selective breeding so these faults don't "spread" in these people's own programs and beyond.


**** and fwiw, Primarily a hunting dog means something different to all kinds of people. For people here, it means something very specific (actual hunting). For judges... primarily a hunting dog means these dogs are no bichon frises. They have to demonstrate a style and look as far as being able to work.


----------



## hollyk

Back to the tangible, are most breeders gen testing for Ichthyosis?


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> If you expect more from people in conformation as far as fully competing in field and putting all kinds of field titles on dogs....
> 
> You should do your part and breed dogs who can compete in the conformation ring and win.
> I've noticed people get very sensitive about being criticized or having their dogs criticized by conformation people... and holy heck, you do not have the skin or nerve to get into conformation.


It has nothing to do with having 'the skin or nerve'. Conformation judging is based on a very specific interpretation of the standard. 
Field breeders used to compete successfully in conformation, the look of the conformation dog has changed significantly over time, the look of the field dog has not changed much.
If this had not happened there would be field people willing to show their dogs. Right now it is an exercise in futility.
I will be happy with the CCA program as that will evaluate my dogs and tell me they meet the standard.


----------



## Claudia M

TheZ's said:


> After reading through this thread, I'm wondering again if it isn't time to modify the breed standard and what that would take. Is it time to modify the standard to acknowledge the current activities at which Goldens excel while still referencing the original hunting purpose of the breed?
> 
> Just wondering if there's any data on the numbers of Goldens participating in various activities today. Analyzing recorded titles on AKC registered dogs might provide some information but the vast majority of Goldens aren't AKC registered are they? And even for registered dogs, unless titles are obtained there's no info on activities. And non-AKC titles aren't recorded are they? Does the GRCA have any info on this?


The Flat Coat standard is quite nice and impressive:

Flat-Coated Retriever Society of America, Inc.

I wonder if it was written in such way because proportionally more flat coat owners participate with their dogs in the field as well as conformation???


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> It has nothing to do with having 'the skin or nerve'. Conformation judging is based on a very specific interpretation of the standard.
> Field breeders used to compete successfully in conformation, the look of the conformation dog has changed significantly over time, the look of the field dog has not changed much.
> If this had not happened there would be field people willing to show their dogs. Right now it is an exercise in futility.
> I will be happy with the CCA program as that will evaluate my dogs and tell me they meet the standard.


I am more than willing, depending on how the new field puppy develops, to enter her in the conformation ring. Heck I will be there with Darcy why not try it with Belle? Is it an exercise of futility? More than likely but at least I know I gave it an honest shot. 

I would personally like to see more of them in the ring. But maybe I will have a personal experience and see for myself why the field people have quit competing in the conformation ring.


----------



## hotel4dogs

More and more do seem to be doing so. Just a couple of years ago when I would get stud inquiries for Tito (who is a carrier) and I would ask if the bitch was ichthyosis negative, the response tended to be "I haven't tested". Now that's not the case.




hollyk said:


> Back to the tangible, are most breeders gen testing for Ichthyosis?


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> This thread is going round and round In a circle. It has had great points and topics, but I truly feel we are getting nowhere.
> 
> We know that the field golden owners/breeders want the show golden to improve and I think even I have stated what they could improve on. So, the following question is for the people that strictly do field. Where can you find fault with the field Goldens? Are they all perfect and do not need to be changed?
> 
> *I had asked this question pages back and no one responded, so I am asking again.*


Not trying to harp on things but when I responded to the fact that *field goldens* are smaller there was a fury of not "attacking" the golden's size even though I specifically addressed the field goldens. 

I think if we are addressing the improvement of the goldens in general there has to be a open discussion about abilities, size, markings, bone structure, head, legs, health, temperament etc on ALL sides of the isle. Not just one.


----------



## Megora

TrailDogs said:


> Field breeders used to compete successfully in conformation, the look of the conformation dog has changed.


 All due respect, you have to consider the fact that maybe conformation dogs have not changed that drastically since the late 60's or 70's. 

Or depending on what some people say.... they have not truly changed in look since some select dogs back in the 20's. Note that while the head and muzzle on that dog (Dan?) a few pages back looked much different than the characteristic head and muzzle of most goldens (field and conformation) today, the rest of him was about right for what you would expect to see and feel on conformation dogs, including bone. And you had people "liking" a post saying the look of that dog was very similar to what they personally have or have seen in the ring. 

The thing I'm saying is you have a lot of people in conformation today who related to their own personalities or where they live.... are not the types of people who can train their own dogs, much less get into fieldwork with them. 

I don't think it makes sense to expect people to leave their comfort zones to do something that they honestly don't like. Like me - I don't like smelling or handling dead things. Reading the first part of "Hunger Games" I was not feeling too much affinity for the main character who was a hunter and would hunt all kinds of things, including wild dogs to get food on her table. She referred to Prim her younger sister as somebody who could not be taught to hunt because her first instincts were to heal the animals just trapped or shot. <- I was like, yep - that me. 

I'm getting into field enough to get a WC minimally on Bertie, but when my instructors was talking dead birds - I was turning green. It's not a very easy thing to get into for me. And that's just basic, not even getting into the deal with people constantly telling me what my dog won't do well. 

Conformation - I can do, because to a certain extent it's similar enough in aspect to what I enjoy in obedience that it is in my comfort zone. Or I found a comfort zone easily. 

Field - I'm still looking for a comfort zone.

So I do feel a lot of sympathy for other people in conformation who likewise aren't into it and would only minimally do stuff in field just to get it over with. 

That isn't good for the breed. I'd compare it to conformation people just getting rally titles on dogs to satisfy the need to get some kind of obedience title on their dogs for them to be versatile. Rally is kind of a weird animal that I don't think helps obedience. It doesn't feed into regular obedience very well. And it isn't a realistic gauge of how a dog would perform in obedience (depending on the handler). 

That's why I think it would be easier for people who love field bringing home show bred dogs (who have tested well) and seeing what they can do. That is specifically based on such an argument that "keeping hunting in the breed" is all that people want. 

It doesn't have to be a big huge show dog with mounds of hair. It's more along the lines of looking for pedigrees that are in the middle and breeders who are conscientious about what kinds/shapes of dogs they produce. 

Too often in discussions like this, it sounds like there are a lot of people who refuse to budge an inch when it comes to appreciating any well bred conformation dog.


----------



## Driggsy

I just finished reading the article "AKC versus the Border Collie" which trail dogs recommended. It was fascinating, and of course led me down the rabbit hole of reading all about border collies, sheepdog trials etc. 

The article and the reading that followed made me think this (and I am not a breeder, so my opinion will influence the direction of the breed only in that I am and will be a puppy buyer, so read or disregard as you please. also I am nervous about wading into this debate if you can't tell):

The US Border Collie Club is vehemently opposed to conformation showing and AKC registration for Border Collies. Their mission, as stated on their website, is:

"..._preserving the Border Collie as a working stock dog; opposing the showing, judging, and breeding of Border Collies based upon their appearance; promoting only careful breeding for the preservation of working ability and the avoidance of genetic defects.."_

The website then goes on to discuss, in depth, many venues the BC excels in: sheep herding, of course, but also fly ball, agility, search and rescue, service. None of these die-hard working BC lovers (at least on this website) suggests that BC have to have instinct for sheep work, or have tried sheep work. They just have to have working ability, which means intelligence, problem-solving, energy. 

Seems to me that if these dyed-in-the-wool (pun intended) BC folks can accept that flyball is a legitimate pursuit of legitimate working BCs, we who love Golden Retrievers can accept that the qualities that make the Golden a wonderful hunting companion can be demonstrated in many ways, and that hunting is only one of those ways. I love to see GRs succeed at hunting competitions and as hunting partners, that is a beautiful thing, but if it were up to me the COE and breed standard would say "sporting dog", not "hunting dog". If we want a literal reading, that changes things, doesn't it?

Count me among those who think the breed's versatility is a sign of its success.


----------



## Kmullen

:


Claudia M said:


> Not trying to harp on things but when I responded to the fact that *field goldens* are smaller there was a fury of not "attacking" the golden's size even though I specifically addressed the field goldens.
> 
> I think if we are addressing the improvement of the goldens in general there has to be a open discussion about abilities, size, markings, bone structure, head, legs, health, temperament etc on ALL sides of the isle. Not just one.


Agree, hence why I asked. No dog is perfect. I have stated before what I think conformation Goldens could improve on and the only thing I have seen from the field comments are they are too small or too big... I was more directly talking structure.


----------



## Kmullen

I just went through my girls pedigree of dogs even from the 60s and 70s... I am honestly not seeing that much of a change. Nowadays we overgrown with our blow dryers, scissors, etc... But I still see lots of coat and decent amount of bone.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> I just went through my girls pedigree of dogs even from the 60s and 70s... I am honestly not seeing that much of a change. Nowadays we overgrown with our blow dryers, scissors, etc... But I still see lots of coat and decent amount of bone.


Kelli, I have told you privately and I hope you do not mind me saying it in the forum. I like your dogs. They are not short in leg, the do not have a short muzzle, they have a nice head and also they are not over-coated. 

I would not have said any of this privately or publicly if I did not mean it. I either tie my fingers or only say it privately if I believed otherwise. 

KC is a wonderful example of the golden retriever and I root for her to make it in both conformation and field as well as any other venue you may pursue with her.

You also have shown not only on this thread that you are looking at all the sides of the golden retriever and as a breeder yourself, you are trying your best to improve the breed. I thank you for that!


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Kelli, I have told you privately and I hope you do not mind me saying it in the forum. I like your dogs. They are not short in leg, the do not have a short muzzle, they have a nice head and also they are not over-coated.
> 
> I would not have said any of this privately or publicly if I did not mean it. I either tie my fingers or only say it privately if I believed otherwise.
> 
> KC is a wonderful example of the golden retriever and I root for her to make it in both conformation and field as well as any other venue you may pursue with her.
> 
> You also have shown not only on this thread that you are looking at all the sides of the golden retriever and as a breeder yourself, you are trying your best to improve the breed. I thank you for that!


Well I think all of us want it all! But, we will get nowhere bickering and insulting eachother's choices for the types of dog's they have. This is why I say it is a complete joint effort.

Thank you Claudia. I do love my KC girl! But, I honestly am not sure she will make it in the ring or not. We will see in another year or so. I am in no hurry.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Field breeders used to compete successfully in conformation, the look of the conformation dog has changed significantly over time, the look of the field dog has not changed much.
> If this had not happened there would be field people willing to show their dogs. Right now it is an exercise in futility.


Let's be honest, here, and have an episode of Mythbusters. 

Field trials have changed, and with those changes, the dogs have changed, as well. For all those chanting the mantra about field dogs being equivalent to Goldens of yore, the fact is they are not. As field trials have changed and gotten more difficult, field Goldens changed to meet those demands. Some have gotten smaller, more high strung, higher drive, etc., in order to keep up with the changes in field competition. And from what I understand, those changes were made because Labs were being bred with the qualities that made the changes possible, and now Goldens have to keep up or lose. 

This whole thing about field Goldens today being just like the average Golden of the 1960s or '70s is a myth. In fact, field Goldens have changed every bit as much as conformation Goldens have. And people on both sides can look back and point to dogs that looked like theirs back then because the breed was less evolved back then, and there was greater variation in both the conformation and field arenas. Furthermore, the field looking dogs could compete better in conformation because there were many fewer Goldens and structure and style hadn't yet been so finely honed, and there were much greater regional differences than there are today. And conformation dogs could compete in field because the trials were much less difficult than they are today, and didn't require the exaggerated qualities that they do, modernly.

These changes in both conformation _and_ field dogs have paralleled the explosion of changes in the breed's capabilities in so many other areas that Goldens excel in today. The Golden of yore was more varied in appearance in every venue, and less specialized than they are today. Just like almost everything else in the world today -- from medicine, to vehicles, to computers, to telephones, to Golden Retrievers -- there have been huge advances, things that can be done today that couldn't be done before, and a trend to both wider variation and deeper specialization. While you're longing for the Goldens of yesteryear, go right ahead and long for Polio and dial telephones that were plugged into the wall, because the same advances in those areas have also come to the Golden Retriever.

And that needs to be celebrated, preserved and improved upon. Or at least acknowledged as the vast improvement that it is! Indeed, the advances, the generalization and the specialization all within a single breed is what separates Goldens from just about every other breed.

Here's a parable for you:

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.​
And so it is with the Golden Retriever.


----------



## Claudia M

Dana - since you are Mythbusting....... have you ever put foot in the field? How far have you gotten in your training? 

Please elaborate with facts and pictures of the changes in both. Especially I would like to see details regarding these EXAGERATED QUALITIES!


----------



## Eowyn

Swampcollie said:


> For example, lets look at just Desire for birds.
> 
> It isn't all that hard to pick up a few live training birds for your dog and see how it reacts to them. Like Vollard select a new training area and observer the dog is not familiar with, you're not looking for trained response you're looking for the dogs natural reaction that it was born with. Does the dog show some interest? Could it care less? Does it cower and hide?
> 
> If the dog shows some interest, how much? Will it only nose the bird? Will it attempt to pick up? Will it be all over the bird, snatch it up and go?
> 
> You see it doesn't have to be horribly complicated and you don't have to undergo the expense to actively hunt or trial to find out.


I don't have to go to all that work to find out my goldens have an inborn desire for birds. All of my adult goldens (including my horribly bred old girl who has despite being AKC could hardly be called a golden in my opinion) regularly catch birds on their own. I don't want to know how many dead (or often alive in the case of my male who has a very gentle mouth) I have had the dogs bring to me. Eowyn has been known to catch birds mid air in the yard or barn!


----------



## K9-Design

Dana -- AWESOME POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> Let's be honest, here, and have an episode of Mythbusters.
> 
> Field trials have changed, and with those changes, the dogs have changed, as well. For all those chanting the mantra about field dogs being equivalent to Goldens of yore, the fact is they are not. As field trials have changed and gotten more difficult, field Goldens changed to meet those demands. Some have gotten smaller, more high strung, higher drive, etc., in order to keep up with the changes in field competition. And from what I understand, those changes were made because Labs were being bred with the qualities that made the changes possible, and now Goldens have to keep up or lose.


Good to know that you have so much knowledge about the field goldens and how they evolved. I learn something new on here every day.


----------



## Eowyn

TrailDogs said:


> It has nothing to do with having 'the skin or nerve'. Conformation judging is based on a very specific interpretation of the standard.
> Field breeders used to compete successfully in conformation, the look of the conformation dog has changed significantly over time, the look of the field dog has not changed much.
> If this had not happened there would be field people willing to show their dogs. Right now it is an exercise in futility.
> I will be happy with the CCA program as that will evaluate my dogs and tell me they meet the standard.


 Can I ask a sincere question? And I don't meant to offend anyone, but it is something I have really wondered about. I'm not trying to stir up the conformation verses field argument, but I am really and truly curious. Do field breeders (and you may answer speaking in general or just for yourself, same for any other field people or breeders here) take conformation into consideration? Do you have an idea on what the standard should dictate your dogs to look like? Do you take into consideration structure and conformation when breeding? Or does working ability trump everything? Because I have never met a field person who actually seemed to have a working knowledge of the standard that had any precedence to them. I have asked field people about their dogs conformation and they simply tell me they don't care what the dog looks like. I genuinely want to know what they see and how they interpret the standard, but besides coat I have never had someone who could actually go over a "field style" golden and tell me _why_ they think their dog fits the standard. When searching for my current puppy I looked into more field lines because I knew I wanted to heavily compete in performance areas. I would inquire about breedings and ask why they were doing them, what they were hoping to produce, and why they thought the parents were a good fit and I found no lack of knowledge in terms of brains and ability in the dogs. However when I inquired about structure/conformation or what they were hoping to improve in terms of the visual end of the standard, I was answered with blank stares. Or comments about it doesn't matter what they look like as long as they can work. Or they would just refer me to the conformation breeder next door. You can not tell me that all those breeders have no working idea of the standard! I understand why working ability is important, without it we wouldn't have the breed we have today. What I want to know, is from a field person's interpretation, how do your dogs fit the breed standard. People in the conformation ring have taught and are teaching me their interpretation of the visual breed standard. People in competitive venues/hunt/field (often the same people!) have taught me and are teaching me their interpretation of the breed standard in terms of ability. But no one can seem to explain to me how field dogs fit the visual end of the breed standard.

Look guys, I don't want an argument. But I am the future of this breed. I, and my generation and the generations under me, are the future of this breed. No matter how amazing the dogs you breed are, if you don't educate me and my peers, this breed will cease to exist according to the breed standard. Breeding great dogs to the standard is only half of the equation when it comes to preserving and improving the breed. Educating the young people is every bit as important. Education is one of the most important components of improving the breed. Any knowledge that is not shared dies and is useless. Any knowledge withheld from the younger generations will be lost. What you don't pass on, you lose. 

For the reason that I realize my importance in the future of the breed, I am going to stick my neck out here and say I do not understand what you see. I want to know, I value your opinion, but that is really hard to do when no one will give it. What do you see, because I don't see it but I want to. 

BTW, I went with a puppy from conformation lines because I wanted a puppy that fit the breed standard. I spent a lot of time with a lot of dogs and I picked a puppy from conformation lines that is showing a whole lot of promise for performance venues.

ETA: Private answers are welcome. But please educate if you have the knowledge to do so.


----------



## gdgli

Eowyn

How do you know that the parents of your pup met the breed standard?


----------



## Eowyn

gdgli said:


> Eowyn
> 
> How do you know that the parents of your pup met the breed standard?


I have met the parents. I've studied the standard, I have spent countless hours around the breed and experts in the breed. And I have been unafraid to ask questions in order to learn, and I believe that has served me well. I am _starting_ to get a working idea of the standard in my head. 

But the downside to a standard that is written and not visual, is there will always be many different interpretations of the standard. People will never completely agree. 

Plus the parents both have their Championships, the sire has even his Grand Championship. Which is definitely just a plus and not the hardened proof they fit the standard. I see a lot of dogs that have done well in the breed that I personally do not believe fit the breed standard.


----------



## K9-Design

Eowyn, that has been my experience as well with field golden breeders. I have been asked to go over field litters and give a conformation/structure evaluation and not only were the breeders themselves completely unfamiliar with all but the most basic structure terms, they were very alarmed if something was amiss! Although those thoughts never occurred to them when picking the breeding pair. Not only just poor structure, obvious faults, extensive white markings, terrible coats, you name it. They are still easily recognizable as golden retrievers, and that's good enough.

The flip side is --- it doesn't matter. All but the most unsound field golden will have no physical limitations due to type or structure for performing their job. So -- are they wrong? I guess that is the point of this whole thread.

I LOVED Dana's post. I said something similar either in this thread or maybe somewhere else, that you're fooling yourself if you think today's field goldens are unchanged from the goldens of 50+ years ago. You think you, as field breeders, have done NO selection on your breeding stock to make them better?? Then you're not doing a very good job! Of course the goal of field breedings is to improve in the traits that make a great field dog : intelligence, trainability, marking, speed, etc. You just can't look at a dog standing there and SEE those traits, but that doesn't mean they haven't changed. Of course they've changed and improved to meet the demands of today's field trials. They were made something they were not originally. Is that any worse than the show lines that are an exaggerated fashion plate of the original, yet have vastly improved structure, more consistent type? Both are clearly golden retrievers. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both bring something to the table. Both are different than dogs of the past. 

I hate the "good old days" argument. It's the lamest of lame arguments because it can never be proven. Sorta like people today who say the younger generation is irresponsible, lazy, sex drugs and rock and roll. Well guess who raised them to be that way???? If the goldens and their breeders of yesterday were so great -- why did they let the breed split into styles and fads and exaggerated forms meant to excel in competition?


----------



## DanaRuns

Eowyn said:


> I see a lot of dogs that have done well in the breed that I personally do not believe fit the breed standard.


I, personally, have not had that experience. Maybe it's a function of being out here in California, which I think is the most competitive place in the nation, where it is hardest to finish a dog. Out here, if a dog has even one serious fault, s/he is unlikely to do well. I am very impressed with the overall quality of the dogs out here. Sometimes you look at a line-up and you can only conclude that there isn't "better" between these dogs, there is only "different."


----------



## Claudia M

EOWYN - I invite you to read Jeffrey Pepper's article I posted several pages back. 
The conformation dogs are short in leg, with non-functional coat an nothing of what they used to be. And that is a golden owner as well as a former conformation judge. 

I believe Dana stated she was on personal email with Mr. Pepper. It would be nice if she could invite him here and maybe correct my miss-interpretations of his article?

No matter how much his words have been dismissed on this thread - obviously the conformation breeders have gone way too far from what a golden is supposed to be. No fronts, no legs, blocky heads and I can keep on going.

I am sure some field goldens have changed as well but not as much. And at least to some degree they have kept their purpose in the field.

There is lots of politics in conformation. Who knows whom and whose showing whose dog. How much have you shown your face around the ring. If you have a bigger dog you go in front of a judge that has small dogs because they seem to think the bigger the better. Talk about judge shopping and pro handler shopping.

I admire the people that do it themselves (not the ones that are at every single show in every single town and have shown their faces 10 thousand times until they finally did it). 

For some reason I am still amazed at the length of excuses some go to protect what they have done to the goldens of yesteryear. 


LOL, sort of like what we see in schools today, if it is too hard we will just dumb it down a little and give everyone an A. That way everyone feels happy.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> EOWYN - I invite you to read Jeffrey Pepper's article I posted several pages back.
> The conformation dogs are short in leg, with non-functional coat an nothing of what they used to be. And that is a golden owner as well as a former conformation judge.
> 
> I believe Dana stated she was on personal email with Mr. Pepper. It would be nice if she could invite him here and maybe correct my miss-interpretations of his article?


You have it confused, former long time Golden Retriever breeder/owner, current conformation judge.

He also did not say 'ALL conformation dogs are short on leg', nor did he say 'ALL conformation dogs have non-functional coat'.

If you are going to attribute statements to him, please ensure they are correct.

(edited to add a link to Jeff's article, but the link isn't working)


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> You have it confused, former long time Golden Retriever breeder/owner, current conformation judge.
> 
> He also did not say 'ALL conformation dogs are short on leg', nor did he say 'ALL conformation dogs have non-functional coat'.
> 
> If you are going to attribute statements to him, please ensure they are correct.
> 
> (edited to add a link to Jeff's article, but the link isn't working)


"....Not as heavily coated as today's Goldens, he has the proper amount of leg under him and the correct amount of coat. *Too many Goldens today are short on leg and presented in less functional coat......"*

*you must have missed that....*

ETA - I hope he has not given up on the golden retrievers; most field trainers have. I believe he has written a book about golden retrievers. I never read it but thinking about getting it.


----------



## Megora

I have to say that this whole conversation drove me to the books... and this past week while dealing with a tooth abscess keeping me awake at night... I did find myself browsing through some of the golden history books that I have. It's one of those things too, I used to have a lot of breed magazines from the 90's and some historical ones that we picked up at random. I gave a lot of these away because I didn't have the space, but I wish I'd scanned some stuff in! 

The one book I have (which I'm everyone here has anyway) - I went so far as to snap pictures of a few pictures that stood out. I'll try not to spam this thread with all pictures I took, but it is worth just for the sake of reminding people what we love about this breed... 

Bottom illustrations are types of things I think people need to look at... even with the reminder that the breed standard puts overall balance ahead of bits and pieces. 










Pedigree: Glory of Fyning

Obviously you can't see the size or shape of this dog. But the thing I loved was the head. This is clearly a golden retriever at a glance. This was back in 1914. 










Similar time frame.... 

I'm sure there's people bouncing in their seats talking about this "short coated" dog, but if you look at the coat, it's been trimmed. It's clearly very thick (I'm clutching my slicker brush looking at it). 










Pedigree: AmCH AFC Honor's Darado Of Spindrift OS DDHF FDHF

See the reference to the dog's coat being clipped when running in the field.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> "....*Not as heavily coated as today's Goldens, he has the proper amount of leg under him and the correct amount of coat.* Too many Goldens today are short on leg and presented in less functional coat......"


You do realize that quote is about a dog of today, the one he awarded BOB to at the 2009 National, you must have missed that. 

The article goes on about grooming changing texture, namely; "It can be argued that the changes in coat preparation are, at least partially, the result of two things: the blow dryer and the wide range of grooming preparations that change the texture of the coat and allow the groomer to hold the coat in place once applied, in addition to more sophisticated grooming techniques.". You must have missed that, too.

Too many does not equal all.



Claudia M said:


> *you must have missed that....*
> 
> ETA - I hope he has not given up on the golden retrievers; most field trainers have. I believe he has written a book about golden retrievers. I never read it but thinking about getting it.



He has written two books on the Golden Retriever and one on the PBGV.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> You do realize that quote is about a dog of today, the one he awarded BOB to at the 2009 National, you must have missed that.
> 
> The article goes on about grooming changing texture, namely; "It can be argued that the changes in coat preparation are, at least partially, the result of two things: the blow dryer and the wide range of grooming preparations that change the texture of the coat and allow the groomer to hold the coat in place once applied, in addition to more sophisticated grooming techniques.". You must have missed that, too.
> 
> Too many does not equal all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has written two books on the Golden Retriever and one on the PBGV.


You have really missed this discussion a couple pages back. I have posted the very same article. And you can sugar coat it all you want about the blow dryers and the shampoo. Fact is not much has changed in blow dryers and shampoo since 2009. However that dog DID have proper leg and coat unlike MANY of the dogs in the ring today.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> You have really missed this discussion a couple pages back. I have posted the very same article. And you can sugar coat it all you want about the blow dryers and the shampoo. Fact is not much has changed in blow dryers and shampoo since 2009. However that dog DID have proper leg and coat unlike MANY of the dogs in the ring today.


I didn't sugar coat anything, actually I haven't expressed my feelings on the subject at all. The quote about dryers was from the author that you quoted, found in the very same article. 

So coat and lack of leg has only happened to many in the breed since 2009? That's what you are saying?


----------



## Kmullen

DanaRuns said:


> I, personally, have not had that experience. Maybe it's a function of being out here in California, which I think is the most competitive place in the nation, where it is hardest to finish a dog. Out here, if a dog has even one serious fault, s/he is unlikely to do well. I am very impressed with the overall quality of the dogs out here. Sometimes you look at a line-up and you can only conclude that there isn't "better" between these dogs, there is only "different."



I agree with you to a degree. I am sorry but the show world can be political and all you need is a pro-handler. I have seen some pretty awful dogs finish with big name pros.


----------



## gdgli

Eowyn

Many confuse type with good conformation. To quote from my copy of THE COMPLETE GOLDEN RETRIEVER by Gertrude Fisher (1974), Ch.4 The Golden Retriever Standard---An Analytical Discussion (Rachel P. Elliott)

"To be really outstanding, a purebred dog must possess good type as well as sound conformation.....A Golden might display good type....but in conformation he could be a disaster..." (P.107)

Lots of people are in love with the Golden type---personality, head and coat--- but don't recognize the sound conformation found in many field dogs. Not to say that you don't know the difference but many people do not. Actually I think most people do not.

And now something raises my suspicion, and admittedly I may be way off base, but I know several show champions whose owners refuse to enter their dogs in a CCA event. And I don't mean one or two people.


----------



## K9-Design

Do people not buy books anymore? Jeff Pepper wrote his first edition Golden Retriever book in the 1980s. He revised it about 2 years ago with a new edition. The images, dogs and pedigrees in those books are etched into my brain. How can you have a conversation about the dogs of yesteryear without having read these books?? They are the bibles of the breed! 

Jeff's article from a few years ago was an editorial. His opinion. Not fact to prove any argument. 

Claudia you said yourself you've only been to about 6 breed shows?? You have a very strong opinion on what is and isn't in the show ring for only having been to a handful of shows. I think I went to 6 shows last month....


----------



## LJack

Kate thank you for sharing Hondo. I had not run across him before and he is one I would not want to miss.


----------



## Kmullen

gdgli said:


> And now something raises my suspicion, and admittedly I may be way off base, but I know several show champions whose owners refuse to enter their dogs in a CCA event. And I don't mean one or two people.


Do you know why?


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> I didn't sugar coat anything, actually I haven't expressed my feelings on the subject at all. The quote about dryers was from the author that you quoted, found in the very same article.
> 
> *So coat and lack of leg has only happened to many in the breed since 2009? That's what you are saying?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> One can only wish that was the case. And at least Chaos has proven to be a field dog, with at least a WC something that most CH dogs today do not have in their 5 generation pedigree.


----------



## K9-Design

kfayard said:


> Do you know why?


Gee let me guess probably because they don't want to waste their time and money on something that's not a very big deal compared to a Championship? Call me crazy but my dogs have obedience titles and I don't bother going back and getting a CGC. Both are great programs and have their place but........I found that doing a CCA was much more about educating me on the standard than anything else. It confirmed what I thought about my own dog. I liked talking to the judges. The more experience you have showing and evaluated show dogs, the more practical knowledge you gain just from networking and talking to your friends and breeders at shows and critiquing your dogs amongst yourselves. That is the point of dog shows! It's also a CCA in a nutshell, minus the $70 entry fee...


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> Conquerergold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't sugar coat anything, actually I haven't expressed my feelings on the subject at all. The quote about dryers was from the author that you quoted, found in the very same article.
> 
> *So coat and lack of leg has only happened to many in the breed since 2009? That's what you are saying?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> One can only wish that was the case. And at least Chaos has proven to be a field dog, with at least a WC something that most CH dogs today do not have in their 5 generation pedigree.
> 
> 
> 
> Well hey he proved he can pick up a short double and two gimme marks in the water. I saw him attempt a WC the day after he won BOB at the national in Colorado. He didn't pass that day but obviously did at some other point in time. The WC is pretty popular I actually think it'd be hard to find "MANY" pedigrees of CH dogs that DON'T contain a WC in the first 5 generations.
Click to expand...


----------



## gdgli

kfayard said:


> Do you know why?


I will be blunt. I think that they fear that the CCA may reveal issues with the conformation of their dogs. Now remember, this is my suspicion, may not be true.

What would you think?


----------



## Kmullen

I don't know but I own 4 golden retrievers (show) and not one lacks leg. Yes there are some show Goldens out there that lack leg and I think did for a few years, but I have not really seen much lack of leg in the ring lately.


----------



## LJack

gdgli said:


> And now something raises my suspicion, and admittedly I may be way off base, but I know several show champions whose owners refuse to enter their dogs in a CCA event. And I don't mean one or two people.


This is just some thoughts. CCA's, at least where I am are hard to come by and limited. There was one in my state 2 or 3 years ago and one this year it is still about 2 months off and I sent my form in atleast 3 weeks ago. There are only 20 spots and they are holding them during the same time as the sweepstakes which is fine for me now as I don't have a puppy entry. If I did it is highly likely I would not be able to go. As it is I have two dogs and had to select one. One is a Champion the other one is pointed and on her way. Which did I choose, not the Champion. Why? Well first because I have no plans to breed her and also between my two girls I feel I have the best handle on her strengths and weeknesses. 

In the future will I enter a CCA with Champion? It is hard to say, if it is at the wrong time (ring conflict) or very limited entry, probably not. I already feel a little guilty taking a UKC Champion, AKC pointed, Specialty Reserve Winners Bitch in there because, with only 20 slots, she does not need any more titles on her name. I am doing it for me because I am still learning and I do hope to breed her and that information is highly valuable to me. But, I know if I make it in someone else likely won't and what if that other person is some one who will never be in the breed ring and this is their one chance in several years for a CCA? That makes me sad. This program should be offered much more frequently and conveniently. 

Are there some Champions out their that by virtue of finishing young or politics or handlers or showing in Costa Rica could not pass the CCA, probably. But, IMHO it is not why you don't see more Champions doing the CCA.


----------



## TheZ's

Thanks for reminding us of this one. Wish we could have more like him.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> One can only wish that was the case. And at least Chaos has proven to be a field dog, with at least a WC something that most CH dogs today do not have in their 5 generation pedigree.


Yet another non-factual statement thrown into the discussion with absolutely zero ability to back it up. 5 generations equals 32 ancestors. Show my the majority of pedigrees that lack a minimum of a WC out of 32 ancestors.


----------



## Kmullen

Well, personally, there are not many CCA events around my area and if one does Pop up it is 6-8 hours away and fill fast because they don't have many spots. None of my dogs have a CCA because of that reason. If one is reasonable, would love to take on. I do know my dogs' stengths and weaknesses. I am pretty critical of my dogs. But, it is just they are not offered very often.


----------



## cubbysan

It was my understanding that the CCA was not designed to put another title on a Champion dog, but to prove a dog was within standard that was not shown. For instance, a breeder wants to breed a bitch that has not had the time to get her Ch yet.

I know of two people that have gotten CCA's on their dogs here in KC. They had to travel 10 hours for that show that had it. I believe one was an obedience dog and one was a field dog.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> Yet another non-factual statement thrown into the discussion with absolutely zero ability to back it up. 5 generations equals 32 ancestors. Show my the majority of pedigrees that lack a minimum of a WC out of 32 ancestors.


I would but that would be bad-talking people's dogs and that is not allowed. 

Better though, you are a breeder, correct? What do you do to keep the golden purpose in the dogs that you breed? What do you look for in the dogs that you breed?


----------



## Kmullen

I, honestly, wish this thread would close. We still blame eachother and are thrashing out at eachother for NO good reason. We are all passionate about the breed. We all want what is best for the breed, but some like to focus more on certain parts of the standard.

We will not change eachother's minds. 

The field people will still think show Goldens have way too much coat, have no desire to hunt or working ability, too short in leg.

The show people will still think field Goldens look like labs, need more body, smaller/larger...

I don't get it. We are all trying to do what's best even though others have a different opinion. We should all be looking for biddability, longevity, health, structure, etc. does that mean that you should be breeding SDHF or Master hunters or field trail champions? Would that be great if we did? Of course! But, you can not get everything!! Every breeding you might gain something but you are always losing something also. So where one wants structure, you might lose health/longevity? If one wants biddability and workability, you might lose structure? Etc...

It is an uphill battle and that is what makes breeding so hard.

We all have goals we want to accomplish, so stop bickering about which show or field bred golden is better!


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> And now something raises my suspicion, and admittedly I may be way off base, but I know several show champions whose owners refuse to enter their dogs in a CCA event. And I don't mean one or two people.


How did they "refuse?" Did someone require or request that they take their champion dogs for a CCA, and they declined in an attempt to avoid it? 



> I will be blunt. I think that they fear that the CCA may reveal issues with the conformation of their dogs. Now remember, this is my suspicion, may not be true.
> 
> What would you think?


Yeah, I think you're way off base, although this does give me some insight into your thinking and helps me understand where you're coming from a little better.

What would I think? I would think why in the world would they waste their time and money on a CCA for their champion dog that had beaten the best the show ring had to offer in several different shows, under several different judges, where the whole purpose of the competition is about not only meeting the breed standard in a conformation assessment, but meeting it better than every other dog in the ring? I think that's what most owners of championship dogs think, even if they don't say it out loud. I know I wouldn't waste my time and money on it.

Ask why the owner of a field champion would "refuse" to run a WC. Is it because he's afraid the WC may reveal performance issues with his dog?

I agree that the feedback from a CCA can be a nice teaching tool for the owner, but that champion show dog aced that test when he got his first championship points.

As for all this stuff about conformation just being political and any dog can get a championship, I think that's blown way out of proportion and is most often just sour grapes from people whose dogs don't win. Two thoughts from my recent life: (1) I know a number of conformation judges, and every single one does his or her level best to find the best dog in the ring. One, who is a friend of mine, has never put up Gibbs, though I certainly would not have minded being the beneficiary of that supposedly common occurrence. I think this baloney talk is insulting to all the people who work so hard judging dog shows. (2) There is a dog I know that had a fairly significant fault that was revealed only when gaiting (she lost her top line and rolled), and she was dragged around the ring for over a year by a very famous and accomplished handler, and that handler couldn't finish that really beautiful dog. The handler just recently gave that dog back to her breeder/owner, who then had to come to terms with the fact that her gorgeous Golden was never going to beat the other dogs in the ring because she simply was not deserving of a championship, even though she would have passed a CCA in a cakewalk. If it was all about politics, that dog would have finished her championship in a jiffy.

A champion dog "refusing" to take a CCA is like John Steinbeck "refusing" to take Creative Writing 101.

So, my guess is that you've misjudged what's in those owners' minds.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> I would but that would be bad-talking people's dogs and that is not allowed.


No it's not. Just because a dog doesn't have a WC doesn't mean they are bad. You'd just be showing a pedigree that is already on a public database. 

Here I found one with only ONE dog in 5 generations with a WC.

Five generation pedigree: BIS BISS CH Toasty's Treasure Island SDHF

I happen to think this is one of the most outstanding golden retrievers I've ever laid eyes on!


----------



## DanaRuns

kfayard said:


> The show people will still think field Goldens look like labs, need more body, smaller/larger...


Honestly, I think the show people just think the field people don't care about conformation, and that if they did, they could breed great field dogs with fine, if not excellent, conformation.


----------



## Titan1

cubbysan said:


> It was my understanding that the CCA was not designed to put another title on a Champion dog, but to prove a dog was within standard that was not shown. For instance, a breeder wants to breed a bitch that has not had the time to get her Ch yet.
> 
> I know of two people that have gotten CCA's on their dogs here in KC. They had to travel 10 hours for that show that had it. I believe one was an obedience dog and one was a field dog.


I put Mighty in the CCA at the national in TX. 18 hours away.He was evaluated by three judges .. One was wonderful and she put her hands on him and explained everything as she was going over him, she also explained what she was scoring and why the score....One barely touched him and said something crazy that still to this day I believe I heard wrong... and the third spent almost the entire time scolding me for putting him in so young...crazy.. Ms Davern (sp) was wonderful and seems to loves our breed and I truly learned a lot that day from her.. 
I truly love our breed. I have two golden boys that I love dearly and yes there are things with each of them I would love to improve on. I will leave the breeding and choices to the breeders and thank goodness for them because that means I have a choice when I am looking for a puppy and can go to the breeder who matches what I am looking for. I want a golden to look like a golden and act like a golden and work like a golden and be the cutest puppy ever...
I do appreciate a wonderful working golden in any event, I am just not hung up making them all look and act exactly alike.. I like the diversity..
Back to your regularly scheduled program...


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> .....The field people will still think show Goldens have way too much coat, have no desire to hunt or working ability, too short in leg.
> 
> The show people will still think field Goldens look like labs, need more body, smaller/larger...
> 
> I don't get it. .....


Until the show people actually prove their dogs in the field instead of just assuming their dogs have it because some generations ago they had it, and really stop excusing the dogs with "exaggerated abilities", "I do not hunt"," I cannot touch a dead duck" etc and the field people get back into the conformation ring and show that their dogs are in standard and of golden temperament - nothing will be solved. 

I do not know if I really agree with the CCA. In a way it can be viewed as an escape from the conformation ring. In another way, it does measure the dog which it is not done in the conformation ring. Maybe all bred dogs should have it.


----------



## DanaRuns

Edited because it was rendered moot by subsequent posts.


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> I do not know if I really agree with the CCA. In a way it can be viewed as an escape from the conformation ring. In another way, it does measure the dog which it is not done in the conformation ring. Maybe all bred dogs should have it.


I believe that would be impossible at this time due to the lack of offerings. I'm the state of Arizona there have been only 2 CCA's in what will be 3-4 years. I don't know how big the last on is but this one is limited to only 20 dogs. It is being held in conjunction with a Specialty that last year had an entry of 114 dogs not counting the Obeidence dogs (the sites don't give an overall total for obeidence). Add to that all the hunt/field/spayed/neutered dogs who need the CCA to reach the VC and VCX titles there is just not enough offerings to go around. Here is hoping for more availability in the future. Waiting for years or driving for hours or missing out due to entry limits seems counterproductive for this valuable program.


----------



## Claudia M

I had to look up SGWC as I wasn't really sure what it meant I its entirety. 

Those old "Polio" days weren't that bad: 

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/257409/sgwc_-_a5_18_september_ec.pdf


----------



## DanaRuns

The UK Kennel Club?


----------



## TrailDogs

More mythbusting and honesty,
Conformation goldens have great structure and breed type. Read the current GRCA news interviews with judges, here are some snippets from different ones;
'Many facets of true Golden retriever type have been altered to create something that in many ways is a caricature of the breed',
'Many exhibits too short on leg',
'domed heads, small eyes, shelly bodies', 
'too much coat, heads with domes, low ear sets, bad rears with way too much angle', 
'long dogs are becoming the norm, grossly overangulated rears with fronts that don't match.'

So if we are going to have an honest conversation about structure lets not be so quick to throw the field golden under the bus and assume that being in the conformation ring or conformation bred equates to good breed type and structure.


----------



## Kmullen

TrailDogs said:


> More mythbusting and honesty,
> Conformation goldens have great structure and breed type. Read the current GRCA news interviews with judges, here are some snippets from different ones;
> 'Many facets of true Golden retriever type have been altered to create something that in many ways is a caricature of the breed',
> 'Many exhibits too short on leg',
> 'domed heads, small eyes, shelly bodies',
> 'too much coat, heads with domes, low ear sets, bad rears with way too much angle',
> 'long dogs are becoming the norm, grossly overangulated rears with fronts that don't match.'
> 
> So if we are going to have an honest conversation about structure lets not be so quick to throw the field golden under the bus and assume that being in the conformation ring or conformation bred equates to good breed type and structure.



In my honest opinion, I have felt this whole thread that field people think they do not need the change anything and the show Goldens are the ones that need to change everything. Again, no dog is perfect and every single dog has faults. And when in this thread has someone called out true faults with field Goldens? I have asked twice now and no one has really given me an answer. 

I don't see where field Goldens are being thrown under the bus?? I feel it is the other way around. This thread has been nothing but bashing show Goldens for their coats and lack of leg.

Again the quote above that states all the faults of show golden retrievers... You don't think field Goldens fall under any of those categories? Or even a new category?


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> EOWYN - I invite you to read Jeffrey Pepper's article I posted several pages back.
> The conformation dogs are short in leg, with non-functional coat an nothing of what they used to be. And that is a golden owner as well as a former conformation judge.
> /QUOTE]
> I read the article when it was fresh off the press. In fact my breeder immediately called me to tell me to read it, but most of it was just confirmed what I had already been told. I did read over it again to make sure the info we were discussing was fresh in my mind.
> 
> Claudia, I didn't ask about conformation in the show ring goldens. I asked about conformation in field goldens. I wasn't asking anyone to point out what isn't right about conformation goldens. I was asking about field goldens. You think they have better conformation? Tell me how because I don't see it.


----------



## DanaRuns

Yeah. I can identify a good 15-20 pages, or more, of bashing conformation Goldens. Find me one page of bashing field Goldens. I think the conformation folks have gone out of their way to refrain from doing that. But, you know, it never really has been the conformation people who have been talking about others "ruining the breed." It has always been that handful of field folks. And in the grand scheme of Golden Retrievers, the field folks are really a very small minority. So this thread should be filled with overwhelming numbers of field bashing posts, going by the numbers. And it's not. It's field people constantly bashing conformation Goldens, and getting all "you're so mean to me" over imagined slights.

Naturally, not one of the field folks has heard or addressed what I and others have _actually_ said about how the breed's diversity is its strength, you just cling to this myth that today's field Goldens are a master race of Golden perfection and are perfectly preserved examples of the flawless Goldens of the past, and anything different from that concept is a mongrel and an enemy of the breed.

What you're cherry picking from articles is people _within_ conformation circles having honest and frank discussions about actually improving the breed and finding the best possible. It's about making subtle changes to make things better, it's an effort to make sure things stay on track; it is not a wholesale condemnation of conformation Goldens by their own, as you seem to believe. If that's what you're getting from it, you're missing the boat entirely. Which I suppose is natural, because field folks seem not to be so self-introspective. Conformation folks are all about breeding to improve the breed. That's what every single breeding is focused on. These discussions are internal thoughts about policing themselves and earnestly hewing to the best job they can do.

Personally, I'm not going to play this game anymore about how improving Goldens is limited to making them better field trial competitors. People are polite by discussing it, because we all want to preserve hunting instincts and characteristics in the breed. We're just not fanatical about that being the only thing that makes a Golden a Golden. The field fanatics are the odd men out, here. It's an extremist position. And that's fine in my book! That's one of the great things that the Golden Retriever can be! But it's not the only thing. Goldens are versatile. It's like Christianity with its many denominations bound together by a common core belief, and field people are the Twelve Tribes, claiming theirs is the only true Christianity, and all other denominations are infidels. I'm not going to humor that anymore. Goldens are much bigger than that. I get it that field folks think theirs is the One True Way, while virtually no one else in the Golden World thinks like that, but that doesn't mean I have to go along out of political correctness. So here's my position:

Field Goldens are fine. Conformation Goldens are fine. Therapy Goldens are fine. Companion Goldens are fine. Search and rescue Goldens are fine. Agility Goldens are fine. All the various branches of Golden Retrieverdom are wonderful. But all need to keep breed type, sporting dog instinct and fidelity to the breed standard in mind while pursuing those varied passions. There is truth in field folks' concern about maintaining a sporting breed, and there is truth to conformation folks' concern about losing breed type and structure. There are more truths in Goldens than just the field fanatics' concerns, and all of them should be respected.

'Nuff said! Case closed!


----------



## Selli-Belle

Claudia M said:


> EOWYN - I invite you to read Jeffrey Pepper's article I posted several pages back.
> The conformation dogs are short in leg, with non-functional coat an nothing of what they used to be. And that is a golden owner as well as a former conformation judge.


Claudia, I think you are guilty of a logical fallacy. Because Mr Pepper sees too many show Goldens with too short of legs and too much coat, that does not mean that all show Goldens or even most show Goldens have legs that are too short or too much coat. 

I think most experts (medical and pubic health) think that too many adult Americans are obese. That does not mean that all or even most Americans are obese. However the percentage of obese adult Americans is 35% (2011-2012 stat from CDC). Pick any random adult American and statistically that person will not be obese. 

Even if we reduce the number of obese adults, to say 25%, I think most public health experts would say it was too many even though three out of any four adults would not be obese. I don't know if there is a point at which public health experts would say "O.K., now there are no longer too many obese adult Americans" as long as it was more than one. 

I think anyone who is involved in breed competition with Goldens would agree that they have seen dogs with too short of legs or too much coat and they may believe that those represent too many, but it isn't logical to believe that they see most or all dogs with those faults and are just denying the fact.


----------



## DanaRuns

Great post, Carolyn.


----------



## LJack

Okay...I am going to go a little dream world here.

I agree with Dana's post that their seems to be pages of discussion and not much of it nice on the short comings of show bred Goldens and I don't see much of anyone tearing down Feild bred Goldens. But, I beleive you that you have experienced it. I believe that it hurts. I beleive that it colors your opinions and how you express them. I also know, that it did not come from me at least never intentionally. Do I have some beliefs about Field Goldens, yes. Could you help me correct any misunderstanding, yes. Is that happening? No. Because we are closed down and so entrenched in our beliefs.

I think and agree that people active primarily in conformation are used to having thier dogs picked apart, so quotes like we have too much coat or are short in the leg are not a suprise. Nor, do I find them hurtful, they are information. Overall, I think we have addressed the leg issue. I find more dogs with better or correct length of leg in the ring. We are now, still having an issue with being long in the body, which seems even more pronounced in European bred conformation dogs. Is evey dog this way, no. Nor are the long dogs long to the same degree. 

It does not bother me one bit to discuss these generalities so long as we know it does not mean all, nor do we pick on one single dog. What does bother me is being rude, dismissive, or insulting of a whole group of dogs, pedigrees or a discipline. I do not feel that is conducive to a discussion on improving the breed. Nor do I feel we all have to play the same game or like the same thing. It would be lovely to find some common ground. 

I think we have had a productive although some times tumultuous and repetitive discussion on work ability, can we do the same for structure? I'm not sure but perhaps I can start it of with my personal experiance and a similar situation presented as a question.

My most recent pup whom I had to rehome due to Juvinile Cateracts (yeah just 3 weeks before getting the proposed COE change, though I'm not sure that would have stopped me and she is in a great home. I wish I live there!) I did look for retrieving instinct. Actually I did with the two litters that were on the ground. Granted, I did not have a live bird, I did use two different types of bird wings. I was hoping to raise a dog that could do the VC or VCX and a try for a Triathlon at a national. All the puppies had a good response but especially the one I wanted and I was pleased. I reinforced these skills and had what I felt as a complete hunt novice was a pretty good start. 
Now for some honesty, if she was not good on the bird wings or retrieving for that fact, I would have gladly still taken her. She had one of the best shoulders I had seen in the line I work with. She was also an outcross which held significant value to me. Not to mention all the other things she had going for her structurally and her great obedience work ethic. I was happy to have birdiness and drive but it would not have been a deal breaker for me on this particular pup is she had had less. I honestly have not seen a litter with none.

So, on the flip side. If you had a litter of field puppies and you had an absolute star in the traits for a great hunt/feild dog. Birdiness, focus, drive, bidability, tenacity, etc. This puppy has absolutely all of it it also has a bad structure related fault (you take your pick, what you would consider bad) would you pick that puppy over the rest of the litter mates if they are just okay at all those same traits but lack that bad structural fault. Do you not take a puppy at all? What level of structural fault would make those great, natural, inborn skills not matter when it comes to adding genes back into the program or the breed as a whole?

I really do hope we can have a discussion on structure as their is no perfect dog. If we really want to move forward and perhaps have more breeders incorporate hunt/field bred dogs into thier lines, we have to know where the strengths and weeknesses lie above and beyond height, white markings and of course strong hunting instincts.


----------



## TrailDogs

kfayard said:


> In my honest opinion, I have felt this whole thread that field people think they do not need the change anything and the show Goldens are the ones that need to change everything. Again, no dog is perfect and every single dog has faults. And when in this thread has someone called out true faults with field Goldens? I have asked twice now and no one has really given me an answer.


What kind of an answer do you want. Several people, including myself, have said they have the same faults and health issues as conformation dogs. I am not sure what you are looking for here. 
What do you mean by true faults?


----------



## Kmullen

TrailDogs said:


> What kind of an answer do you want. Several people, including myself, have said they have the same faults and health issues as conformation dogs. I am not sure what you are looking for here.
> What do you mean by true faults?


Yes in your response to my question you mentioned some dogs are harder to train (which the same goes for any dog imo) and some dogs may not have the structure that you would like. I am leaving the health alone bc that affects show and field that is not indifferent to field.

You also mentioned that breeding is more mental than physical attributes. So, there is nothing overall about field Goldens that need to be changed? This is a general question. If you are breeding for mental attributes first, you are losing other qualities. It is just the way it goes.


----------



## AmberSunrise

My apologies for singling out a single item ...

The COA is modifying the recommendations for juvenile cataracts? That could open the available pool for some outstanding dogs ....



LJack said:


> << snip >>
> My most recent pup whom I had to rehome due to Juvinile Cateracts (yeah just 3 weeks before getting the proposed COE change, though I'm not sure that would have stopped me and she is in a great home. I wish I live there!)


----------



## LJack

TrailDogs said:


> What kind of an answer do you want. Several people, including myself, have said they have the same faults and health issues as conformation dogs. I am not sure what you are looking for here.
> What do you mean by true faults?


Well, as an example:
These are my opinions and observations. Others may have seen other things or not agree with me at all. 

I feel areas where US Confirmation Goldens could improve STRUCTURALLY is correct proportion. Too many are long which make less than ideal foot timing look better. Some dogs are still too short in leg and when paired with long as well is really detrimental to overall balance. Also, matching fronts and rears. Fronts in general are not angulated correctly and rears can be over angulated. Even correct rears can over power straight fronts. Sometimes backlines have more slope than I would like to see. Fit of elbows and wide front movement with lack of convergence seems to be an issue as of late. Heads are more of a personal interpretation but I would like to see a softer eye on more dogs. I would like to see more body on dogs especially rib spring. Length of rib cage especially on the underline has been bothering my eye lately. Not sure, but we may be seeing herring gut on some dogs in the ring.

As I said before I don't mind discussing flaws as long as we know it is in generalities and not picking on a single dog. Could you please add something similar for what you are seeing in general in hunt/field bred dogs?


----------



## LJack

Sunrise said:


> My apologies for singling out a single item ...
> 
> The COA is modifying the recommendations for juvenile cataracts? That could open the available pool for some outstanding dogs ....


Yup. It is a proposal. The Board is taking comments now but they have not made a discion. There is a thread that includes a PDF version (the links did not work). You can see it here http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retrievers-main-discussion/335426-code-ethics.html 

A very interesting read. It did make my heart drop a little as I had just placed that very promising girl. But I beleive things happen for a reason and she is where she needs to be.


----------



## kwhit

LJack said:


> ...and I don't see much of anyone tearing down Feild bred Goldens...


He**, no...they have guns!  JK...maybe. 

This thread has been so eye-opening to me. At one point I was even thinking of never having another Golden because, like LJack, I will never hunt due to the fact that I could never in a bazillion years kill anything. But then Dana's post showing all the different roles that Goldens play in our lives, other than a hunting partner, made me realize that they don't have to hunt to _*posses*_ the traits they were originally bred for.

It's their versatility that matters. Their willingness and trainability, intelligence, their drive, temperament all these things rolled into a wonderful companion that is capable of many jobs/roles in our lives. That, to me, is what makes them such an amazing breed and one that I will continue to share my life with.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yes and no.....how many would breed to a dog with JCs? Until we know more about the genetics of it, I suspect not many would chance it. I could be wrong, though.



Sunrise said:


> My apologies for singling out a single item ...
> 
> The COA is modifying the recommendations for juvenile cataracts? That could open the available pool for some outstanding dogs ....


----------



## Ljilly28

Claudia M said:


> EOWYN - I invite you to read Jeffrey Pepper's article I posted several pages back.
> The conformation dogs are short in leg, with non-functional coat an nothing of what they used to be. And that is a golden owner as well as a former conformation judge.
> 
> No matter how much his words have been dismissed on this thread - obviously the conformation breeders have gone way too far from what a golden is supposed to be. No fronts, no legs, blocky heads and I can keep on going.
> 
> I am sure some field goldens have changed as well but not as much. And at least to some degree they have kept their purpose in the field.
> 
> There is lots of politics in conformation. Who knows whom and whose showing whose dog. How much have you shown your face around the ring. If you have a bigger dog you go in front of a judge that has small dogs because they seem to think the bigger the better. Talk about judge shopping and pro handler shopping.
> 
> I admire the people that do it themselves (not the ones that are at every single show in every single town and have shown their faces 10 thousand times until they finally did it).
> 
> For some reason I am still amazed at the length of excuses some go to protect what they have done to the goldens of yesteryear.
> 
> 
> LOL, sort of like what we see in schools today, if it is too hard we will just dumb it down a little and give everyone an A. That way everyone feels happy.


Wow, well since Jeffery Pepper gave my golden points in the conformation ring, I will reply without defensiveness that having lived with both the goldens of the past and goldens of this time, and share my life now with with both field bred and conformation bred goldens, that no one has done something AWFUL to the goldens of "yesteryear". 

While there may be a "split" to those of us passionately involved, I just went for a hike today with two MH goldens (one is ** and one is *** )and my own goldens. While it is a big issue for us here discussing field v show dogs, it would be very hard for someone to look down on that 6 mile hike and pick out a dog with less or more drive, enthusiasm, athleticism. They are all fast, strong, fit, and love to retrieve. Since we were neither in the show ring nor at a field trial, the goldens acted and appeared more like variations on one theme than a separate breed with a huge canyon dividing. 

The breed standard is very, very detailed and discusses everything from the pigment of the nose to the set of the tail, and everything in between. Working ability does not exempt a dog from fulfilling the breed standard. Some things ARE open to argument like what is moderate; however there are many very concrete things in the standard that the dog is either correct or incorrect to whatever degree. Sometimes people go on the best defense is a big offense theory, and try to hide faults in their dog's type and structure by attacking the working ability of the conformation dogs. Probably many of the field dogs have better working ability and many of the show dogs have better conformation. However, that doesnt mean the field dogs dont have decent conformation or the conformation dogs dont have decent working potential.


----------



## Claudia M

Selli-Belle said:


> Claudia, I think you are guilty of a logical fallacy. Because Mr Pepper sees too many show Goldens with too short of legs and too much coat, that does not mean that all show Goldens or even most show Goldens have legs that are too short or too much coat.
> 
> *I think most experts (medical and pubic health) think that too many adult Americans are obese.* That does not mean that all or even most Americans are obese. *However the percentage of obese adult Americans is 35%* (2011-2012 stat from CDC). Pick any random adult American and statistically that person will not be obese.


Actually the definition of obese in this country is obscured. A "pudgy" person here is considered obese in Europe and anywhere else in the world.\

So yes statistically they should be considered obese but to make them feel better we tell them they are just fine because most American are pudgy but not really obese.


----------



## Claudia M

LJack said:


> ........So, on the flip side. If you had a litter of field puppies and you had an absolute star in the traits for a great hunt/feild dog. Birdiness, focus, drive, bidability, tenacity, etc. This puppy has absolutely all of it it also has a bad structure related fault (you take your pick, what you would consider bad) would you pick that puppy over the rest of the litter mates if they are just okay at all those same traits but lack that bad structural fault. Do you not take a puppy at all? What level of structural fault would make those great, natural, inborn skills not matter when it comes to adding genes back into the program or the breed as a whole?
> 
> I really do hope we can have a discussion on structure as their is no perfect dog. If we really want to move forward and perhaps have more breeders incorporate hunt/field bred dogs into thier lines, we have to know where the strengths and weeknesses lie above and beyond height, white markings and of course strong hunting instincts.


 One cannot assume that birdiness, focus, drive, bidability, tenacity, etc. are there at the bare age of 8 weeks. 

IMHO. If my field golden was great with the drive, intelligence and completing the retrieves with style but lacked in structure (take your pick), yes I would consider a pair with a well structured conformation dog; but here is where the kicker comes in - there are not many to pick from even though the numbers of show dogs are staggering and most do not even have a minimum JH in the pedigree. 

So my question to the conformation dog owner, would you compromise and give me a JH? What would you like for me to compromise on from the field side?


----------



## Selli-Belle

Claudia M said:


> Actually the definition of obese in this country is obscured. A "pudgy" person here is considered obese in Europe and anywhere else in the world.\
> 
> So yes statistically they should be considered obese but to make them feel better we tell them they are just fine because most American are pudgy but not really obese.


OK Claudia, you completely missed my point AND made another logical fallacy, that of moving the line (and the line in an analogy).


----------



## Alaska7133

https://picasaweb.google.com/116349375321818437897/FieldTrainingOctober262014

This is a link to stacking photos I took of field trial goldens at US national in October. Their names are in the comments for each photo. Please look them up on k9data. There are 2 FC-AFC dogs in this group. Those FC and AFC titles are extremely difficult to get and maybe 2 goldens in one year get one or the other. So beyond imagination difficult. The dogs I photographed were a variety of ages. To prepare them for the photos I brushed them, trimmed their ears and tails. So not a great deal of grooming. They had all swam in the last day or so, so they were clean. But they hadn't been blow dried or had any product applied to their fur. Teaching them to stack wasn't that easy, I only gave up on two, and photographed those in sitting positions.

I had a wonderful time grooming and photographing these dogs. There were very pleasant and easy to work with. Not hyper, not difficult. They loved the attention like all goldens do. Every one of them I would have taken home with me. 

After photographing the dogs, I sent the link to one of the national judges we had in NC. She was kind enough to say that she thought most of them had wonderful comformation. She thought that the chests found in these dogs was better than many show dogs. She also felt that show dogs have loins that are generally too long. Her personal favorite dog was Push. Please look up Firemark's Push Come to Shove. He was an amazing dog. Now before I get too far off track, did anyone click on the link to one of the poster's in this thread: Rob1? Check out the pedigree on her dog. That is a pedigree many people have thought about. I didn't know it existed. Kirby one one side and Push on the other. Wow! Didn't know anyone had done that. Good for Jackie Mertens for doing it. Now that's a dog I'd like to check out.

So anyway back to my photos. My background in dogs is nothing to write home about. I have a JH and some CGC's, nothing interesting. I do compete in conformation, obedience, and rally, but I have nothing to show for it. I have no axe to grind. I want to see well rounded dogs like we have and will continue to have. I love golden retrievers. 

At the 2015 US golden national, I am going to try to get as many field trial people to let me show their dogs in comformation as I can. I really want to show of those dogs in gundog sweeps or whatever class they want their dogs in. 

I enjoy the variety of venues that I can compete in with my dogs. That's the fun of owning golden retrievers.


----------



## Kmullen

I feel as though if ALL conformation dogs earned a JH, it would still not be enough and the show Goldens will still get made fun of because they would never make field trial dogs.

I think you need to know the weaknesses in your dog, before you can try and improve them.


----------



## Kmullen

Great Pictures Stacey!


----------



## gdgli

Alaska

Those are exactly the comments that I heard at my dog's CCA event. Thank you for writing about it.

PS Would you handle my dog for me at the Specialty? I wouldn't have the nerve.


----------



## Titan1

Picture of Push for those who want to see.


----------



## gdgli

kfayard said:


> I feel as though if ALL conformation dogs earned a JH, it would still not be enough and the show Goldens will still get made fun of because they would never make field trial dogs.
> 
> I think you need to know the weaknesses in your dog, before you can try and improve them.


I don't know about that, i.e making fun out of conformation. Although my last two Goldens were from Field Trial breedings I was not looking for this type at all. I wanted a hunting dog but that dog had to be athletic and extremely birdy. My last Golden, sired by an FC-AFC, was an outstanding hunting dog. Fast forward 24 years. I decided to see some hunt tests and field trials before I chose a dog. I had not been to either for a while. Many of the Goldens that I saw did not have the style of working that I wanted. I could deal with the coat I guess. Now mind you, hunting was my primary concern. And I hunt my dogs hard.

I choose my dogs on birdiness, athleticism, and other features conducive to the hunting I do---less coat, smaller build.

I try not to make insulting comments about conformation dogs. However, I am quite capable of saying the following about ANY dog: "I wouldn't want to hunt with that dog. And no, I don't want its puppies."

And it's the same with conformation people when they see my dog. I am sure they would say "I wouldn't want to bring that dog into the show ring."


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> One cannot assume that birdiness, focus, drive, bidability, tenacity, etc. are there at the bare age of 8 weeks.
> 
> IMHO. If my field golden was great with the drive, intelligence and completing the retrieves with style but lacked in structure (take your pick), yes I would consider a pair with a well structured conformation dog; but here is where the kicker comes in - there are not many to pick from even though the numbers of show dogs are staggering and most do not even have a minimum JH in the pedigree.
> 
> So my question to the conformation dog owner, would you compromise and give me a JH? What would you like for me to compromise on from the field side?


Well, the scenario was given to start a discussion so for this mythical puppy it would all be there in the same way a show ring prospect has it all there at 8 weeks. It is an educated guess but one based on knowledge and experiance. So while I agree with you may not see the potential bear out in trailing the same way show ring prospectus do sometimes fizzle, I am guessing that field breeders can pick out the star of the litter, a stand out if their is one.

I was not suggesting breeding this mythical field puppy to a conformation dog, though that idea has merit and there are JH/CH boys and girls to choose from so that is always an option. As is breeding to another field bred dog that does not share the same weekness. 

But the question really was is there a point at which a structural fault would override the hunting ability and therefore make this mythical puppy not a keeper? Or does hunting ability always override structure and/or breed type?

Will I have a JH dog someday? Maybe, but I have a lot of personal issues with hunting that I am not embarrassed to say. Hunting is simply not my thing and the thought of killing birds is not appealing to me in the slightest. If I actually get to that point, if I test my dogs in hunt tests it will be because of my feelings of responsibility to the breed. It will be doing what I would feel as a duty. It will likely not be because I enjoy the sport. I am sure I will enjoy aspects like the communication and teamwork with my dog or the beauty I see in a Golden loving what they do but my issue with killing and the guilt associated with that action or aspect will not be assuaged. 

It is simply a very different feeling for me than those who enjoy the sport for themselves. I fully support the rights of anyone does hunt but it holds no appeal to me. 

I am probably like a lot of Americans or I hazard to guess any person who lives in a urban or suburban area. I am completely divorced from the processing of my own food. I go to the store and get my meat in a package. I do not have to contemplate killing and processing animals to eat. If I was placed in a survival situation could I? Yes, I am sure I could but the idea holds absolutely no appeal to me and I don't have any other beliefs that are standing in my way such as those people who are vegetarian or vegan.

There is for some owners more to the lack of hunting titles than the dogs ability.


----------



## hollyk

kfayard said:


> I think you need to know the weaknesses in your dog, before you can try and improve them.




While my girl is spayed, I'll play the game because I have thought about it.

Structure! Yes, she passed the CCA but not by a huge margin. I liked how one of the evaluators put it, she had wasn't bad she just need more. 
So I would be looking for a better front, she is really straight. She is not narrow in the chest but she needs more forechest, depth of chest and tighter elbows. She has a better rear than front. Her head is OK but could be a bit broader as well as her muzzle. She has good ear set and length. She has dark eyes and OK pigment, dark eyeliner and lips but her nose fades in the winter so could use a bit of pigment. I love a black nose. She has a decent top line and tail set.
She is extremely biddabilty, is a quick learner, has high prey drive, is good in the water and marks well. She gets along well with all people and dogs, but I have always thought that she lacks one small scoop of confidence.
Because Winter's pedigree is not seeped in performance titles I have no idea if I'm able to play the HT and Obedience games because it is coming from behind her or if it is just her. So I would be looking for a confident biddable boy with performance chops, specially field. He would need to bring the hope of a better chest and front (with matching rear please). If he could throw a nicer head we would take that too. If we could get some of that in one imaginary breeding that would be great.
So it is probably not a surprise that I will be looking for the versatile, tweeter, middle of the road breeding for my next puppy.


----------



## Eowyn

LJack said:


> Will I have a JH dog someday? Maybe, but I have a lot of personal issues with hunting that I am not embarrassed to say. Hunting is simply not my thing and the thought of killing birds is not appealing to me in the slightest. If I actually get to that point, if I test my dogs in hunt tests it will be because of my feelings of responsibility to the breed. It will be doing what I would feel as a duty. It will likely not be because I enjoy the sport. I am sure I will enjoy aspects like the communication and teamwork with my dog or the beauty I see in a Golden loving what they do but my issue with killing and the guilt associated with that action or aspect will not be assuaged.
> 
> It is simply a very different feeling for me than those who enjoy the sport for themselves. I fully support the rights of anyone does hunt but it holds no appeal to me.
> 
> I am probably like a lot of Americans or I hazard to guess any person who lives in a urban or suburban area. I am completely divorced from the processing of my own food. I go to the store and get my meat in a package. I do not have to contemplate killing and processing animals to eat. If I was placed in a survival situation could I? Yes, I am sure I could but the idea holds absolutely no appeal to me and I don't have any other beliefs that are standing in my way such as those people who are vegetarian or vegan.
> 
> There is for some owners more to the lack of hunting titles than the dogs ability.


Same here. I can't stand the idea of killing anything! To the point that I often can be found gently cradling spiders/bugs in my hand to deposit them outside the house, as I don't want them inside but can't stand to kill them. I appreciate the purpose of the breed because I value what it gave us. However I will never hunt or title my dogs in field (unless somewhere down the road I can afford to send them to a trainer to train/title them for me). But when I become a breeder I will make sure to recognize that weakness, and incorporate studs into my program that have hunt titles.


----------



## Claudia M

Selli-Belle said:


> OK Claudia, you completely missed my point AND made another logical fallacy, that of moving the line (and the line in an analogy).


No, I did not miss your point. You used a complete false argument. Almost as false as your analogy. 

Americans are obese compared to the rest of the world no matter how much one wants to put them in the pudgy area.

The fact that judges are making public statements about the goldens in the rings shows to me that there is much more of this than we would like to think. I hope I am wrong on that. 

Just like no matter how much people want to pretend that the goldens have no changed in the ring or in the field and not for the better are simply trying to make themselves feel better like the obese people.

Most Americans are European descendants, so I did not move the line I simply put it back where it is supposed to be for a correct analysis. 

Sort of like what it is happening in the ring; If out of 30 dogs, 28 are short in leg with big head and small eyes and 2 dogs are correct in leg, correct in muzzle but has other more serious faults the judge is forced to pull one of the better short leg, bug head and small eyed dog. I wish the judges would just say - none are correct, see you later. But by picking that dog they still award the wrong dog and then guess what everyone is going to look for in breeding - much bigger head, much longer coat etc.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia, judges do say none are good enough to award championship points to, and will refuse to name a winner.

Plus, let me move that line where it belongs. You NEVER see 30 dogs, 28 short in leg with big head and small eyes and 2 dogs are correct in leg, correct in muzzle but has other more serious faults. Never.

Out of 88 Goldens in the ring today, I'd say maybe four or five were too short in leg (and none of them won anything). A few others were too long, with too much loin. None had both short legs and too much loin. The world you describe is not one I've ever seen, and I'm at dog shows almost every weekend.

Of course, if your idea of just enough leg is this...










...then you will think all the dogs in the conformation ring are short of leg. But that's not what Jeff Pepper was talking about. That dog, imho, is out of standard concerning leg: "a symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, *not ... long in the leg*."

Have you seen what the GRCA thinks a Golden looks like?










That's the kind of leg most of the dogs in the ring had today.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> I feel as though if ALL conformation dogs earned a JH, it would still not be enough and the show Goldens will still get made fun of because they would never make field trial dogs.
> 
> I think you need to know the weaknesses in your dog, before you can try and improve them.


Kelli, not many goldens and not every lab makes it in field trials. I posted under the hunt section what a FT trainer told me. Paraphrasing. When you have thousands of labs bred for field work you get maybe 100 to make it in field trials, when you have hundreds of goldens bred for field you maybe get a handful to make it in field trials and of course the numbers go down with the rest of the retriever breeds. 

Yes, breeding more goldens towards field work will improve greatly their chances in field trials. But it does not mean that all of them will make it, not does it mean that the ones that do not make it are of lesser quality; simply the fact that they are in the field and doing what they were intended to do is quite enough. 

And I know it is not easy; I myself went thru the "your dog may make a good therapy dog, "she does it because she loves you not because she wants to"; "she may make it in a hunt as long as you hit the bird at 30 yards away". There were times I drove home in tears and ready to quit. I was fortunate to find good people to work with and I am sort of stubborn and not ready to quit that easily. So yes, I know what the conformation people fear in the field. And the people you train with may times can cause you to excel or can cause you to fail terribly because you are on pins and needles around them instead of concentrating on what you and your dog is doing. Then your dogs sense you nerves and it all falls apart right there I front of your eyes.

You are critical of your dogs when it comes to conformation; I am the same way in the field. Hope to complete the JH this year and keep on towards SH and MH. But at those levels I want better style. I will not be happy with a "pulled" title. I rather not do it than do it without the style I expect from dogs at this level. Does that mean am giving up on my girls? No, we will continue on and still hope to get there and meanwhile they will enjoy themselves being in the field that they love so much.


----------



## Alaska7133

gdgli,
I'd be happy to show Buffy! The gundog sweeps classes are JH, SH, MH, **, ***. So between now and then whatever classes our girls are in. I can't show two girls in the same class at the same time though. So we'll have to work that out. I do have a friend or two that can help out. I hope we can make it work!

Holly,
I do think your observations on your girl are similar to what I find in field dogs. Their heads tend to be a bit narrower and some have kind of high ears. Some have very light eyes. TNT's Stanley Steamer throws very light eyed, super curly coated dogs. The coats are definitely outside the standard. 

Dana,
There is one thing I've seen consistently that should be improved in field dogs, that is elbows. There are too many that don't pass.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Kelli, not many goldens and not every lab makes it in field trials. I posted under the hunt section what a FT trainer told me. Paraphrasing. When you have thousands of labs bred for field work you get maybe 100 to make it in field trials, when you have hundreds of goldens bred for field you maybe get a handful to make it in field trials and of course the numbers go down with the rest of the retriever breeds.
> 
> Yes, breeding more goldens towards field work will improve greatly their chances in field trials. But it does not mean that all of them will make it, not does it mean that the ones that do not make it are of lesser quality; simply the fact that they are in the field and doing what they were intended to do is quite enough.
> 
> And I know it is not easy; I myself went thru the "your dog may make a good therapy dog, "she does it because she loves you not because she wants to"; "she may make it in a hunt as long as you hit the bird at 30 yards away". There were times I drove home in tears and ready to quit. I was fortunate to find good people to work with and I am sort of stubborn and not ready to quit that easily. So yes, I know what the conformation people fear in the field. And the people you train with may times can cause you to excel or can cause you to fail terribly because you are on pins and needles around them instead of concentrating on what you and your dog is doing. Then your dogs sense you nerves and it all falls apart right there I front of your eyes.
> 
> You are critical of your dogs when it comes to conformation; I am the same way in the field. Hope to complete the JH this year and keep on towards SH and MH. But at those levels I want better style. I will not be happy with a "pulled" title. I rather not do it than do it without the style I expect from dogs at this level. Does that mean am giving up on my girls? No, we will continue on and still hope to get there and meanwhile they will enjoy themselves being in the field that they love so much.


But, you have to realize I am not just a show person/breeder. I truly love it all. I have trained and my boy was probably ready for his JH long before I ran him. But, I kept pushing and wanted to make sure we were ready. I am a perfectionist (at times!). So, yes I am critical of my dogs in the show ring, but I am also critical in other areas. There was a golden I saw with his owner run with my boy last year for his JH. This was a Beautiful boy and I love love his pedigree. But, after seeing him run, I would not use him on the bitch of mine I was thinking about. Did he pass Saturday, yes, but imo it was not the way I like to see dogs run. He failed Sunday. Was he having a bad day? Weekend? I don't know. I was told that a trainer was really hard on him and he broke down. Is that the case? Who knows. Will I use him, probably but with the right bitch. 

So, breeders (I know atleast I do) look at more than just structure. Some breedings work and others don't.


----------



## Claudia M

On a side note, we may not be solving the field vs show dilemma but one thing is for sure: we have made it to 75 pages without the thread getting closed down. This is a huge improvement in its own. And I think/hope that when the humans are getting at least somewhat closer to the other side there will also be more room to improve the breed we all love. 

Congratulations!


----------



## Ljilly28

That is truly a huge victory- 75 pages?!


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> Claudia, judges do say none are good enough to award championship points to, and will refuse to name a winner.
> 
> Plus, let me move that line where it belongs. You NEVER see 30 dogs, 28 short in leg with big head and small eyes and 2 dogs are correct in leg, correct in muzzle but has other more serious faults. Never.
> 
> Out of 88 Goldens in the ring today, I'd say maybe four or five were too short in leg (and none of them won anything). A few others were too long, with too much loin. None had both short legs and too much loin. The world you describe is not one I've ever seen, and I'm at dog shows almost every weekend.
> 
> Of course, if your idea of just enough leg is this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...then you will think all the dogs in the conformation ring are short of let. But that's not what Jeff Pepper was talking about. That dog, imho, is out of standard concerning leg: "a symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, *not ... long in the leg*."
> 
> Have you seen what the GRCA thinks a Golden looks like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the kind of leg most of the dogs in the ring had today.


Dana, I think it looks quite gorgeous with a pheasant in its mouth.  Curly front hair and not the Lassie look in the front. Due to the pheasant can't quite tell about head and muzzle. Legs are somewhat short but not much. If you look at elbow to ground and elbow to withers definitely somewhat short in leg. 

Couple examples that come to my tired mind and that I have seen god stacked photos: Kelli's Hush and KC, Chaos and of course Ch. Haulstone Dan.


----------



## Claudia M

Honestly, Lucy is much more symmetrical and proportional than that drawing. And Considering her FC AFC I would dare think she is quite active, powerful and sound! 
I hope you recognize that she is not really stacked but I dare say much better proportions as far as elbows to wither/ground relation there.


----------



## Alaska7133

Dana,
That girl on the table is actually a pretty small girl. I'd say at the low end of the standard for height. I'd guess her weight at 50 to 55 #. Temperment, she exactly meets the standard. Her angles aren't quite right and her legs are a little long. She is also FC-AFC. She is the first female FC-AFC female golden retriever in 23 years! So the hard part is, do you not breed her for lack of show conformation? Or do you breed her for her heart and smarts and biddability? That's the tough part when you move the focus from all looks and turn ability as a measure for determine breeding. I do think to improve the breed you have to weigh so many factors, not just physical. I want a smart pretty bird dog personally.

Dana, what did you think of the dogs in my photos? Did any stand out? Just curious. You see far more show dogs than I do, we have so few shows here. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


----------



## hollyk

Cllaudia, without being able to put your hands on this dog you maybe getting visually tricked as to where the elbow is. 
A friend had her boy in a CCA, an evaluator made a similar comment to her. She said shading in his coat it had tricked her eye but when she put her hands on him he was correct.


----------



## DanaRuns

Alaska7133 said:


> Dana,
> That girl on the table is actually a pretty small girl. I'd say at the low end of the standard for height. I'd guess her weight at 50 to 55 #. Temperment, she exactly meets the standard. Her angles aren't quite right and her legs are a little long. She is also FC-AFC. She is the first female FC-AFC female golden retriever in 23 years! So the hard part is, do you not breed her for lack of show conformation? Or do you breed her for her heart and smarts and biddability? That's the tough part when you move the focus from all looks and turn ability as a measure for determine breeding. I do think to improve the breed you have to weigh so many factors, not just physical. I want a smart pretty bird dog personally.
> 
> Dana, what did you think of the dogs in my photos? Did any stand out? Just curious. You see far more show dogs than I do, we have so few shows here. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


I'm not going to take the bait about critiquing people's dogs. Nice try. 

As for breeding, you breed to improve what's wrong with your bitch, which is the general understanding about what it means to breed to "improve the breed." You improve on what you have. Find a boy who gives your bitch what she's missing. If you have a great hunter, perhaps you improve conformation. You don't just breed to a boy who has the same strengths as your bitch, you breed to someone whose strengths will improve your bitch's weaknesses. It's hard to say about that girl based on the photo. If I were going to breed that girl, I'd breed her to a boy that would bring her puppies closer to standard. Keep all that great drive and stuff, and build a more conforming body to go with it. Conformation folks can't understand why field folks don't do that.

I think that drawing I posted that the GRCA puts on the breed standard page pretty much says it all. 










Claudia noted that the dog looked good with a pheasant in its mouth. That dog can hunt and has the correct conformation. Hunting AND conformation. Conformation AND hunting. Not one or the other. Perhaps you sacrifice the extremes at either end in order to get both in the majority of puppies, but by focusing solely on one, you actually lose the essence of what a Golden is, no matter how loudly you scream that your one-sided way is right.


----------



## Megora

gdgli said:


> And it's the same with conformation people when they see my dog. I am sure they would say "I wouldn't want to bring that dog into the show ring."


I think you and others are missing a very important point. You have conformation breeders who set up champion stocked litters.. and going by what they see in 8 week old puppies, may not keep any puppies or primarily sell to pet owners because the litter has no standouts. Same thing with breeding. A friend of mine - one who really got me even vaguely thinking positively about showing, did not use just any stud for the girls she was looking to breed. She knew exactly where her bitches lacked and was extremely selective in what she bred to because her goals were to have at least a puppy to keep from litters as opposed to placing all in pet homes because they were worse than the dogs she had. One dog especially - she wanted to fix coat (soft) and get better heads. 

And there are conformation bred dogs who get panned by conformation people because they are not likely to finish. Example: poor pigment, high tail set, straight rears, roached backs, square bodies, lack of bone, narrow fronts, high rears etc...

You don't have people saying they will breed anything and show anything as long as it has the right pedigree.

Even pedigrees get scrutinized for health and other historical/known issues. 

I'm not a breeder, but I'll say this... my rule of thumb as far as if I breed Bertie (IF).... it wouldn't be about money so much as being one of two things.

1. I would have to be motivated to keep a puppy, in theory. And that comes down to the puppies needing to be show quality because I want to show the next dog. Confidence and good temperment are also key.

2. I don't want me or my dog known for any bad stuff. Pedigrees are too public and stud dogs always seem to get blamed. Even when it is ridiculous...


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> Honestly, Lucy is much more symmetrical and proportional than that drawing. And Considering her FC AFC I would dare think she is quite active, powerful and sound!
> I hope you recognize that she is not really stacked but I dare say much better proportions as far as elbows to wither/ground relation there.


Who is Lucy??? The girl on the table? And I am sorry, but she is not more symmetrical/proportional than the drawing! She has outstanding abilities, and is close to unmatched in skill.


----------



## Claudia M

Eowyn said:


> Who is Lucy??? The girl on the table? And I am sorry, but she is not more symmetrical/proportional than the drawing! She has outstanding abilities, and is close to unmatched in skill.


Yes Lucy is the girl on the table. Firemarks Elusive One. Since the name is listed in the link Alaska posted you can search her and her siblings. Not a stacked photo of her. Reason why I acknowledged that and used the words "dare say". I have personally never met the girl even though I hope and wish to someday.


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> *I'm not going to take the bait about critiquing people's dogs. *Nice try.
> 
> As for breeding, you breed to improve what's wrong with your bitch, which is the general understanding about what it means to breed to "improve the breed." You improve on what you have. Find a boy who gives your bitch what she's missing. If you have a great hunter, perhaps you improve conformation. You don't just breed to a boy who has the same strengths as your bitch, you breed to someone whose strengths will improve your bitch's weaknesses. It's hard to say about that girl based on the photo. If I were going to breed that girl, I'd breed her to a boy that would bring her puppies closer to standard. Keep all that great drive and stuff, and build a more conforming body to go with it. Conformation folks can't understand why field folks don't do that.
> 
> I think that drawing I posted that the GRCA puts on the breed standard page pretty much says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudia noted that the dog looked good with a pheasant in its mouth. That dog can hunt and has the correct conformation. Hunting AND conformation. Conformation AND hunting. Not one or the other. Perhaps you sacrifice the extremes at either end in order to get both in the majority of puppies, but by focusing solely on one, you actually lose the essence of what a Golden is, no matter how loudly you scream that your one-sided way is right.


Dana, but you did on the last page when you posted Lucy. And I do not say that with a gripe, glad you did that.


----------



## DanaRuns

It seems to me that the essence of being a Golden Retriever is not field ability. That's no more what defines a Golden Retriever than a big fluffy dog with zero birdiness or retrieving instinct is. In just a few generations of breeding for the field, you can lose the essence of a Golden and have just a generic gun dog.

It's odd that field people look at the drawing of the ideal Golden (that drawing was commissioned by the GRCA specifically to represent a Golden that exemplifies the specifics of the breed standard) and think it looks off. Or "unbalanced" and not long enough in the leg, as Claudia commented. That's the GRCA official Golden Retriever image. That's a depiction of what we are all supposed to emulate. If you think that dog looks wrong, you don't know what a Golden is supposed to look like. And conformation people, it has a bird in its mouth for a reason. It didn't get there by accident or because it looked cute. It is saying that a Golden is primarily a hunting dog.


----------



## gdgli

DanaRuns

"...you breed to improve what's wrong with your bitch..."

Breeding and population genetics consists of much more than that. 
Your statement is really an oversimplification of what breeding is all about. There are other reasons to breed. You may not agree with them but others may very well agree with them once they understand.


----------



## Kmullen

I will take a stab out of it. I had a conversation last night with someone and one Field dog, I did really like. I would have liked to add a little more substance and maybe a better head (but this is just going from a picture) and the white marks. He dog looks to have a beautiful front even without being stacked correctly.


----------



## DanaRuns

gdgli said:


> DanaRuns
> 
> "...you breed to improve what's wrong with your bitch..."
> 
> Breeding and population genetics consists of much more than that.
> Your statement is really an oversimplification of what breeding is all about. There are other reasons to breed. You may not agree with them but others may very well agree with them once they understand.


Have you taken Carol Beuchat's online population genetics course? If not, you should. You'd like it, it's very interesting.  I'm going to take it again for a refresher, it's starting up soon. Hit me up for info if you're interested.

Just for fun and something to talk about, here's a link to one of Carol's posts about EBV (estimated breeding value) and its usefulness in guiding breeding decisions: http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/how-can-you-estimate-the-breeding-value-of-a-dog


...

Page 77, woohoo! Going for 100!


----------



## Alaska7133

Dana,
I'm sorry didn't mean to put you on the spot asking for your opinion. I honestly was just curious for your thoughts.

My girl Lucy will probably never finish in the show ring. Which makes me sad. I've been told it's because she's a moderate girl and moderate girls don't win unless it's a breeder judge. So what do we do with moderate dogs? Ones that don't show any extremes? Does she not improve he breed because she is right down the middle. She has a low tail set, shorter upper arm, not a very deep chest, and maybe one or two other characteristics that hold her back. But nothing that is too weird. She does add to the breed with her intense love of birds and her excellent retrieve skills. She takes away from the breed with her less biddability than she should have. But all in all, she's a nice looking dog with nice traits. What do we do with moderate dogs and why don't they win in the ring?


----------



## Alaska7133

Kfayard,
That's Jake! He's 13. He's also FC-AFC guy. Old and doesn't get around that great anymore. But he throws excellent chests in his dogs. What a great front eh? That front is what we need in the show ring. He has some excellent progeny! And his grand pups are great too. Oh and he throws wonderful expressive faces with nice eyes. He has one pup that is also FC-AFC and more soon on the way. The girl Lucy, the field dog in the previous photos, he was bred to. Breeding 2 FC-AFC dogs together is very rare and special. Those are the dogs to watch. And I did have a photo of 3 of those dogs from that litter in my photos if you go back through. Very nice looking dogs.


----------



## Ljilly28

Moderate is a very difficult word to use in conversation, bc it is self-referential. While there are obviously dogs with far too much or too little substance, debating what is exemplary moderate bone keeps these arguments alive. I have a field golden lacking in enough bone and a show golden with overdone bone and three in the middle with good, moderate bone- not too much or too little. 


> Temperament: Friendly, reliable, and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility towards other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character. Such actions should be penalized according to their significance.


This is a big one for a discussion on improving the breed bc there are some male goldens who really do bite and go after other males and some snarky bitches that people make unending excuses/belabored management for bc they are either great show or field dogs. To me, that is even more sad than any loss of working ability. People breed based on titles and photos sometimes, or meeting dogs under the piloting of super skilled dog people, and take for granted they have golden temperaments. I have lived with 14 stable, gentle , good natured goldens , and have one untrustworthy dog-aggressive golden ( who has been so trained no one would believe it). That is an eye opening experience as to why temperament is the ultimate hallmark of the breed.


----------



## Alaska7133

Jill,
Excellent point on temperament! And an excellent point on moderation.

Temperament is the cornerstone of the breed. You lose that, you've lost it all.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Ljilly28 said:


> This is a big one for a discussion on improving the breed bc there are some male goldens who really do bite and go after other males and some snarky bitches that people make unending excuses/belabored management for bc they are either great show or field dogs. To me, that is even more sad than any loss of working ability. People breed based on titles and photos sometimes, or meeting dogs under the piloting of super skilled dog people, and take for granted they have golden temperaments. I have lived with 14 stable, gentle , good natured goldens , and have one untrustworthy dog-aggressive golden ( who has been so trained no one would believe it). That is an eye opening experience as to why temperament is the ultimate hallmark of the breed.



Lets hear it for retaining temperament! I think this is a big reason why breeders need to be closely tied into the Golden world and "know" the dogs they are including in their breeding pool.


----------



## Kmullen

Alaska7133 said:


> Kfayard,
> That's Jake! He's 13. He's also FC-AFC guy. Old and doesn't get around that great anymore. But he throws excellent chests in his dogs. What a great front eh? That front is what we need in the show ring. He has some excellent progeny! And his grand pups are great too. Oh and he throws wonderful expressive faces with nice eyes. He has one pup that is also FC-AFC and more soon on the way. The girl Lucy, the field dog in the previous photos, he was bred to. Breeding 2 FC-AFC dogs together is very rare and special. Those are the dogs to watch. And I did have a photo of 3 of those dogs from that litter in my photos if you go back through. Very nice looking dogs.



I do agree with you.


----------



## DanaRuns

Ljilly28 said:


> This is a big one for a discussion on improving the breed bc there are some male goldens who really do bite and go after other males and some snarky bitches that people make unending excuses/belabored management for bc they are either great show or field dogs. To me, that is even more sad than any loss of working ability. People breed based on titles and photos sometimes, or meeting dogs under the piloting of super skilled dog people, and take for granted they have golden temperaments. I have lived with 14 stable, gentle , good natured goldens , and have one untrustworthy dog-aggressive golden ( who has been so trained no one would believe it). That is an eye opening experience as to why temperament is the ultimate hallmark of the breed.


I'm going to use this as an opportunity to brag about a friend of mine, Cathie Turner of Sunbeam Golden Retrievers. In June 2013 at the Western Regional Specialty, she brought a bitch into the ring who for some reason didn't like the dog behind her, and who went after that other bitch. To her credit, Cathie immediately excused herself from the ring, and I haven't seen that dog since. And I'm sure that bitch is not a part of her breeding program.

It's what responsible breeders do.


----------



## Conquerergold

Ljilly28 said:


> Moderate is a very difficult word to use in conversation, bc it is self-referential. While there are obviously dogs with far too much or too little substance, debating what is exemplary moderate bone keeps these arguments alive.


Agree!! The term moderate has taken on a life of it's own over the past several years. I have seen dogs that are near straight in front and rear described as 'moderate', when really they should be faulted on lack of angulation not praised for moderation (and then the argument of 'but they are balanced' enters the picture...but that's a whole different post  ).

In the Golden Retriever standard the word moderate only appears twice, found under the tail and coat sections:

Tail: well set on, thick and muscular at the base, following the natural line of the croup. Tail bones extend to, but not below, the point of hock. Carried with merry action, level or with some *moderate* upward curve; never curled over back nor between legs.​
Coat -- Dense and water repellent with good undercoat. Outer coat firm and resilient, neither coarse nor silky, lying close to body; may be straight or wavy. Untrimmed natural ruff; *moderate* feathering on back of forelegs and on under-body; heavier feathering on front of neck, back of thighs and underside of tail.​
However, the standard, when read as a fluid document and compared to many other breed standards, describes an average, or moderate, dog. And the cycle of personal interpretation once again begins and we are back at the start


----------



## DanaRuns

Moderate means all sorts of things, depending on who is speaking.

I've seen it mean moderate angulation in front and rear assemblies. I've seen it as a synonym for "balanced." I've seen it mean not too heavy of bone. I've seen it as an excuse for very light bone ("Oh, well, he's a moderate dog). I've seen it as a synonym for small or short (as in height or amount of leg). I've seen it mean unremarkable.

When I think of a moderate dog, I think of one that is short-coupled with proper angulation (not over-angled, not too straight), not slight, not too heavy of bone, not too blocky of head, squarely within the height standard (not within the inch leeway either way), and whose overall appearance is balanced and athletic. A dog that is neither willowy nor overdone, and who give the appearance of a strong, agile, athletic dog.


----------



## hollyk

gdgli said:


> DanaRuns
> 
> "...you breed to improve what's wrong with your bitch..."
> 
> Breeding and population genetics consists of much more than that.
> Your statement is really an oversimplification of what breeding is all about. There are other reasons to breed. You may not agree with them but others may very well agree with them once they understand.


Can you expand on this?


----------



## Conquerergold

DanaRuns said:


> When I think of a moderate dog, I think of one that is short-coupled with proper angulation (not over-angled, not too straight), not slight, not too heavy of bone, not too blocky of head, squarely within the height standard (not within the inch leeway either way), and whose overall appearance is balanced and athletic. A dog that is neither willowy nor overdone, and who give the appearance of a strong, agile, athletic dog.


I.E. the one in the GRCA logo you posted 

For anyone interested here is the GRCC Illustrated standard that has been used as an example in both the US and Canada http://www.grcc.net/files/club_documents/GRCCIllustratedBreedStandard.pdf


----------



## Alaska7133

Conquerergold,
I think your CKC breed standard illustrates why field and show people are confused about the standard. The photos of the dogs on pages 3 and 4 do not match the illustrated breed standard in the drawings. Those dogs illustrated are far heavier and thicker and furrier dogs than shown in the photos on pages 3 and 4. I think that's the biggest issue. That what we saw years ago in Speedwell Pluto's days are very different than the current standard shows. Now that is the problem. We use photos from the past as an example of what our breed should look like, yet our illustrated standard is far different. That's hard to address. Why did the CKC chose to use an illustrated standard? It sort of locks you into a "style" that didn't win dog shows 50 years ago, but does win dog shows today.


----------



## Eowyn

Alaska7133 said:


> My girl Lucy will probably never finish in the show ring. Which makes me sad. I've been told it's because she's a moderate girl and moderate girls don't win unless it's a breeder judge. So what do we do with moderate dogs? Ones that don't show any extremes? Does she not improve he breed because she is right down the middle. She has a low tail set, shorter upper arm, not a very deep chest, and maybe one or two other characteristics that hold her back. But nothing that is too weird. She does add to the breed with her intense love of birds and her excellent retrieve skills. She takes away from the breed with her less biddability than she should have. But all in all, she's a nice looking dog with nice traits. What do we do with moderate dogs and why don't they win in the ring?


I don't think moderation is an issue, the standard never calls for extremes. I have seen many, many nice moderate goldens finish. I have been told, and found this to be true, that a good rule of thumb is don't show a dog with more than 3 faults. A nice balanced, moderate dog with no serious faults should not have trouble finishing. But Alaska is probably a game of its own...


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> I will take a stab out of it. *I had a conversation last night with someone and one Field dog*, I did really like. I would have liked to add a little more substance and maybe a better head (but this is just going from a picture) and the white marks. He dog looks to have a beautiful front even without being stacked correctly.


hahaha - how did you do that? I may have to bring you over and have a conversation with Rose sometimes. I have been trying to do that for 2 and a half years!


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> hahaha - how did you do that? I may have to bring you over and have a conversation with Rose sometimes. I have been trying to do that for 2 and a half years!


You did not know I talk to dogs either?? Geez! : I was on my phone in a faculty meeting...shows how much I was paying attention to either!


----------



## Eowyn

Claudia M said:


> hahaha - how did you do that? I may have to bring you over and have a conversation with Rose sometimes. I have been trying to do that for 2 and a half years!


Ha Ha! The funny part of this is, I stared at the bolded part of your quote for a good minute before figuring out what was wrong, lol!


----------



## DanaRuns

Alaska7133 said:


> Conquerergold,
> I think your CKC breed standard illustrates why field and show people are confused about the standard. The photos of the dogs on pages 3 and 4 do not match the illustrated breed standard in the drawings. Those dogs illustrated are far heavier and thicker and furrier dogs than shown in the photos on pages 3 and 4. I think that's the biggest issue. That what we saw years ago in Speedwell Pluto's days are very different than the current standard shows. Now that is the problem. We use photos from the past as an example of what our breed should look like, yet our illustrated standard is far different. That's hard to address. Why did the CKC chose to use an illustrated standard? It sort of locks you into a "style" that didn't win dog shows 50 years ago, but does win dog shows today.


The Canadian standard is very similar to the U.S. standard, and it is NOT an illustrated standard. What you're reading is an illustrated commentary, intended to guide the judging of Golden Retrievers. The actual standard can be found here. 

First, I don't think show people are confused about the standard. We practically have it memorized, and we look to it constantly, the way a pastor might look to his Bible for daily guidance. And I don't see a problem with the standard compared to the photos of ancient dogs. It's not vague or ambiguous. Pluto was just a foundation dog, it doesn't mean he's an ideal example of the breed. It's not as if Pluto was declared the perfect Golden Retriever, and everything else afterward is good only to the extent that it compares to him. He was just an early dog, who happened to be one of the first in North America.

The standard controls, not photos of ancient dogs. To the extent photos of Pluto and his contemporaries differ from the breed standard, the dog in the photo is faulty. The illustrations are correct -- they were made specifically to demonstrate correctness to the breed standard, and were reviewed by many people and went through many revisions before they were adopted. And the standard has gone through revisions over time, as the GRCA seeks to tweak and perfect it. So it's a mistake to look at those ancient dogs and think that they exemplify the breed standard. As for the illustrated dogs being heavier and furrier, remember that these dogs were bred for the cold and wet Scottish climate, and the substantial coat is a hallmark of the breed.


----------



## Conquerergold

Alaska7133 said:


> Conquerergold,
> I think your CKC breed standard illustrates why field and show people are confused about the standard. The photos of the dogs on pages 3 and 4 do not match the illustrated breed standard in the drawings. Those dogs illustrated are far heavier and thicker and furrier dogs than shown in the photos on pages 3 and 4. I think that's the biggest issue. That what we saw years ago in Speedwell Pluto's days are very different than the current standard shows. Now that is the problem. We use photos from the past as an example of what our breed should look like, yet our illustrated standard is far different. That's hard to address.


I think we will have to agree to disagree that the illustrations (which are depicted to be as close to ideal as possible, but since we know there hasn't and never will be a perfect Golden Retriever) do not resemble Speedwell Pluto's stacked photo on page 3. The bitch on page 4 was a modern 'show dog'. Get past the coat, and things don't appear drastically different to me.

Also, I don't think anyone is using photos from the past as an example of what our breed must look like. Rather, they are historical views at the evolution of our breed. The dogs from decades ago were not perfect.

Take Culham Brass. He has substance, ample bone, and coat. He was born in 1904. 









Then his son, Culham Copper (1908), the same can be said. 









Then his grandson Noranby Campfire (1912), good bone but in the photos appears to lack coat.









Skip forward just two generations and we come across Lyss Ruby (1921, great grand daugher of Noranby Campfire). Good bone, and a very substantial looking bitch.









Then we have the war. During that time near all breeding stopped. We start back with the early post war influence dogs.

UK CH. Dorcas Glorious of Slat (1943). We have coat, bone and substance. This boy also sired two FTCH









The below bitch is a descendant of those dogs above. Does she lack breed type any more or less than the dogs above? Would she look out of place in the show ring of today? Does she look like she could do the job of a Golden Retriever any more or less than the much earlier foundation dogs above?









All of the above dogs are related, showing the evolution of a breed. They are all different styles, yet I am sure we can all agree there is no question what breed they are. They all very much have breed type. If we are to look at past as to what the breed is supposed to look like...which part of the past do we choose?

There are many styles of coat, proved by the examples above. Are any any less of a Golden because of their coat (again, or lack there of)? 




Alaska7133 said:


> Why did the CKC chose to use an illustrated standard? It sort of locks you into a "style" that didn't win dog shows 50 years ago, but does win dog shows today.


The link posted is the GRCC Illustrated Standard, just as the GRCA has their own version of the Illustrated Standard. It doesn't lock any one style in. It gives visual cues and is meant as a learning tool towards understanding breed type.


----------



## DanaRuns

Look at the rear leg in the photos posted by conquerergold (I think the last photo is his bitch?). They demonstrate the improvement in the breed that breeders have accomplished over the years. Compare the angles, stifle and hocks of the dogs in the first several photos to the bitch in the last photo. What a dramatic improvement in functionality!

Culham Copper (1908). 









Noranby Campfire (1912).









Lyss Ruby (1921).









Conquerergold's bitch.









The rear leg should have an "S" shape to it, with proper bone angles, bend of stifle, short hocks, well let down rear pasterns, and tight "cat" feet. This entire assembly acts as a spring, absorbing the weight of impact and propelling the dog forward. It is the primary lever in the dog's mobility, speed and working ability. When it has a nice curve and correct proportions as the last bitch does, the dog can work longer and harder with more efficiency and a lower risk of injury. The bitch in the last photo as a physical specimen is far superior to Cullham Brass, Cullham Copper, Noranby Campfile and Lyss Ruby.

This is one easily visible example of how the modern dog is a superior animal compared to the vaunted Goldens of yore. It is visible evidence of breeding to improve the breed.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> I think we will have to agree to disagree that the illustrations (which are depicted to be as close to ideal as possible, but since we know there hasn't and never will be a perfect Golden Retriever) do not resemble Speedwell Pluto's stacked photo on page 3. The bitch on page 4 was a modern 'show dog'. Get past the coat, and things don't appear drastically different to me.
> 
> Also, I don't think anyone is using photos from the past as an example of what our breed must look like. Rather, they are historical views at the evolution of our breed. The dogs from decades ago were not perfect.
> 
> Take Culham Brass. He has substance, ample bone, and coat. He was born in 1904.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then his son, Culham Copper (1908), the same can be said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then his grandson Noranby Campfire (1912), good bone but in the photos appears to lack coat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skip forward just two generations and we come across Lyss Ruby (1921, great grand daugher of Noranby Campfire). Good bone, and a very substantial looking bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have the war. During that time near all breeding stopped. We start back with the early post war influence dogs.
> 
> UK CH. Dorcas Glorious of Slat (1943). We have coat, bone and substance. This boy also sired two FTCH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The below bitch is a descendant of those dogs above. Does she lack breed type any more or less than the dogs above? Would she look out of place in the show ring of today? Does she look like she could do the job of a Golden Retriever any more or less than the much earlier foundation dogs above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the above dogs are related, showing the evolution of a breed. They are all different styles, yet I am sure we can all agree there is no question what breed they are. They all very much have breed type. If we are to look at past as to what the breed is supposed to look like...which part of the past do we choose?
> 
> There are many styles of coat, proved by the examples above. Are any any less of a Golden because of their coat (again, or lack there of)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link posted is the GRCC Illustrated Standard, just as the GRCA has their own version of the Illustrated Standard. It doesn't lock any one style in. It gives visual cues and is meant as a learning tool towards understanding breed type.


Thank you for the photos - All the dogs pictured in your post would be considered too long in leg today. I do not see that much difference between those dogs and the ones Alaska took at the field trials and posted a couple pages back.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia M said:


> Thank you for the photos - All the dogs pictured in your post would be considered too long in leg today. I do not see that much difference between those dogs and the ones Alaska took at the field trials and posted a couple pages back.


Who would consider them too long in leg today? Lack of coat (as in one of the photos) does not make a dog long in leg. That dog, as well as the rest of them, look to be nicely proportioned.


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> Thank you for the photos - All the dogs pictured in your post would be considered too long in leg today. I do not see that much difference between those dogs and the ones Alaska took at the field trials and posted a couple pages back.


I agree with Michelle -- *who* would consider them long in leg? I don't think any of them are.


----------



## Claudia M

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Who would consider them too long in leg today? Lack of coat (as in one of the photos) does not make a dog long in leg. That dog, as well as the rest of them, look to be nicely proportioned.


So I am confused now. Lucy (Firemarks Elusive one) was considered long in leg couple pages back; and since she looks very similar like all those dogs posted by Conqueror does it mean she is just lacking coat? Which in my opinion she is not. She has the perfect golden head, she has the golden stature, ability and smarts. I cannot speak to temperament but Alaska can.


----------



## DanaRuns

That was my opinion about Lucy's rear legs from the single photo. The only one that looks long in the leg to me, from those photos, is Noranby's Campfire, but I don't know how tall the dog is. It could just be a lack of substance and coat.


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> That was my opinion about Lucy's rear legs from the single photo. The only one that looks long in the leg to me, from those photos, is Noranby's Campfire, but I don't know how tall the dog is. It could just be a lack of substance and coat.


That is where you and I completely disagree. None of them lack coat. The goldens today are way overdone in coat. Either that is shampoo (which doubt) or intentional breeding for it.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> That is where you and I completely disagree. None of them lack coat. The goldens today are way overdone in coat. Either that is shampoo (which doubt) or intentional breeding for it.


Claudia, the miracle is when you and I actually agree on something.


----------



## Kmullen

Just saying, I don't know any breeder that would breed for strictly coat, but I do agree we have a lot of coat today. Are they short on leg? I certainly do not think so.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Thank you for the photos - All the dogs pictured in your post would be considered too long in leg today.





Claudia M said:


> That is where you and I completely disagree. None of them lack coat. The goldens today are way overdone in coat. Either that is shampoo (which doubt) or intentional breeding for it.












The above photo was taken 5 weeks ago, she is one of the top Golden Retrievers in the country for 2014 in extremely limited showing (i.e. less than a dozen weekends). She is 2 years old. She has been awarded under Breeder Judges, all rounders, overseas Judges, Judges that compete in field, and the list goes on. She was RWB at the 2013 National, at only 13 months, co-owner/co-breeder handled. 

She is a 'Golden of today'.

She was bred, and is owned, by me.

Cheers
Rob


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> The above photo was taken 5 weeks ago, she is one of the top Golden Retrievers in the country for 2014 in extremely limited showing (i.e. less than a dozen weekends). She is 2 years old. She has been awarded under Breeder Judges, all rounders, overseas Judges, Judges that compete in field, and the list goes on. She was RWB at the 2013 National, at only 13 months, co-owner/co-breeder handled.
> 
> She is a 'Golden of today'.
> 
> She was bred, and is owned, by me.
> 
> Cheers
> Rob


Yup and she is the only one that does not look like the rest of the goldens you posted. I hesitated to say anything because it looked like one of your goldens and thought you may have just done it in black and white for the heck of it. 

Mainly the head and frowning expression that you see today. Nice body though.

ETA - can you please tell me what differences do you see between the dogs you posted and the ones Alaska took?


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Yup and she is the only one that does not look like the rest of the goldens you posted. I hesitated to say anything because it looked like one of your goldens and thought you may have just done it in black and white for the heck of it.
> 
> Mainly the head and frowning expression that you see today. Nice body though.
> 
> ETA - can you please tell me what differences do you see between the dogs you posted and the ones Alaska took?



Frowning head? What do you mean? This picture is not even a good view of her head.


----------



## cubbysan

I just thought everybody might be interested, since this topic was earlier in this thread.

I just got back from a board meeting where we were planning our specialty. I brought up the idea of having CCA tests. A senior member told me a club loses money when they have them. The club needs to hire, fly, hotel rooms, meals and transportation for three judges, and there is only approximately 18 dogs that can entered. That is in addition to the four conformation judges we already hire and fly in for Sat And Sunday.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia M said:


> Yup and she is the only one that does not look like the rest of the goldens you posted. I hesitated to say anything because it looked like one of your goldens and thought you may have just done it in black and white for the heck of it.
> 
> Mainly the head and frowning expression that you see today. Nice body though.
> 
> ETA - can you please tell me what differences do you see between the dogs you posted and the ones Alaska took?



Claudia, can you tell us how many shows you have been to where you have watched Goldens in the ring? Where were they? When were they? Approximately how many dogs were entered each time? Have you had your hands on many Goldens? Have you ever been to a golden specialty? 

I have been to hundreds of dogs shows and been showing for about 5 years. I make it a practice to attend as many litter evaluations as I can and get my hands on as many dogs as possible. Nonetheless, I consider myself a relative novice in the breed. And I just cannot imagine telling someone, let alone someone well respected in the breed, that their dog has the "head and frowning expression that you see today." Particularly when you can't even see the bitch's expression in the photo. I get the sense that it's to prove some point but I can't tell what that point is. 

This is the reason these threads don't go anywhere good, even if they do stay open.


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Yup and she is the only one that does not look like the rest of the goldens you posted.


One would think 100+ years between her and most of them would be one reason why they aren't carbon copies. Heck, even the ones 4 years apart look different.

I'm not surprised that now you know who she is, you see her as a vastly different specimen. 



Claudia M said:


> I hesitated to say anything because it looked like one of your goldens


I didn't know that you paid such close attention to my breeding program.



Claudia M said:


> Mainly the head and frowning expression that you see today.


I'm not sure how you can tell her expression on a profile photo with her head turned away from the camera. But, I guess since she proves your theory of 'today's Goldens having short legs and overdone in coat' completely wrong, there has to be something that you feel is incorrect and worthy of mention.

The critiques from long time breeder judges include:

Beautiful head and expression. 
Alert and eager to please, absent of coarseness.
Very pleasing expression.
Lovely Head.
Looks the part standing and on the move.
The best of toplines and tailsets.
Lovely neck.

But everyone is allowed their preference, and I know she isn't everyone's cup of tea. Which is a-ok. You interpret the standard differently than I, and it appears, when it comes to heads and expression, differently than many of the breeder judges I have shown her to (including the author you quoted several pages back). Which is what many have been saying, the standard, while a written document, is open to personal interpretation. Thus, you will not get cookie cutter dogs generation after generation, breeding program to breeding program.



Claudia M said:


> Nice body though.


Agree! It is one of her better features, among having legs and proper coat. 



Claudia M said:


> can you please tell me what differences do you see between the dogs you posted and the ones Alaska took?


I could, but I won't. I already know how it will play out and at this point it's not necessary. Nothing I say will open your mind, and nothing you say will narrow mine.

Cheers
Rob


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> I could, but I won't. I already know how it will play out and at this point it's not necessary. *Nothing I say will open your mind, and nothing you say will narrow mine.
> *
> Cheers
> Rob


That was absolutely uncalled for and it just pretty much shows the person behind the name. 

The fact that you will not is simple - you cannot. Because not much has changed in the dogs that still do the sport they were intended to do and therefore they still need the very same body and proportions to do it.

But you would not know that.....


----------



## Claudia M

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Claudia, can you tell us how many shows you have been to where you have watched Goldens in the ring? Where were they? When were they? Approximately how many dogs were entered each time? Have you had your hands on many Goldens? Have you ever been to a golden specialty?
> 
> I have been to hundreds of dogs shows and been showing for about 5 years. I make it a practice to attend as many litter evaluations as I can and get my hands on as many dogs as possible. Nonetheless, I consider myself a relative novice in the breed. And I just cannot imagine telling someone, let alone someone well respected in the breed, that their dog has the "head and frowning expression that you see today." Particularly when you can't even see the bitch's expression in the photo. I get the sense that it's to prove some point but I can't tell what that point is.
> 
> This is the reason these threads don't go anywhere good, even if they do stay open.


Michelle, every single time I have shown Darcy and also have gone to shows I have taken the time look at the goldens. And I shook my head in disapproval at quite a lot of them. You will not see me spend the time I spend with my dogs in the field in the show ring. While I believe it is a good venue to compete in I simply think the first venue is to prove the purpose and then prove the looks!


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia M said:


> Michelle, every single time I have shown Darcy and also have gone to shows I have taken the time look at the goldens. And I shook my head in disapproval at quite a lot of them. You will not see me spend the time I spend with my dogs in the field in the show ring. While I believe it is a good venue to compete in I simply think the first venue is to prove the purpose and then prove the looks!



That didn't answer any of my questions. All it says is that you stood in judgment of those dogs without ever putting your hands on them.


----------



## Claudia M

goldenjackpuppy said:


> That didn't answer any of my questions. All it says is that you stood in judgment of those dogs without ever putting your hands on them.


The very few I liked I did. I think it amounts to ONE!


----------



## DanaRuns

I'm certainly not afraid to admit that actual (i.e., well-bred) Golden Retrievers _are_ different than those primitive dogs, but not in the way you think. They are _better built_, they are _more consistent_ across the board, and they are a _more versatile_ dog. 

They follow the rule of all living things: Adapt or die.

At the same time they have gained, though, they have lost. They have more HD and other genetic disease.


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> I'm certainly not afraid to admit that actual (i.e., well-bred) Golden Retrievers _are_ different than those primitive dogs, but not in the way you think. They are _better built_, they are _more consistent_ across the board, and they *are a more versatile dog*.
> 
> They follow the rule of all living things: Adapt or die.


A more versatile dog? Actually a totally different dog, a dog that cannot do what it was bred to do. 

Like I said before many do not have a minimal/pitiful JH on them or in the pedigree, Some in the 5 year pedigree and most in the three year pedigree, not will they have it any time soon.
That is not adapt or die, that is die and create something while we are still swooning over the fact that we call them golden retrievers because we post a picture with a pheasant in its mouth. 

Primitive dogs - that is an shameful insult!


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> A more versatile dog? Actually a totally different dog, a dog that cannot do what it was bred to do.
> 
> Like I said before many do not have a minimal/pitiful JH on them or in the pedigree, Some in the 5 year pedigree and most in the three year pedigree, not will they have it any time soon.
> That is not adapt or die, that is die and create something while we are still swooning over the fact that we call them golden retrievers because we post a picture with a pheasant in its mouth.
> 
> Primitive dogs - that is an shameful insult!


Well, if I ever get a JH I would be awfully proud. Not sure I would ever refer to it as pitiful.


----------



## Claudia M

Conquerergold said:


> The above photo was taken 5 weeks ago, she is one of the top Golden Retrievers in the country for 2014 in extremely limited showing (i.e. less than a dozen weekends). She is 2 years old. She has been awarded under Breeder Judges, all rounders, overseas Judges, Judges that compete in field, and the list goes on. She was RWB at the 2013 National, at only 13 months, co-owner/co-breeder handled.
> 
> She is a 'Golden of today'.
> 
> *She was bred, and is owned, by me.*
> 
> Cheers
> Rob


BTW - I just realized that this is indeed your dog as I originally thought. I stopped reading at She is 2 years old. What are your future plans for her?


----------



## Claudia M

LJack said:


> Well, if I ever get a JH I would be awfully proud. Not sure I would ever refer to it as pitiful.


It is an accomplishment and you should be proud but it is still quite minimal and pitiful as far as the rest of what it takes for a dog and owner to go further. 
Try it, you may get hooked ....


----------



## LJack

Claudia M said:


> It is an accomplishment and you should be proud but it is still quite minimal and pitiful as far as the rest of what it takes for a dog and owner to go further.
> Try it, you may get hooked ....


Um..no.:no:

And to borrow your quote from earlier, that is a shameful insult. I don't even have this title and I am appalled by your comment for anyone who has this title. :doh:

pitiful: Arousing contemptuous pity, as through ineptitude or inadequacy.

Your contempt for conformation and apparently junior hunt tested dogs is noted.


----------



## Claudia M

LJack said:


> Um..no.:no:
> 
> And to borrow your quote from earlier, that is a shameful insult. I don't even have this title and I am appalled by your comment for anyone who has this title. :doh:
> 
> pitiful: Arousing contemptuous pity, as through ineptitude or inadequacy.
> 
> Your contempt for conformation and apparently junior hunt tested dogs is noted.


Actually it is not an insult. I speak from experience. I know the hard work to get there and yes in the realm on aptitude it is pitiful. Mind you, while close I have yet to complete that with my two girls. 

I think many of you have just brushed off what it takes to be a hunting dog. A dog that can hunt. It takes much much more than a JH title for that. 

And it is not about the titles. Once again titles are for the humans to showcase. It is about the dog!

You know, some of you have made comments like why not get another breed....etc

I have a question for the conformation people that have asked that: Why would you even bother with a hunting dog if you are so unwilling to use that dog for the purpose it was supposed to be bred? 

And with that, I am glad we made it to the 80 pages but I am out. It actually looks like soon there will be two different breeds: The Primitive Golden Retriever that can hunt and The Changed Golden Retriever that can ... (I will not even says it)


----------



## Vhuynh2

Wow. There have been so many things said about show goldens in this thread but none of it bothered me, but to say a JH is pitiful -- I find that highly offensive, but I know you don't care.

I am not sure how that statement is supposed to encourage anybody to get into the sport. Every dog and handler has to start somewhere. 

I guess we may as well just throw our junior ribbons in the trash. It must be pitiful to even save them.


----------



## Megora

" I have a question for the conformation people that have asked that: Why would you even bother with a hunting dog if you are so unwilling to use that dog for the purpose it was supposed to be bred?"

I have an answer for you. 

Lot of people got into this breed for the love if the breed. That grew into more as we saw what this breed can do. I was "imprinted" by seeing these dogs at local big shows every year and then getting into training seeing what a well bred and well trained dog can do in obedience. I now own the kinds of dogs I dreamed owning when I was little.

There is a perception being floated here that other people are just being shallow and its aĺl about coat and frowny dogs (lol - can you just see that scowl on Bert's face!). But many of the people have a more long term and personal involvement history with the breed. More than one facet of the breed. And that is why you don't see them openly attacking other goldens and ripping into the breed and everything it is.


----------



## hollyk

Hmmm, I remember being pretty proud of my Junior Hunter.


----------



## AmberSunrise

I am darned proud of my dog's JH  I certainly would not refer to the JH as pitiful. 

No, I won't go further in field training but my dog loved it and I helped the economy out a bit but we all should get to decide what (if any) dog sports we participate in and where our time, money and focus are allocated. My personal preferred sports are obedience and agility where I certainly would not refer to the CD, NA or NAJ as pitiful; the owners and dogs who train and earn titles (or even just get out there in the rings/fields/convalescent homes etc) with their dogs deserve better than to be referred to as 'pitiful'


----------



## Ljilly28

Claudia M said:


> It is an accomplishment and you should be proud but it is still quite minimal and pitiful as far as the rest of what it takes for a dog and owner to go further.
> Try it, you may get hooked ....


When the conversation goes in that judgy a direction on either side as to call a JH "pitiful", then it is divisive and counterproductive for the humans involved. (The dogs are still almost all fine. ). That put-down shows a lack of respect for where people are on their journey, a lack of respect easier to understand from a high level performer who has done 50 JH titles or MH regularly than from someone with no titles of any kind in any venue or who has never bred a litter- arm chair quarterbacking . . . 

I might think a dog should earn a CH in order to be bred, and might use that as a minimum standard in my breeding program. Others may think a dog should attain a MH in order to be bred, or be dually titled as a minimum standard for "improving the breed". The problem is that one can only control one's own breeding program. When attempts are made to impose one's goals on others who start from an adamantly different perspective, then the chasm widens and communication worsens.


----------



## Brave

Claudia M said:


> I have a question for the conformation people that have asked that: Why would you even bother with a hunting dog if you are so unwilling to use that dog for the purpose it was supposed to be bred?



I'm not a conformation person. I don't compete with my dog in any venue. Whatever we do, it's for fun.. But there seems to be this underlying thought that if I don't hunt, I someone don't deserve to own the breed. It was rehashed a few pages back. I asked someone if they don't want goldens going to pet homes. Homes that don't hunt. The person responded that pet homes are fine but just a few responses later said if the owner had no intention of hunting with the dog, then they shouldn't own a golden, because it's obviously not the breed for them. 

To which someone replied, that the golden was about so much more than just hunting. It is versatile in its achievements and areas of excellence. To which I agree. 

I fell in love with the breed for its temperament, for its physical features, and for how they so easily (more easily than other breeds) light me up with joy. I prefer larger dogs; I wanted a dog that was large enough to hold but small enough to carry with ease. A dog whose head came up to my hand when we're both standing. A dog that would understand and accept that physical contact is often a much needed therapy (I.e. Cuddles). A dog whose coat wouldn't prickly my skin (as short haired coats tend to do) nor become a nightmare to clean from furniture and clothes (as lab hair is want to be). A dog that could go hours playing fetch and would love the water as much as me. And lastly I wanted a dog that looked like the golden because it appeals to me aesthetically. The shape of the head, the line of its back. The soulful compassion of its eyes. 

Bottom line, regardless of WHY I fell in love with Goldens, it isn't up to anyone else to decide if I should own a specific breed or not. It's a personal preference and a personal choice. We're no less deserving of their companionship than someone who is raising a gun dog.


----------



## TrailDogs

This discussion is getting more interesting. First the old style goldens look like everyones' dog today and could compete in the ring and now they are 'primitive'.


----------



## tippykayak

DanaRuns said:


> At the same time they have gained, though, they have lost. They have more HD and other genetic disease.


I always wonder how much of an increase we've really had in heritable diseases in dogs vs. an increase in diagnosis and data collection. 

Attitudes towards dogs are so different now than they appear to have been 100 years ago. My understanding is that it was a lot more common for people to simply cull dogs with problems, rather than removing them from a program by desexing them and trying to give them the best possible life.

And when dogs went blind or took sick, they were more commonly put down or allowed to die without medical intervention, rather than being diagnosed and treated.

I love that dogs with problems commonly get medical intervention now and often get cures or palliative treatment that allow them to live wonderful lives. But I think that hugely shapes our sense of how many genetic problems a breed carries. I truly wonder if dogs—especially Goldens—are _actually_ more sick today than they were 20 or 50 or 100 years ago or if we simply are _seeing_ more.


----------



## tippykayak

Did you ever hear the joke about playing chess with a pigeon?


----------



## Claudia M

tippykayak said:


> I always wonder how much of an increase we've really had in heritable diseases in dogs vs. an increase in diagnosis and data collection.
> 
> Attitudes towards dogs are so different now than they appear to have been 100 years ago. My understanding is that it was a lot more common for people to simply cull dogs with problems, rather than removing them from a program by desexing them and trying to give them the best possible life.
> 
> And when dogs went blind or took sick, they were more commonly put down or allowed to die without medical intervention, rather than being diagnosed and treated.
> 
> I love that dogs with problems commonly get medical intervention now and often get cures or palliative treatment that allow them to live wonderful lives. But I think that hugely shapes our sense of how many genetic problems a breed carries. I truly wonder if dogs—especially Goldens—are _actually_ more sick today than they were 20 or 50 or 100 years ago or if we simply are _seeing_ more.


I actually stated that earlier in the thread, which actually shows once again that the golden has NOT been improved as many here seem to think. The life span of a golden stayed the same despite the fact that now they have higher medical interventions and medicine while 50 years ago they used to be put down. 100 years ago the dogs that did not make it in the hunt were put down for the simple fact they did not have the aptitude in the field. 

So we can keep on joking ourselves about the versatile dog and about how we assume they still have the aptitudes and how the health is just so much better. Bottom line - it used to be when the goldens were actually the so called primitive goldens.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM

This has been a very interesting and informative thread to read and follow.

I'd like to remind everyone, to please be respectful of each other and one another's viewpoints and opinions when posting.

Thanks!


----------



## Claudia M

Brave - while you admit you are not a conformation person I was talking to the conformation people. 


In every litter you are going to have dogs with the field aptitude and you are going to have few dogs that will not make it in the field. Just like not every dog in a litter will make it in the show ring. These dogs are for pet homes unless you go back 100 years and those dogs would be shot for not making the cut.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> A more versatile dog? Actually a totally different dog, a dog that cannot do what it was bred to do.
> 
> Like I said before many do not have a minimal/pitiful JH on them or in the pedigree, Some in the 5 year pedigree and most in the three year pedigree, not will they have it any time soon.
> That is not adapt or die, that is die and create something while we are still swooning over the fact that we call them golden retrievers because we post a picture with a pheasant in its mouth.
> 
> Primitive dogs - that is an shameful insult!


I haven't finished reading the thread that I woke up to, but Claudia this is what they mean by closed minded. Yep, this here is not trashing show goldens... "A Pitiful JH" I think this goes back to the statement I made pages back that show dogs will still get made fun of even if they earn that "pitiful" JH. You just proved my point.

Again, We know how you feel about Show goldens, you can not stand them. So, why do we keep trying to convince you otherwise...because we are becoming defensive.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Brave said:


> I'm not a conformation person. I don't compete with my dog in any venue. Whatever we do, it's for fun.. But there seems to be this underlying thought that if I don't hunt, I someone don't deserve to own the breed. It was rehashed a few pages back. I asked someone if they don't want goldens going to pet homes. Homes that don't hunt. The person responded that pet homes are fine but just a few responses later said if the owner had no intention of hunting with the dog, then they shouldn't own a golden, because it's obviously not the breed for them.
> 
> To which someone replied, that the golden was about so much more than just hunting. It is versatile in its achievements and areas of excellence. To which I agree.
> 
> I fell in love with the breed for its temperament, for its physical features, and for how they so easily (more easily than other breeds) light me up with joy. I prefer larger dogs; I wanted a dog that was large enough to hold but small enough to carry with ease. A dog whose head came up to my hand when we're both standing. A dog that would understand and accept that physical contact is often a much needed therapy (I.e. Cuddles). A dog whose coat wouldn't prickly my skin (as short haired coats tend to do) nor become a nightmare to clean from furniture and clothes (as lab hair is want to be). A dog that could go hours playing fetch and would love the water as much as me. And lastly I wanted a dog that looked like the golden because it appeals to me aesthetically. The shape of the head, the line of its back. The soulful compassion of its eyes.
> 
> Bottom line, regardless of WHY I fell in love with Goldens, it isn't up to anyone else to decide if I should own a specific breed or not. It's a personal preference and a personal choice. We're no less deserving of their companionship than someone who is raising a gun dog.



Claudia's thoughts and opinions are her own, no one else's. It is certainly not true that people who don't hunt are not deserving of Goldens.


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Actually it is not an insult. I speak from experience. I know the hard work to get there and yes in the realm on aptitude it is pitiful. Mind you, while close I have yet to complete that with my two girls.QUOTE]
> 
> Claudia, how was it not an insult? Calling a JH pitiful?! Wow! I am just in awe. So, what makes a golden retriever? So, the only thing a golden is good for is hunting? And if it doesn't do hunt test past a JH or a field trial dog, it should not be bred and you wouldn't consider it a Golden Retriever? What will make a golden retriever worthy of breeding? It has to be a field trail champion in order to be considered "primary a hunting dog"?
> 
> I will be honest and say I would love to train my dogs to atleast an SH. I am young and I have a full time job plus I coach cheerleading. It is really hard to spend every day training. Do I want to? Heck yes. Will I one day be able to? Yes, I hope so.
> 
> Could I send the dog out with a Pro? Maybe. But, that is $600 a month and I don't have that kind of money right now.
> 
> People's lifestyles are different.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Claudia M said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is not an insult. I speak from experience. I know the hard work to get there and yes in the realm on aptitude it is pitiful. Mind you, while close I have yet to complete that with my two girls.QUOTE]
> 
> Claudia, how was it not an insult? Calling a JH pitiful?! Wow! I am just in awe. So, what makes a golden retriever? So, the only thing a golden is good for is hunting? And if it doesn't do hunt test past a JH or a field trial dog, it should not be bred and you wouldn't consider it a Golden Retriever? What will make a golden retriever worthy of breeding? It has to be a field trail champion in order to be considered "primary a hunting dog"?
> 
> I will be honest and say I would love to train my dogs to atleast an SH. I am young and I have a full time job plus I coach cheerleading. It is really hard to spend every day training. Do I want to? Heck yes. Will I one day be able to? Yes, I hope so.
> 
> Could I send the dog out with a Pro? Maybe. But, that is $600 a month and I don't have that kind of money right now.
> 
> People's lifestyles are different.
> 
> 
> 
> Kelli - people get defense because they take things out of context and because they want to get defensive.
> 
> "Like I said before many do not have a minimal/pitiful JH on them or in the pedigree, Some in the 5 year pedigree and most in the three year pedigree, not will they have it any time soon."
> 
> A dog that has not even a JH in the 3 or 5 year pedigree should not be bred. If you are a breeder and trying to preserve or improve the breed then you should make the time to at least get that on your dog. If your dog has it you do not need to go every day and train or even every week.
> 
> And yup, this brings me back to: in order to have a CH awarded you should have at least a JH or WC. Maybe and only maybe then the show fancies will realize the full aspect of the golden retriever.
> 
> But as stated above - those are just some primitive dogs?
Click to expand...


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> kfayard said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dog that has not even a JH in the 3 or 5 year pedigree should not be bred. quote]
> 
> How do you know they should not be bred and what their natural instincts are? JH (like you said is pitiful) and just a title.
> 
> I know of a line and partly related to Anney's post of a 5 generation bitch that has NO field stuff for way more than 5 generations!!
> 
> Does that mean they shouldn't be bred because they do not possess that title? Heck NO! You do not know what that dog's abilities are.
> 
> This bitch that I am thinking of ( I checked has not had a JH/WC in way more than 5 generations) she has produced littermates that have a SH at 1 1/2 years! They are currently working on their MH title. But, I guess that means nothing because it was a fluke or it is not a field trial champion.
Click to expand...


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> I think many of you have just brushed off what it takes to be a hunting dog. A dog that can hunt. It takes much much more than a JH title for that.


This is a joke? We hunted with our dogs. Not one ever had a JH. Titles were for people who cared about showing off. We cared about hunting.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia what experience do you have that qualifies you to decide rules about whether a dog or bitch should be bred? 

What if that dog with a JH failed several times, let's say 3 times, before passing. Should that dog be bred ?


----------



## TrailDogs

Brave said:


> . The person responded that pet homes are fine but just a few responses later said if the owner had no intention of hunting with the dog, then they shouldn't own a golden, because it's obviously not the breed for them.
> 
> To which someone replied, that the golden was about so much more than just hunting. It is versatile in its achievements and areas of excellence. To which I agree.
> .


Brave, I think you are misunderstanding this, you may be referring to the discussion that if someone does not like the energy of a sporting breed then they should rethink their choices. And that we should not dumb down the breed to make quiet pets. Anybody can own one they should just be prepared for an active lifestyle.

The golden is very versatile but that versatility comes from breeding dogs with a purpose. The qualities that make goldens so good at dog sports, therapy, S & R etc. come from being a gundog. Those are trainability, focus, drive, energy,nose, and good temperament. 
How do you maintain those qualities in the breed if you ignore them for many generations?
Alaska posted a very good article from Henry Lardy in the hunt and field section. It is worth reading and maybe she can repost it here.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

TrailDogs said:


> Brave, I think you are misunderstanding this, you may be referring to the discussion that if someone does not like the energy of a sporting breed then they should rethink their choices. And that we should not dumb down the breed to make quiet pets. Anybody can own one they should just be prepared for an active lifestyle.
> 
> The golden is very versatile but that versatility comes from breeding dogs with a purpose. The qualities that make goldens so good at dog sports, therapy, S & R etc. come from being a gundog. Those are trainability, focus, drive, energy,nose, and good temperament.
> How do you maintain those qualities in the breed if you ignore them for many generations?
> Alaska posted a very good article from Henry Lardy in the hunt and field section. It is worth reading and maybe she can repost it here.




This is a very different statement than the one made above that Brave is referring to. This statement is not offensive or judgement at all.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Brave, I think you are misunderstanding this, you may be referring to the discussion that if someone does not like the energy of a sporting breed then they should rethink their choices. And that we should not dumb down the breed to make quiet pets. Anybody can own one they should just be prepared for an active lifestyle.
> 
> The golden is very versatile but that versatility comes from breeding dogs with a purpose. The qualities that make goldens so good at dog sports, therapy, S & R etc. come from being a gundog. Those are trainability, focus, drive, energy,nose, and good temperament.
> How do you maintain those qualities in the breed if you ignore them for many generations?
> Alaska posted a very good article from Henry Lardy in the hunt and field section. It is worth reading and maybe she can repost it here.


Excellent post, and I agree completely.

However, I would add that you can maintain those qualities by doing all the sports and other things that are not hunt/field tests, but which use and require the same qualities. I'm hoping that Gibbs and I can be certified as a SAR team. For Gibbs, that takes all the same qualities as hunting. Agility, tracking, flyball and other activities also use those qualities, and if a dog lacks them then the dog will be unable to excel in the sport. So, to my mind, those qualities can be preserved though the pursuit of other activities that don't require killing for fun, which many folks are opposed to.

I grew up in a hunting family, and we hunted Goldens (and one Lab). When I was in the military during wartime, I saw things that changed my heart and mind, and now I can no longer be so disrespectful of life. As a result, I am loathe to even put a WC or JH on my dogs. But I still love Goldens. And I can use those same qualities to save lives, rather than take them. So Gibbs and I are pursuing a SAR certification. That's my own personal method of preserving those qualities in Goldens. Gibbs has only 6 WCs in his pedigree and one JH, but you should see the incredible drive, nose, focus and energy he has when training. You would never question that he has those qualities and would realize that despite the lack of hunt/field titles, they are well preserved in him.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

nevermind.


----------



## Selli-Belle

So in the good old days (sixty years ago or so), when Goldens were what Goldens should be, dogs who with no hunting aptitude were culled from a breeding program or certainly not bred, because that would be counter to what the breed was all about.


----------



## Selli-Belle

I still contend that versatility is what make the Golden special and unique.


----------



## thorbreafortuna

And a lovely one she is


----------



## DanaRuns

After 83 pages, maybe before we can talk about improving the breed, we need to first answer this question:

*What makes a Golden Retriever a Golden Retriever?* What differentiates it from other breeds or from a generic non-breed dog?

For me, without getting too specific, I'd answer by saying what makes a Golden a Golden is (1) its look, (2) its famous temperament and (3) its versatility, in that it can do so many different things. It is so versatile because of the combination of its famous temperament and its sporting dog qualities. And to me, that in a nutshell is what makes a Golden a Golden and differentiates it from all other breeds. So, when I look to "improve the breed" through breeding, those are the qualities I will always keep in mind.


----------



## tippykayak

Claudia M said:


> I actually stated that earlier in the thread, which actually shows once again that the golden has NOT been improved as many here seem to think. The life span of a golden stayed the same despite the fact that now they have higher medical interventions and medicine while 50 years ago they used to be put down. 100 years ago the dogs that did not make it in the hunt were put down for the simple fact they did not have the aptitude in the field.
> 
> So we can keep on joking ourselves about the versatile dog and about how we assume they still have the aptitudes and how the health is just so much better. Bottom line - it used to be when the goldens were actually the so called primitive goldens.


Claudia, this post makes no sense to me. The claims aren't based in fact, and they aren't logically related to each other. So I don't know how to respond to you. I feel the need to respond, because you are so insulting about modern dogs, but there's no substance to respond to.

We all get it: you think that early Goldens have been ruined by modern day breeding practices, particularly conformation Goldens. You believe in a bygone era of much better dogs. You have no particular experience or evidence to back that up, but you believe it firmly, so much so that you are contemptuous of the modern Golden, especially those that don't hunt or trial. We get it. Can you let the thread go back to its regularly scheduled programming now? I don't think people will be able to contain themselves in respond to you as long as you're going to be so insulting.


----------



## Claudia M

tippykayak said:


> Claudia, this post makes no sense to me. The claims aren't based in fact, and they aren't logically related to each other. So I don't know how to respond to you. I feel the need to respond, because you are so insulting about modern dogs, but there's no substance to respond to.
> 
> We all get it: you think that early Goldens have been ruined by modern day breeding practices, particularly conformation Goldens. You believe in a bygone era of much better dogs. You have no particular experience or evidence to back that up, but you believe it firmly, so much so that you are contemptuous of the modern Golden, especially those that don't hunt or trial. We get it. Can you let the thread go back to its regularly scheduled programming now? I don't think people will be able to contain themselves in respond to you as long as you're going to be so insulting.



Why don't you give us the so called facts. How many dogs 50 years ago had surgeries vs the dogs today? How many dogs 50 years ago had chemo and the advanced medicine today to curb or squeeze a couple more drops of life out of our dogs? 

What was the Golden life span 50 years ago (the primitive dog) vs today (the modern dog). How much has that changed in the view of the advances in the veterinary practices?

If statements that the conformation dogs still have the ability to hunt are true - then prove it. Especially with the dogs that complete the CH at a young age. They still have the time and the energy to prove themselves in the field. 

A breed is defined by its purpose, everything else follows. Prove that purpose you claim to have. Very few do and most with minimal results. 

IMHO - assuming and making claims that the dogs have the abilities but unable to prove it, is the most insulting to the breed in general.

I was told that if I wanted a field trial dog to get a lab because they are easier to train. Now why would they be easier to train? Because they still have the abilities in their genes. Not because they are smarter or have a better nose. Simply because they are I guess still primitive.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Selli-Belle said:


> So in the good old days (sixty years ago or so), when Goldens were what Goldens should be, dogs who with no hunting aptitude were culled from a breeding program or certainly not bred, because that would be counter to what the breed was all about.


Shoot, I wanted someone to answer me. I was going to bring up Gilnockie Coquette who was born in 1938. According to her owners she did not like to show and she was too lazy to hunt, so what to do with her? Her owners seemed to have feeling for her (I don't know for sure, but they probably loved her) since they did not cull her. Should she not have been bred?

They did breed her and she produced a Dual Champion (bench and field) from two different males!


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia, how many times do you need to say the same thing, over and over? Do you think there is anyone here who doesn't know exactly how you feel? What's the point of beating that dead *****? (I decided to leave the autocorrect.  ) Why don't you just wash your hands of the breed. Or at least stop insulting people. Are you doing any good? Are you getting anywhere?



Claudia M said:


> A breed is defined by its purpose, everything else follows.


By that logic, you could have a black, 40 lb. dog with short hair that will not tolerate anyone other than its owner, and you'd call it a Golden Retriever if it can excel in field trials. You are completely wrong. Period. Case closed! 'Nuff said!

Claudia, what have you done with your dogs to make you such an expert?


----------



## K9-Design




----------



## Selli-Belle

Alaska7133 said:


> Conquerergold,
> I think your CKC breed standard illustrates why field and show people are confused about the standard. The photos of the dogs on pages 3 and 4 do not match the illustrated breed standard in the drawings. Those dogs illustrated are far heavier and thicker and furrier dogs than shown in the photos on pages 3 and 4. I think that's the biggest issue. That what we saw years ago in Speedwell Pluto's days are very different than the current standard shows. Now that is the problem. We use photos from the past as an example of what our breed should look like, yet our illustrated standard is far different. That's hard to address. Why did the CKC chose to use an illustrated standard? It sort of locks you into a "style" that didn't win dog shows 50 years ago, but does win dog shows today.


Bringing up a post from a few days ago, but the illustrations from the CKC illustrated standard and the GRCA Blue Book were done by Marcia Schlehr of Kyrie Goldens. I don't even want to think about what Marcia would say if she read that she was illustrating the bone and hair style of Goldens, I just know I would not want to be the person who showed it to her. If you want her opinion about the split in the Golden breed read this.


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> Claudia, how many times do you need to say the same thing, over and over? Do you think there is anyone here who doesn't know exactly how you feel? What's the point of beating that dead *****? (I decided to leave the autocorrect.  ) Why don't you just wash your hands of the breed. Or at least stop insulting people. Are you doing any good? Are you getting anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> *By that logic, you could have a black, 40 lb. dog with short hair that will not tolerate anyone other than its owner, and you'd call it a Golden Retriever if it can excel in field trials.* You are completely wrong. Period. Case closed! 'Nuff said!
> 
> Claudia, what have you done with your dogs to make you such an expert?


Look again at the photos posted by Alaska - I doubt any of them are 40lbs and black. Maybe this entire thread made me go blind and cannot see colors very well. Glad you finally put down what you really think of those primitive dogs. 

I welcome the challenge to take a "primitive" golden in the ring. So far I have not seen the conformation fancies welcome the challenge to take their dog in the field. I have only seen: :no:


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Claudia, I can't help but notice that you have conspicuously failed to answer about what qualifies you as an "expert" on what makes a golden breedable or non-breedable; a true golden or not a true golden; etc. I don't purport to be an expert at all on goldens. I am still what I would call a novice in the breed, and still learning from mentors who have been in the breed for decades longer than myself. 

You also didn't answer my question about whether or not a bitch that failed the JH 3 times in her attempts to attain the "pitiful/minimal" title, as you have called it, would be worthy of being bred?


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> I welcome the challenge to take a "primitive" golden in the ring. So far I have not seen the conformation fancies welcome the challenge to take their dog in the field. I have only seen: :no:


Would you like a list of the 35 Champion-Master Hunters?

How about a few of those who have also competed in field trials within the past 5 years :

CH Beau Geste Being Ramiroz UD MH** WCX CCA VCX DDHF (Group 1 winner)
CH OTCH Morgen's Lil Bit of Skyefire UDX TD MH** NA NAJ WC VCX DDHF OBHF
CH Deauxquest Hard Day's Knight UDT VER RAE MH WCX CCA VCX OS DDHF
CH Unicoi's Sail Away Angel CDX TD MH** WCX CCA VCX OD DDHF

also

Can. CH GMOTCH GMH Zaniri's Piece By Piece Am. UD WCX** CCA VC, Can. WCX VCX (that is, a Canadian Champion with American ** -- Qual 4th place)

ALL trained & handled by their owners in the field.
The last three completely owner handled in the breed ring.

Learn to walk the walk not just talk the talk. A very old cliche that ALWAYS rings true.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> Look again at the photos posted by Alaska - I doubt any of them are 40lbs and black. Maybe this entire thread made me go blind and cannot see colors very well. Glad you finally put down what you really think of those primitive dogs.
> 
> I welcome the challenge to take a "primitive" golden in the ring. So far I have not seen the conformation fancies welcome the challenge to take their dog in the field. I have only seen: :no:


Challenge? Fine. Answer specifically, and I'll see if I can meet your challenge, but you keep moving the goal posts so it's difficult. Answer this:

*What is the minimum title would would accept on a Golden to be satisfied that the dog retains its original purpose as a hunting dog?*

What I'm proposing here is that I will take one of my show dogs -- heck, you can even choose which one -- and I will meet your challenge, if we can establish what it is and if we can agree on terms. We'll do it publicly, have everything verified, and it will be for this forum and the world to see.

So answer my question above.


----------



## K9-Design

Well Dana don't you know a few days ago a WC was good enough to show effort, now a JH is a pitiful title denoting nothing. Talk about trying to hit a moving target. Curious as Claudia is on the list to get a puppy from a bitch with "ONLY" a JH.


----------



## DanaRuns

K9-Design said:


> Well Dana don't you know a few days ago a WC was good enough to show effort, now a JH is a pitiful title denoting nothing. Talk about trying to hit a moving target. Curious as Claudia is on the list to get a puppy from a bitch with "ONLY" a JH.


This is why I want to pin her down. I need from her the _minimum_ title she thinks establishes that the dog has not lost the breed purpose and is worthy of being bred. Not just for my dog, but for any Golden. Then, at least we will know her standard. And if we can come to terms, I'm willing to prove my own dog to her.

So, let's see what she says.


----------



## Finn's Fan

I don't participate in GRF much anymore, and this thread is a perfect example of why not. I would've loved to learn something from this thread from folks with much experience in the breed, but Claudia kept diverting the discussion with insults, abject rudeness, and all that from someone without any experience. There are rules here, and I don't for one moment understand how a member gets to continue participating when she violates those rules time and time again. Administrators, why do you allow this person to continue derailing what would otherwise be very informative discussions about the breed we all love, no matter what venues (or none) we participate in with them?


----------



## Aiden's Mom

Claudia M said:


> I was told that if I wanted a field trial dog to get a lab because they are easier to train. Now why would they be easier to train? Because they still have the abilities in their genes. Not because they are smarter or have a better nose. Simply because they are I guess still primitive.


I've been watching this topic consistently since it started and I can't believe someone hasn't blown up yet reading these posts from Claudia about our breed and their "pitiful" accomplishments  I honestly think you need to switch breeds as the golden isn't the "perfect" dog for you. You can go obtain a Labrador and enjoy its "supposed" sole purpose of competitive field trails, in your eyes. I don't want a dog specifically bred only for a field trial. I'll stick with my golden retriever because I have the options of _actual real life_ duck hunting, field trials, therapy work with young children to the elderly, competitive agility, _amazing_ competitive obedience, search and rescue, nose work, etc..not to mention they have the beautiful structure, temperament, and focus *to do it **all* along with those soulful loving eyes, and most importantly, they have an *unmatched* willingness to please. And so much more. I mean, heck, I'm going to be doing a barn hunt trial this weekend with my pup because I know he would enjoy the experience.

I can't think of a more perfect dog.


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams

So I have been following this thread for 85 pages now..and I am so glad that this was not created before I started on my dream of becoming a golden fancier. I never thought I would "have" to get any sort of hunt title on my dogs to prove they were a golden retriever. I thought that my dog was a golden..she is loyal, easy-going, probably the best tempermanent of any dog I have owned, she loves swimming, loves to play fetch, would love to catch a rabbit, listens really well (we got our "low-level" titles with all placements), she got her CCA pretty easily and she looks like a golden. But with all of being said..she still isn't a golden? And she should not have been bred?! Because I dont have any intention of hunting..ever. And she will never get a hunt title. 

I have been in love with this breed since I was 5 years old..and not because they were a sporting breed who were Orginally bred to hunt. It was because they are family dogs, bred to and I quote from the standard..
"Temperament -- friendly, reliable and trustworthy. Quarrelsomeness or hostility towards other dogs or people in normal situations, or an unwarranted show of timidity or nervousness, is not in keeping with Golden Retriever character..."

To me that should be #1 in the standard..not fall all the way at the bottom. I fell in love with this breed because as I was reading about them when I was 5 years old (I was an early reader with a great of love dogs).. I read how great they were as family dogs, therapy dogs, seeing eye dogs, rescue dogs, show dogs, obedience dogs..and simply they are the most beautiful dogs out there. I loved how they were the hands-down most adorable puppies ever and they turned into the most beautiful dogs. I was drawn to them. As I grew older, I knew I really wanted to share my love if the breed..to continue these great versatile dogs. Which has grown even more over the years..now are seen everywhere..agility, tracking, seizure alert dogs..they can do it all. Who knew that not still being just a hunting dog would be viewed so "wrong"? Not me..I think it is amazing. Name some other breeds that have done all of these things..and still have retained their temperament. Not many..there are some..but not like the golden. 

I do not, will not, ever put down people for hunting with their dogs. It just is not for me..what I like is conformation ring and obedience ring for sure. Daisy and I had a tracking class and that was fun..we may even try agility too as she is crazy. To each his own on where they compete or like to do with their goldens. Because at the end of the day you know what really matters? That you have your best friend, your dog, by your side. No need to bash other people's goals or dreams. The best we can do is retain that true golden temperament, health and that they look like goldens. 

That is my spew from a newbie..we need more people to continue this breed and not tear it apart. I dont see people my age hardly at the shows, whether it is obedience or conformation..and we need to encourage new people to come join.putting each other down or insulting people will not help that cause.


----------



## Brave

TrailDogs said:


> Brave, I think you are misunderstanding this, you may be referring to the discussion that if someone does not like the energy of a sporting breed then they should rethink their choices. And that we should not dumb down the breed to make quiet pets. Anybody can own one they should just be prepared for an active lifestyle.
> 
> The golden is very versatile but that versatility comes from breeding dogs with a purpose. The qualities that make goldens so good at dog sports, therapy, S & R etc. come from being a gundog. Those are trainability, focus, drive, energy,nose, and good temperament.
> How do you maintain those qualities in the breed if you ignore them for many generations?
> Alaska posted a very good article from Henry Lardy in the hunt and field section. It is worth reading and maybe she can repost it here.



Thank you for this post. I'll have to go back and make sure I haven't mis-remembered something. Your post is very similar to one Barb posted back on page 60. 

I agree with Dana (a couple posts below yours) that there are ways to test the traits that make the Golden a hunting dog without actually hunting with it.


----------



## Brave

Claudia M said:


> Brave - while you admit you are not a conformation person I was talking to the conformation people.
> 
> 
> In every litter you are going to have dogs with the field aptitude and you are going to have few dogs that will not make it in the field. Just like not every dog in a litter will make it in the show ring. These dogs are for pet homes unless you go back 100 years and those dogs would be shot for not making the cut.



I've been sitting on this comment for a few hours. I mulled it over and tried to dismiss my qualms with it. But I'm left with a nagging feeling that I don't like, and hope you will clear up for me. 

The way this post reads to me is dismissive and comes across as: "hush dear, the adults are talking"

I hope that wasn't how it was intended. Given how ambiguous tone is over the Internet, can you clear that up for me? Thank you in advance.


----------



## Aiden's Mom

Brave said:


> Claudia M said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brave - while you admit you are not a conformation person I was talking to the conformation people.
> 
> 
> In every litter you are going to have dogs with the field aptitude and you are going to have few dogs that will not make it in the field. Just like not every dog in a litter will make it in the show ring. These dogs are for pet homes unless you go back 100 years and those dogs would be shot for not making the cut.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been sitting on this comment for a few hours. I mulled it over and tried to dismiss my qualms with it. But I'm left with a nagging feeling that I don't like, and hope you will clear up for me.
> 
> The way this post reads to me is dismissive and comes across as: "hush dear, the adults are talking"
> 
> I hope that wasn't how it was intended. Given how ambiguous tone is over the Internet, can you clear that up for me? Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many have tried to dismiss it, but what I got from that post is, "your "conformation dogs" of today were shot 100 years ago". That makes me extremely sad. Sorry to be blunt -- i'll go back to ignoring that post now as everyone else was as it is greatly upsetting.


----------



## DanaRuns

Aiden's Mom said:


> I'm sure many have tried to dismiss it, but what I got from that post is, "your "conformation dogs" of today were shot 100 years ago". That makes me extremely sad. Sorry to be blunt -- i'll go back to ignoring that post now as everyone else was as it is greatly upsetting.


I don't get upset about it. You can't be upset with Claudia merely for being who she is. I don't think she intends to hurt people, it's just a consequence of being who she is. Whenever I encounter someone like that, I remember that I don't get upset with my dogs for licking their butts, even though that isn't behavior that I like. So, when people say upsetting things, I remember that that's who they are, and they are different from me, so I can't expect them to think or act like me. And I don't take it personally.


----------



## Aiden's Mom

DanaRuns said:


> I don't get upset about it. You can't be upset with Claudia merely for being who she is. I don't think she intends to hurt people, it's just a consequence of being who she is. Whenever I encounter someone like that, I remember that I don't get upset with my dogs for licking their butts, even though that isn't behavior that I like. So, when people say upsetting things, I remember that that's who they are, and they are different from me, so I can't expect them to think or act like me. And I don't take it personally.


Good point -- I guess that is harder to see over an internet forum. I do understand what you are talking about.


----------



## TrailDogs

Selli-Belle said:


> Bringing up a post from a few days ago, but the illustrations from the CKC illustrated standard and the GRCA Blue Book were done by Marcia Schlehr of Kyrie Goldens. I don't even want to think about what Marcia would say if she read that she was illustrating the bone and hair style of Goldens, I just know I would not want to be the person who showed it to her. If you want her opinion about the split in the Golden breed read this.


Selli-Belle, thanks for the good article. It does bring up an interesting point that due to the competitiveness of goldens in the breed ring, the environment favors extremes. Your dog has to stand out to be noticed.


----------



## Alaska7133

My husband grew up hunting with dogs in rural northern Idaho. I asked him how they trained their dogs. He laughed and said there was no training! I asked him what breed he had, he said they were all mutts! They just hunted whatever mutts on the ranch they had around. They would go out with their 22's and find pheasants or snow shoe hares. They did have the mutt heel until they found a bird or hare. Then they'd send the mutt to flush. The mutt would flush, they'd shoot, then the mutt would retrieve the birds or hares. I asked how you train for all that? He said, the first time you go, just make sure that you kill something. The dog will figure it all out. It didn't take long for a dog to figure out that a gun equates fun. If the dog didn't do well, there was always another mutt back home to try. None had any special breeding, none had any training. These were kids taking their dogs hunting, nothing more. I asked if the dogs ever ate any birds. He said the dogs usually their first pheasant or hare of the day. He was fine with that, there were always plenty of pheasants and the next ones would be for him. DH also said we all make way too much out of the whole hunting thing. He thinks hunt tests and field trials are silly and a waste of time. He loves all our dogs and loves hunting with them, but he thinks they would be fine without any special training. So from a hunter like my DH, hunt tests and field trials are no measure of hunting skills of a dog. DH also thinks most dogs will hunt just fine. So in my husband's eyes we are making this whole hunting thing into more than it should be. To him taking a dog hunting is a simple thing. Dogs are natural hunters by their nature, end of story. I do enjoy hunt tests and field trials. I find it fun.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Selli-Belle, thanks for the good article. It does bring up an interesting point that due to the competitiveness of goldens in the breed ring, the environment favors extremes. Your dog has to stand out to be noticed.


So, that's true only of the breed ring? The competitiveness of the field trial does _not_ favor extremes? Your dog doesn't have to stand out?


----------



## K9-Design

Haha Stacey that is pretty funny -- and so true -- was talking to a guy I bumped into, who hunted ducks with his lab (he saw some shirt with a dog on it, I was wearing, and asked if I duck hunted). He was so pleased with his dog, we had a nice time talking, he said his lab did great hunting up ducks in heavy cover even if he didn't see where they went. A blind, I asked? Yep. How did you train him, did you use a certain book or video? Nope. He throws rocks.


----------



## TrailDogs

Alaska7133 said:


> He loves all our dogs and loves hunting with them, but he thinks they would be fine without any special training. So from a hunter like my DH, hunt tests and field trials are no measure of hunting skills of a dog. DH also thinks most dogs will hunt just fine. So in my husband's eyes we are making this whole hunting thing into more than it should be. To him taking a dog hunting is a simple thing. Dogs are natural hunters by their nature, end of story. I do enjoy hunt tests and field trials. I find it fun.


The problem here is we are talking about breeding to conform to a man made standard. I bet your husband also doesn't care if the dog has a certain type of coat or head shape or length of leg.


----------



## Megora

Claudia M said:


> Why don't you give us the so called facts. How many dogs 50 years ago had surgeries vs the dogs today? How many dogs 50 years ago had chemo and the advanced medicine today to curb or squeeze a couple more drops of life out of our dogs?


Just responding for the record.... and summarized with personal vignettes removed. 

We take much better care of our dogs today. They go to the vet for everything and things are correctly diagnosed as opposed to assumed degrade due to "old age". I think a lot of stuff was underreported back then.


----------



## DanaRuns

Alaska7133 said:


> My husband grew up hunting with dogs in rural northern Idaho. I asked him how they trained their dogs. He laughed and said there was no training! I asked him what breed he had, he said they were all mutts! They just hunted whatever mutts on the ranch they had around. They would go out with their 22's and find pheasants or snow shoe hares. They did have the mutt heel until they found a bird or hare. Then they'd send the mutt to flush. The mutt would flush, they'd shoot, then the mutt would retrieve the birds or hares. I asked how you train for all that? He said, the first time you go, just make sure that you kill something. The dog will figure it all out. It didn't take long for a dog to figure out that a gun equates fun. If the dog didn't do well, there was always another mutt back home to try. None had any special breeding, none had any training. These were kids taking their dogs hunting, nothing more. I asked if the dogs ever ate any birds. He said the dogs usually their first pheasant or hare of the day. He was fine with that, there were always plenty of pheasants and the next ones would be for him. DH also said we all make way too much out of the whole hunting thing. He thinks hunt tests and field trials are silly and a waste of time. He loves all our dogs and loves hunting with them, but he thinks they would be fine without any special training. So from a hunter like my DH, hunt tests and field trials are no measure of hunting skills of a dog. DH also thinks most dogs will hunt just fine. So in my husband's eyes we are making this whole hunting thing into more than it should be. To him taking a dog hunting is a simple thing. Dogs are natural hunters by their nature, end of story. I do enjoy hunt tests and field trials. I find it fun.


This sort of resonates with me. We didn't hunt mutts, we hunted Goldens. And we did train. But we did not view hunt tests and field trials as any kind of measure of a dog's hunting ability. That was proved in the hunt. Field trials were silly activities for human competition and human egos. And we certainly did not think a dog needed a FC or even a JH or WC to be an effective hunter. We also didn't search out pedigrees with tons of FCs or other titles in them. I think every Golden my parents ever bought was a good hunter, save one. That one was great, but wasn't as biddable as the others, and her big problem was that she retrieved everyone else's game as well as our own, no matter how much my dad worked with her. So, she was out. But all the others were fine hunters, and none of them had any field or hunting titles. Those were sports people did _instead of_ hunting.


----------



## Conquerergold

Alaska7133 said:


> My husband grew up hunting with dogs in rural northern Idaho. I asked him how they trained their dogs. He laughed and said there was no training! I asked him what breed he had, he said they were all mutts! They just hunted whatever mutts on the ranch they had around. They would go out with their 22's and find pheasants or snow shoe hares. They did have the mutt heel until they found a bird or hare. Then they'd send the mutt to flush. The mutt would flush, they'd shoot, then the mutt would retrieve the birds or hares. I asked how you train for all that? He said, the first time you go, just make sure that you kill something. The dog will figure it all out. It didn't take long for a dog to figure out that a gun equates fun. If the dog didn't do well, there was always another mutt back home to try. None had any special breeding, none had any training. These were kids taking their dogs hunting, nothing more. I asked if the dogs ever ate any birds. He said the dogs usually their first pheasant or hare of the day. He was fine with that, there were always plenty of pheasants and the next ones would be for him. DH also said we all make way too much out of the whole hunting thing. He thinks hunt tests and field trials are silly and a waste of time. He loves all our dogs and loves hunting with them, but he thinks they would be fine without any special training. So from a hunter like my DH, hunt tests and field trials are no measure of hunting skills of a dog. DH also thinks most dogs will hunt just fine. So in my husband's eyes we are making this whole hunting thing into more than it should be. To him taking a dog hunting is a simple thing. Dogs are natural hunters by their nature, end of story. I do enjoy hunt tests and field trials. I find it fun.


I think this sums it up beautifully!! Very well said. That is what is great about this breed, it can be the gentlemen's hunter as described above, or you can bump it up a notch (or several) and become competitive if you enjoy that sport. 

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

My uncle hunted with his American Cockers, and what you describe above mirrors what he has told me about the 'training'. A family that has an uncle to the girl of mine, whose photo I posted, hunts over him. 51 weeks a year he is the kids playmate and family pet, 1 week a year he helps bring the partridge back. No real formal training, though his owner taught him obedience and 'take it'.


----------



## Alaska7133

Dana,
My husband doesn't care about what our dogs look like. He wants them to be well mannered. He likes that they will do whatever he wants them to do like hunt, fish etc. He likes that they love water. He doesn't care if I show them. Heck he doesn't care if I do hunt tests or whatever. All he cares about is having a nice pet around the house and office (we take the herd to work every day). And one he can take hunting whenever he likes. Goldens are the perfect dogs for all of the above. That's why we all have them don't we? So improving the breed? I'd say making sure they stay versatile and keep their wonderful temperament.


----------



## AlanK

Alaska7133 said:


> Dana,
> My husband doesn't care about what our dogs look like. He wants them to be well mannered. He likes that they will do whatever he wants them to do like hunt, fish etc. He likes that they love water. He doesn't care if I show them. Heck he doesn't care if I do hunt tests or whatever. All he cares about is having a nice pet around the house and office (we take the herd to work every day). And one he can take hunting whenever he likes. Goldens are the perfect dogs for all of the above. That's why we all have them don't we? So improving the breed? I'd say making sure they stay versatile and keep their wonderful temperament.


I do not usually post in such controversial threads .... However I agree with what Alaska7133 says.  
Y'all be nice around here


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia? Oh Claudia, where did you go?



DanaRuns said:


> Challenge? Fine. Answer specifically, and I'll see if I can meet your challenge, but you keep moving the goal posts so it's difficult. Answer this:
> 
> *What is the minimum title would would accept on a Golden to be satisfied that the dog retains its original purpose as a hunting dog?*
> 
> What I'm proposing here is that I will take one of my show dogs -- heck, you can even choose which one -- and I will meet your challenge, if we can establish what it is and if we can agree on terms. We'll do it publicly, have everything verified, and it will be for this forum and the world to see.
> 
> So answer my question above.


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> Claudia? Oh Claudia, where did you go?


Maybe she decided not to post here anymore because of all the nasty comments directed towards her. She made one unapproved comment about the JH title and a lot of you became very derogatory.


----------



## Kmullen

TrailDogs said:


> Maybe she decided not to post here anymore because of all the nasty comments directed towards her. She made one unapproved comment about the JH title and a lot of you became very derogatory.


Really? ONE unapproved comment?


----------



## Brave

derail......

If clubs lose money on CCAs which is why they are not readily available, what can be done to make them more common - giving more dogs the opportunity get the CCA and prove they are within standard? 

I assume you have entry fees for participants. Could those entry fees increase? How long does a CCA take for each dog? And is it just one judge per dog or all four judges evaluate the dog and confer to determine grade? 

Would a CCA be the minimum title a performance/field dog need, in comparison to a JH on conformation dog. 

Focusing on our common goals and ways to compromise so everyone wins. I guess tit for tat? Though I'm sure a JH is harder to get than a CCA. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

What comes before a JH? WC or WCX? Would those prove the dog retains the characteristics bred for the hunt (see Traildogs post a few pages back, and Barb's post on page 60).


----------



## Conquerergold

Deleted. Not worth the argument.


----------



## Megora

> If clubs lose money on CCAs which is why they are not readily available, what can be done to make them more common - giving more dogs the opportunity get the CCA and prove they are within standard?
> 
> I assume you have entry fees for participants. Could those entry fees increase? How long does a CCA take for each dog? And is it just one judge per dog or all four judges evaluate the dog and confer to determine grade?


 I think if you have more judges from local areas... you can probably get cost of doing a CCA event down. From what I remember reading - there aren't a lot of judges participating. And per event, you will have 3 judges looking over each dog to give the entrants best chance to get their CCA at one event. 

What I remember when I was looking into doing one with Jacks (couldn't because it was held on a Sunday, which I can't do) - it was an all day affair, starting at 8AM. 

Right now the cost of entering a CCA is like $65....? It's up there.

CCA requires very little to no training as the dog won't be off leash... 

It also is not an AKC title like JH is. WC is the working equivalent of a CCA, but even that does require some training as the dog won't be turn loose on a lunge line...


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Maybe she decided not to post here anymore because of all the nasty comments directed towards her. She made one unapproved comment about the JH title and a lot of you became very derogatory.


Riiight. But I'll not argue the point. I'm sure there is plenty of heat on both sides.

As for me, she made a challenge and I accepted it. When I did, she disappeared. Maybe she's at work or out shopping. I hope she comes back. I'm serious about accepting her challenge, and making it an open, ongoing thing here in the GRF, where I will either prevail (as I believe I will) or crash and burn publicly with my dog (as she and probably you and other field folks think I will). 

I will expect something in return. I'm not going to spend all my time and money doing something I'd rather not do, just to prove my dog to her (and to you and people like you), only to then be brushed off and insulted again, when the goal posts are moved once more. So, I'm going to need solid commitments and solid parameters, and a particular "reward" for meeting her challenge, like specifically at a minimum the groveling and sincere acknowledgement that y'all were wrong and I was right. 

I think I will even ask the rest of you field folks who have been dissing my show dogs to "put your money where your mouth is," so to speak, and make a solid commitment one way or the other. Because when I prove you all wrong -- when I show you that my fluffy show dog with no field titles in his/her pedigree still has what it takes to be a hunting dog -- I'm going to want admissions, apologies and a change of heart from each and every one of you.

It's put up or shut up time. I'm putting up. But on the other side, so far...


----------



## DanaRuns

Conquerergold said:


> Deleted. Not worth the argument.


Proving that you are smarter than I am.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Brave said:


> derail......
> 
> If clubs lose money on CCAs which is why they are not readily available, what can be done to make them more common - giving more dogs the opportunity get the CCA and prove they are within standard?
> 
> I assume you have entry fees for participants. Could those entry fees increase? How long does a CCA take for each dog? And is it just one judge per dog or all four judges evaluate the dog and confer to determine grade?
> 
> Would a CCA be the minimum title a performance/field dog need, in comparison to a JH on conformation dog.
> 
> Focusing on our common goals and ways to compromise so everyone wins. I guess tit for tat? Though I'm sure a JH is harder to get than a CCA. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> What comes before a JH? WC or WCX? Would those prove the dog retains the characteristics bred for the hunt (see Traildogs post a few pages back, and Barb's post on page 60).



Can't answer the first question.... That's well beyond my experience level as far as organizing those events. I do know that the Garden State GRC pretty successfully runs a CCA event annually (unless that has changed since I moved to NC). AmbikaGR has been pretty involved I. The planning of many of those. If you'd like a little one on one convo about the ins and outs/financial considerations, a PM to him might provide some info. Just be warned - I have no idea how often he frequents the forum nowadays. 

As for the second question, I think it's a pretty fair comparison between the CCA and the JH, if you are looking for a tit for tat. Now understand that those with plans to go further would likely not approach the JH as casually as I did, but I will give you one person's experience about one way of looking at it. I'll give you,a quick rundown of Jersey's path to the JH: Jersey LOVES field work, but training groups are hard to come by, especially when you work banker's hours (I don't, really, but close enough). So we wanted to do a JH but didn't really train for it. He got a handful of opportunities to go out with a group when he was somewhere around 2 years old (a little less, I think) to retrieve some bumpers. He got the opportunity to see nasty reused dead birds once or twice and then had a chance to see a live flier exactly one time shortly before I left NJ, when he was just under 4 (for the record he didn't pick it up, we played a few games and he really got interested in it but on the original send he seemed a little shell shocked). At the 2011 National in Atlanta, I entered him in the WC. We spent a few weeks tossing a duck and a pheasant in my back yard leading up to it. He picked up the live flier without pause but had absolutely no idea why I was sending him a second time. He took a few good gallops but when he didn't see the memory bird, he came back to me. The downside of only ever having done maybe a dozen hand thrown (by me) doubles in my back yard. A year and 2 months later I entered Jersey in a hunt test. He passed, easily. We did nothing, not even birds in the yard (mine needed to be "retired" and I had no access to more) for 2.5 years. Then I entered him in a handful of JH tests. He failed the first two days, usually blowing one mark badly enough that it was too much to overcome even with 3 very passable retrieves. After that test I was able to get my hands on a duck to use in the backyard. He went 4/4 on the next two weekends. Done. Almost a year later he passed again at the National this past fall. We're hoping for at least one more go at next year's National. I don't think my funds are quite enough to do too many tests just for fun. 

It's at a level that with basic obedience, a minor introduction to the setting/concept, and a dog with some drive it is very achievable with minimal formal preparation. I see the CCA the same way - a little basic grooming, a little practice to figure out how to get them to gait somewhat decently, and you're good to go. In both, it can really just be as basic as "does the dog have it?" And I mean no insult to the title by referring to it that way. Whether well trained in the field or bumping along half blind like me and Jersey, I respect anyone who gets out there in any venue and at any level with their dogs. It bears repeating: not everyone approaches the JH as I did. Those with plans to go further put in significantly more training than that to avoid the dog developing bad habits that would be detrimental at higher levels. But I never planned on that for Jersey and doing it this way, essentially treating it more like an instinct test and less like serious training, worked for us. I don't expect I will do the same with Banyan. Now that I am settled and have found some training group options, I think we will try to go a bit further. How far? No clue! Will be fun figuring it out though. 

One more thing: technically a JH isn't above or below a WC. JH is the "novice level" for AKC, WC is the more basic choice under GRCA (with WCX being a little more advanced). A JH test consists of 4 single marks, 2 on land and 2 on water. The WC is a land double and 2 singles on the water. I think, in my very limited experience, that one may need a little bit more preparation for the WC because of the double - though there are probably some dogs who would get the concept naturally, I would think most need to be given some idea of what you are asking them. At least I did with Jersey. We still hope to try it again one of these days!

Hope those answers were helpful to you!

Julie and the boys


----------



## Megora

@Julie - when I was talking to people about what I should expect or do before the CCA that I was going to (the Sunday one that did not work out), they told me basically don't worry about grooming (most people will bring a clean dog and that's all you need to worry about), bring a longer leash (not the 2 foot leash), be aware there's a temperament part of the test with the dogs being in each other's space, and walk briskly on the down back (it's assumed your dog knows how to gait if you are recommended to enter). There were no classes that needed be taken or anything like that.  

With JH - I was surprised to hear somebody really tell me how easy it can be for a dog who has decent drive and control. But it does take training to get them used to retrieving with stuff going on around them (no PLAY?!! FRIENDZ!! moments) and also picking up dead birds (after lifetime of their mom screaming at them not to even SNIFF dead animals feathered or furred). Bertie knows how to retrieve and it is starting to get a lot more enthusiastic the more mature he is, but I need to find time to go where those field people go to train just to get him used to some kind of field set up. I've never been to exposed to any of that and neither has he. It's not something I'm looking forward to doing for reasons already explained. LOL.

Because I've heard of people training 1-2 summers with their dogs before going after the JH.... I do think it requires training. Same thing with the WC. I think you have to credit the people out there who go out and do all that training. As opposed to spending $100's more on re-tests if their dogs should fail.


----------



## Alaska7133

Brave said:


> derail......
> 
> If clubs lose money on CCAs which is why they are not readily available, what can be done to make them more common - giving more dogs the opportunity get the CCA and prove they are within standard?
> 
> I assume you have entry fees for participants. Could those entry fees increase? How long does a CCA take for each dog? And is it just one judge per dog or all four judges evaluate the dog and confer to determine grade?
> 
> Would a CCA be the minimum title a performance/field dog need, in comparison to a JH on conformation dog.
> 
> Focusing on our common goals and ways to compromise so everyone wins. I guess tit for tat? Though I'm sure a JH is harder to get than a CCA. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> What comes before a JH? WC or WCX? Would those prove the dog retains the characteristics bred for the hunt (see Traildogs post a few pages back, and Barb's post on page 60).


A little bit of the issue is judges don't get paid to do a CCA. But the club does have to transport them and put them up while they are in town for their CCA. Our club had one up here in Alaska in 2013. I think we had 18 dogs. There is a limit on how many dogs you can have in one CCA, I can't remember how big it was, but it's not a lot more than 18. So when you look at the amount you can charge for a CCA and divide it by the cost of flying 3 judges to your location, putting them up, feeding them, etc. It ends up being a money loosing situation. Which is really unfortunate. 

There is another reason for doing the CCA. The CCA counts as one conformation point for certain types of versatile titles. Several people up here did it with their agility and field dogs for that reason.

I have heard negative comments from field people that have had show judges do their CCA's. Seems the field people didn't like the show judge's comments about their dogs. And field dogs have failed. I'm not a judge, and I don't know why 2 out of 3 judges passed a dog, yet the 3rd didn't. 

WC and WCX are GRCA titles and not AKC titles. Meaning they are tested and administered by GRCA. JH is easier than WC or WCX. I say that because the dog has to be steady to do a double retrieve for a WC, JH they don't. A double retrieve is: one bird is thrown, but the dog has to stay still and wait for the second bird to be thrown before being sent. The dog can't go until the judge says "Dog" and the handler says the dog's name (or whatever word the handler sends their dogs on). Rules for WC are on the GRCA website. It's about 6 pages long. Also you can get a free copy of the DVD of WC/WCX rules if you are a GRCA member. Non-members pay $8 for the DVD. It's an excellent DVD if you ever want to know how it all goes together.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Brave said:


> derail......
> 
> If clubs lose money on CCAs which is why they are not readily available, what can be done to make them more common - giving more dogs the opportunity get the CCA and prove they are within standard?
> 
> I assume you have entry fees for participants. Could those entry fees increase? How long does a CCA take for each dog? And is it just one judge per dog or all four judges evaluate the dog and confer to determine grade?
> 
> Would a CCA be the minimum title a performance/field dog need, in comparison to a JH on conformation dog.
> 
> Focusing on our common goals and ways to compromise so everyone wins. I guess tit for tat? Though I'm sure a JH is harder to get than a CCA. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> What comes before a JH? WC or WCX? Would those prove the dog retains the characteristics bred for the hunt (see Traildogs post a few pages back, and Barb's post on page 60).


I have volunteered to help run the Marshbanks GRC CCA event this fall. The club runs one every other year. We are a small but active club and Marcia Schlehr (who basically founded the club) was instrumental in creating the CCA. We are also in an area with a number of Golden clubs.

Maybe because of Marcia, I don't think the club is overly concerned with making money on the CCA, it wasn't even mentioned when discussing the arrangements. Oh and Marshbanks is far more of a performance/field club than a show club.


----------



## Alaska7133

Hasn't anyone in the show world seen this dog: http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-pictures/99873-oscars-life-pictures.html

Oscar is my favorite show dog/hunting dog on GRF. Oscar has his Ch in the show ring, no other titles that I'm aware of. But boy he sure loves hunting! Check out his photos and see how his coat does in the icy water. It works pretty well. I think Oscar is wonderful!


----------



## Megora

@Carolyn - wish you guys could have them on a Saturday instead of Sunday....


----------



## Selli-Belle

Hmmmmm....let me look into it.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Megora said:


> @Julie - when I was talking to people about what I should expect or do before the CCA that I was going to (the Sunday one that did not work out), they told me basically don't worry about grooming (most people will bring a clean dog and that's all you need to worry about), bring a longer leash (not the 2 foot leash), be aware there's a temperament part of the test with the dogs being in each other's space, and walk briskly on the down back (it's assumed your dog knows how to gait if you are recommended to enter). There were no classes that needed be taken or anything like that.
> 
> With JH - I was surprised to hear somebody really tell me how easy it can be for a dog who has decent drive and control. But it does take training to get them used to retrieving with stuff going on around them (no PLAY?!! FRIENDZ!! moments) and also picking up dead birds (after lifetime of their mom screaming at them not to even SNIFF dead animals feathered or furred). Bertie knows how to retrieve and it is starting to get a lot more enthusiastic the more mature he is, but I need to find time to go where those field people go to train just to get him used to some kind of field set up. I've never been to exposed to any of that and neither has he. It's not something I'm looking forward to doing for reasons already explained. LOL.
> 
> Because I've heard of people training 1-2 summers with their dogs before going after the JH.... I do think it requires training. Same thing with the WC. I think you have to credit the people out there who go out and do all that training. As opposed to spending $100's more on re-tests if their dogs should fail.



I do agree with what you are saying. I don't mean to take anything away from the people who really put in time training and hope my post didn't come across that way. I hope to be one of those people this time around. And no matter how you look at it, the JH or WC definitely requires more preparation than a CCA. I'm going to go back to my personal example to try to explain where I was coming from in that post. One tidbit of background, Jersey and I started off in obedience. He has his CDX and was very nearly trained through Utility when we moved here four years ago (haven't touched obedience since, so that's all out the window. So very few high level classes here, it's sad). 

CCA: Jersey was washed and dried with feet and ears trimmed. That was it. Most dogs were groomed about to that level when we tested (I think he was about a year and 1/2 at the time). That was what I meant by basic grooming, nothing too fancy. Jersey and I did have to practice gaiting a handful of times because he was taught to prance when he healed (I liked it, lol) and he kept trying to revert to that if I didn't go quick enough, but then I'd go too fast and he'd gallop. We didn't take a class or practice it to death, but we did have to work the bugs out a little in the backyard the week before the event. 

JH: I talked about Jersey's limited experience with specific field training but he was a well trained obedience and agility dog who knew pretty well not to saunter around and smell the roses (or the furries, lol). You definitely need a dog who is well under control in an open area with distractions and that ABSOLUTELY requires significant training, but not all of that training necessarily has to happen in specific episodes of "field training." His obedience and agility backgrounds served us well in the field -- and, to be clear, he was older before ever being entered in a test. I think he was around 5 for his first test and between 7 and 8 for the others. So there was no puppy foolishness (with one very amusing exception that I wont share here to keep myself on track...). I don't think we particularly did things the "right way." But I had a dog with the drive to work and nowhere to train so we took the tests, pass or fail, just to give him the chance to get out there and enjoy himself. It was the only thing I could think of to do at the time. It just turns out that he passed at a much higher rate than he failed.... That's all him, I take no credit. He's Mr Perfect (and yes, I do call him that often). Given the choice, I don't think it would have been the route to the JH I would have chosen -- but it did get us there all the same. I still feel that on some level, a junior hunter <can> be very much a test that comes down to whether or not the dog "has it" in the same way a CCA looks at whether the dog "has it" as far as structure goes. I don't think that makes the test pitiful... Much the opposite, I think it makes it a great tool and an even better learning experience. But any dog entered would surely need solid foundations in obedience and at least a basic introduction (which is what I consider what I did with Jersey, getting out there a good dozen or so times, even if most of those days we used bumpers) to the sights/sounds/smells/birds of field work. And that definitely does require more prep work, no matter how you slice it, than the CCA. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## TrailDogs

Brave said:


> derail......
> 
> If clubs lose money on CCAs which is why they are not readily available, what can be done to make them more common - giving more dogs the opportunity get the CCA and prove they are within standard?
> 
> I assume you have entry fees for participants. Could those entry fees increase? How long does a CCA take for each dog? And is it just one judge per dog or all four judges evaluate the dog and confer to determine grade?
> 
> Would a CCA be the minimum title a performance/field dog need, in comparison to a JH on conformation dog.
> 
> Focusing on our common goals and ways to compromise so everyone wins. I guess tit for tat? Though I'm sure a JH is harder to get than a CCA. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> What comes before a JH? WC or WCX? Would those prove the dog retains the characteristics bred for the hunt (see Traildogs post a few pages back, and Barb's post on page 60).


The CCA does take all day as each dog is evaluated by three different judges. It needs the same amount of training as the breed ring, your dog does have to gait and stand and allow the judge to go over it. 
Each judge will give you a verbal and a written evaluation of your dog. They score the dog individually, not as a group. Your dog needs to pass under three judges and I think you are allowed one retry if all the judges don't pass you.
There is also a group mingle where several dogs are walked together in the ring to help evaluate temperament around strange dogs. 

As for JH and WC, they are just different tests of a dogs aptitude. They do require some training. The things I would look for in these levels of tests are how the dog handles birds, does the dog have drive, is he working with the handler etc. You can tell a lot about the dog if you can actually see the dog run these tests. The title alone is like any other title. There are many paths to get there and they are not all equal. 
The WCX is more challenging and more difficult than the JH because the dog is required to be steady, run a triple, and honor another dogs work. It does show a little more of the dog/handler teamwork. 
The field tests are fun to watch if you ever get a chance. The CCA may not be that useful for an observer because the conversations and scoring are private between the judge and the owner.


----------



## Brave

Thank you all so much for your posts. This is fantastic information I'm filing away. Idk if Bear could ever achieve any of these titles given he is a mutt (though AKC registered as an All-American), it's given me thoughts to attempt it. But the dead things give me pause. I can handle dead things no problem I just don't enjoy the idea of killing something with no intention of consuming or using the carcass in some manner. (Please don't tell me to eat it. Yuck! If only he could retrieve an elk!!) It seems like a waste. 

Back on topic... If a WC and WCX are GRCA titles, wouldn't those be more accurate proof of purpose given the GRCA puts it on? 

And I thought I read that there are more than a handful of show breeders putting WC or WCX on their dogs. 

I really would like to see some field trainers/breeders/handlers take Dana up on her challenge. I think it would be an amazing thing for the GRF. And maybe we would have proof to settle the controversy over the divide (at least a little bit??)


----------



## Jersey's Mom

TrailDogs said:


> The CCA may not be that useful for an observer because the conversations and scoring are private between the judge and the owner.


True. But if you ever have the opportunity to volunteer at one, particularly as the steward to one of the judges, you can learn a TON about golden structure. I highly recommend it!

Julie and the boys


----------



## Brave

TrailDogs said:


> As for JH and WC, they are just different tests of a dogs aptitude. They do require some training. The things I would look for in these levels of tests are how the dog handles birds, does the dog have drive, is he working with the handler etc. You can tell a lot about the dog if you can actually see the dog run these tests. *The title alone is like any other title. There are many paths to get there and they are not all equal.*


Can you expand on that? Is a WC or JH not enough proof in your book to ensure the dog retains its purpose? If yes, what will it take?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I'm going to gently disagree here....
Have you ever seen a really birdy dog the first time they see a bird? Even a dead bird?
Play, friends, food, everything (including a lot of obedience stuff, being told to leave stuff, anything) go TOTALLY out of their brains. Run right out their nose into the ground, and all that's left is BIRD BIRD BIRD BIRD BIRD.
They don't have to be told or shown to pick up a bird. They just do it. Some switch flips in their little brain and they go NUTS over feathers. Obsessed. Like doggie crack.
I've seen it several times. I've also seen dogs who have to be introduced to birds, too, so I do know the difference. And yes, with proper introduction and training a lot of the dogs who had to be encouraged go on to become fine hunt test dogs, and probably fine hunting dogs. But it's not the same thing as the raw instinct and ability that I'm talking about.
For example, we introduced a 1 year old puppy to a dead pheasant, and she showed the true bird desire that I personally love to see in the Goldens. Never saw any feathers before that, but as soon as she saw that bird nothing else in the world existed for her except that bird. She needed no encouragement or help to go pick it up, quite the opposite, keeping her away from it would have been quite a challenge. When we put the bird away, despite there being other puppies here to play with, she went and sat on the floor near where the bird had last been (on my clothes dryer) waiting for it to reappear. 
That's bird instinct. 
Another 16 week old puppy...we tossed a BIG rooster pheasant into some tall (for him) cover, and he RACED out and grabbed that bird, dragging it back proud as could be. He, too, never saw a bird before. 
That's bird instinct, too.
And dogs like that truly need a bare minimum of training to pass a WC or a JH. The 1 year old puppy I'm talking about went on to quickly pass a couple of HRC started tests despite having only a couple of training sessions, and no formal obedience background. The biggest thing is getting them to deliver to hand.
Now SH and MH are a whole different ballgame, and yes, there is extensive training required.

edit to add....like Julie, I don't mean to take away from people who are dedicated and spend time training their dogs, not at all. Just want to point out that the WC and JH don't necessarily require a lot of formal training if the dog has a lot of field instinct. Except for getting the dog to deliver to hand in a lot of cases, which can in fact require quite a bit of training for some dogs.




Megora said:


> With JH - I was surprised to hear somebody really tell me how easy it can be for a dog who has decent drive and control. But it does take training to get them used to retrieving with stuff going on around them (no PLAY?!! FRIENDZ!! moments) and also picking up dead birds (after lifetime of their mom screaming at them not to even SNIFF dead animals feathered or furred). Bertie knows how to retrieve and it is starting to get a lot more enthusiastic the more mature he is, but I need to find time to go where those field people go to train just to get him used to some kind of field set up. I've never been to exposed to any of that and neither has he. It's not something I'm looking forward to doing for reasons already explained. LOL.
> 
> Because I've heard of people training 1-2 summers with their dogs before going after the JH.... I do think it requires training. Same thing with the WC. I think you have to credit the people out there who go out and do all that training. As opposed to spending $100's more on re-tests if their dogs should fail.


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is a non-answer, but I think the point is that the title itself doesn't tell you all that much, at least the lower level titles.

A dog who, after 4 sessions of field training, goes out and slams 4 JH tests in a row to get the title, with style, enthusiasm, and an obvious love of the sport earns a JH title.

But what about a dog who, after living with a professional trainer for a year, takes over 30 attempts to earn 4 passes, and is painful to watch because that dog very obviously doesn't give a hoot about birds, hunting, or pretty much anything else about being out in the field? That dog earns THE EXACT SAME TITLE.

You see?



Brave said:


> Can you expand on that? Is a WC or JH not enough proof in your book to ensure the dog retains its purpose? If yes, what will it take?


----------



## Brave

Thanks Barb!

That brings me back to how do we prove we've retained these instincts/abilities? Does it come down to throwing a bird away from them and seeing if they go for it? 

I can understand why some would take offense if after getting a JH or a WCX someone slammed them for lack of style. 

I can put myself in those shoes. Say I go and get a JH on Bear. And it took me a bit and lord knows I'll mess up. He is my experiment dog, afterall. And we finally get the title. And someone comes by and insults his run. To me that would be fighting words (metaphorically) given how much time, energy, and emotion we put into it as a team. 

It kinda feels like the goal posts change. 

Goal: get a WC or JH on all breeding stock
ACHIEVED!
Corrected Goal: do it with style as defined by a third party <--- which isn't even in the standard or the COE that I recall. 

This leaves people feeling like they're being cheated and they are playing a rigged game where the house always wins.


----------



## Ljilly28

Tito is a great example of a dog with show breeding who is a real bird dog , as good as 50 years ago.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Thanks Jill!


----------



## hotel4dogs

No, but I think the point is that just looking at titles isn't good enough when we are looking at breeding stock.
Again, as always, I am making a differentiation between pet dogs and dogs who are breeding stock. Pet dogs don't need to be held to the highest standards that the breeding dogs should be held to. If anyone were to say that you and Bear didn't have enough "style" getting a JH, those should be fighting words! You aren't out to prove him in order to breed him, you are just enjoying doing something wonderful with your dog. 
Good breeders look beyond the titles. If they haven't had a chance to personally see the dog in the show ring, or the obedience ring, or the field, etc., they will ask for opinions from others they trust who have, in fact, watched the dog perform. They quite likely will contact field trainers and/or judges to get information about the dog. I have had more than one contact Tito's show handler to ask about his temperament. Several have called the pro we take field lessons from.
So it's not really that you have to go out and toss a bird, it's more that the really good breeders should, and do, look beyond the title to see the dog that's behind it.
And there are some dogs who have no field titles at all, who are amazing hunting dogs. Again, a good breeder does due diligence and knows that the titles don't mean everything.
The example was made of a dog on this forum, whose owner posts wonderful hunting photos. While that dog has no titles, I don't think anyone would dispute his hunting ability.




Brave said:


> Thanks Barb!
> 
> That brings me back to how do we prove we've retained these instincts/abilities? Does it come down to throwing a bird away from them and seeing if they go for it?
> 
> I can understand why some would take offense if after getting a JH or a WCX someone slammed them for lack of style.
> 
> I can put myself in those shoes. Say I go and get a JH on Bear. And it took me a bit and lord knows I'll mess up. He is my experiment dog, afterall. And we finally get the title. And someone comes by and insults his run. To me that would be fighting words (metaphorically) given how much time, energy, and emotion we put into it as a team.
> 
> It kinda feels like the goal posts change.
> 
> Goal: get a WC or JH on all breeding stock
> ACHIEVED!
> Corrected Goal: do it with style as defined by a third party <--- which isn't even in the standard or the COE that I recall.
> 
> This leaves people feeling like they're being cheated and they are playing a rigged game where the house always wins.


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> It needs the same amount of training as the breed ring, your dog does have to gait and stand and allow the judge to go over it.


I have to adamantly disagree with that. They make a point the dog can be CCA'd without breed ring training. I have known many, many goldens to take the CCA, and it is wonderful bc they learn about their dogs. I have never heard of anyone failing it, even some very faulty pet dogs who train here with me. That is not to say no dogs ever fail, just that I have never heard of one. To me the CCA signifies an interested owner with a commendable thirst for knowledge, but doesnt say much about the dog/improving the breed. I think maybe it is too much to say a JH is equal to a major in the breed ring, but certainly single points. The CCA is an educational tool to support learning about the breed standard.


----------



## TrailDogs

Brave said:


> Can you expand on that? Is a WC or JH not enough proof in your book to ensure the dog retains its purpose? If yes, what will it take?


OK, to clarify, this pertains to any title, field, show, conformation etc. I like to see and know the actual dogs if I am breeding. I wouldn't just accept the title as proof positive that the dog had what I wanted or needed in a breeding program. 
Titles in a pedigree are a piece of the information needed but not everything.
There are dogs with FC's that I avoid in pedigrees because they are not the dog for me.
Your example of trying to get a JH on your dog is a good example. If the dog is failing due to lack of training or handler errors that is no reflection on the dog. If I see a dog run and like what I see, even if the handler mucks things up, I will take a closer look at the dog.
And it is not about proving anything to anyone else. It is a working relationship between you and your dog. People get titles for different reasons.


----------



## hotel4dogs

a bit off topic, but one breeding inquiry I got started with her asking me, "tell me all of Tito's faults and weaknesses. I know his strengths". 
Very enjoyable person to deal with, I loved her approach.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I agree 1000%



Ljilly28 said:


> I have to adamantly disagree with that. They make a point the dog can be CCA'd without breed ring training. I have known many, many goldens to take the CCA, and it is wonderful bc they learn about their dogs. I have never heard of anyone failing it, even some very faulty pet dogs who train here with me. That is not to say no dogs ever fail, just that I have never heard of one. To me the CCA signifies an interested owner with a commendable thirst for knowledge, but doesnt say much about the dog/improving the breed. I think maybe it is too much to say a JH is equal to a major in the breed ring, but certainly single points. The CCA is an educational tool to support learning about the breed standard.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm going to gently disagree here....
> Have you ever seen a really birdy dog the first time they see a bird? Even a dead bird?


Barb - yes. I've always had dogs. Since I was a little girl. They see any animals and they get excited about checking it out.

I heavily train "LEAVE IT" - because I'm out and about and I want my dogs trained. Very least, they have to be trained at home because we have no fences and the dogs can't go chasing turkeys or whatever comes on our property (last summer it was sandhill cranes that Bertie kept trying to chase).

Prior to Jacks and Bertie, our dogs were kept on leash until they could be trusted not to chase anything.

Jacks earned his trust by the time he was 3. I could easily call him off a rabbit or bird or whatever (piece of paper rolling down the street....?).... 

Bertie basically always had my trust because while he is super interested in small animals and birds... he's also very obedient. 

This training has advanced to the point where the ponds and lakes they swim at have birds, but the dogs ignore them because THEY WERE TRAINED TO IGNORE THEM. 

^ Words blocked caps for emphasis, not shouting.

Not since many years ago with my Charmy have I sent my dogs out after an animal. I don't really know what I'll get after all the leave it training. Probably like somebody said on this thread, wouldn't take much and probably would shortly after be dealing with retraining control to keep my dogs from getting over excited about birds again after experiencing actually being allowed to fetch them (especially alive).


----------



## hotel4dogs

I also want to make a quick comment about the breed ring, in case people aren't aware of how it works. This is really really basic, and I'm leaving out a lot, but will give you some understanding.
To earn a CH title, the dog has to earn a total of 15 points under (I forget how many) different judges.
There are "minor wins", just like it sounds, the dog won but it wasn't a big entry. If a dog beats one other dog, that is going to be a "minor win", worth just a single point. There are also "major wins", just like that sounds, the dog won over quite a few other dogs. 
The point values are determined by how many dogs are competing. Majors can be worth 3, 4, or 5 points.
The number of dogs required to make up a "major win" varies by area of the country, to allow for the fact that some areas draw huge entries whereas others (think Alaska, for example) never do. 
When Tito was showing, we needed at least 21 dogs (males) entered, that were not already CH dogs, to earn 3 points. 
In order to earn the CH title, the dog must have at least two "major wins". That means that a dog cannot simply go to a bunch of small shows, beat 2 or 3 other dogs 15 times, and become a CH. (this is AKC, other kennel clubs vary). So in Tito's case, in our area, he had to beat at least 20 other dogs, at least twice, in order to earn the CH title. If you get a "bigger major win", a 4 or 5 point, you will have to beat more dogs. For our 4 point wins I believe we had to beat 28 other dogs, the 5 point wins were over 30 dogs. 
That's why it's so hard to get a CH title on a Golden, it's a very competitive breed with lots of fine quality dogs in the show ring, and you have to beat bunches of them at least twice.
A CCA is fantastic information, and well, well worth doing. 
A CH title is another whole ballgame.


----------



## TrailDogs

hotel4dogs said:


> I agree 1000%


I disagree 1000%


----------



## hotel4dogs

It's okay, we can agree to disagree!




TrailDogs said:


> I disagree 1000%


----------



## Stretchdrive

Ljilly28 said:


> I have to adamantly disagree with that. They make a point the dog can be CCA'd without breed ring training. I have known many, many goldens to take the CCA, and it is wonderful bc they learn about their dogs. I have never heard of anyone failing it, even some very faulty pet dogs who train here with me. That is not to say no dogs ever fail, just that I have never heard of one. To me the CCA signifies an interested owner with a commendable thirst for knowledge, but doesnt say much about the dog/improving the breed. I think maybe it is too much to say a JH is equal to a major in the breed ring, but certainly single points. The CCA is an educational tool to support learning about the breed standard.


 My boy Rivet failed the CCA. He passed on total points between the three judges, but failed on one judge by 1/2 point, so he ended up failing.


----------



## hotel4dogs

But he can enter again under 3 new judges, and would probably pass at least 1 of them, hence earning the CCA.
Good to see you here!




Stretchdrive said:


> My boy Rivet failed the CCA. He passed on total points between the three judges, but failed on one judge by 1/2 point, so he ended up failing.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> OK, to clarify, this pertains to any title, field, show, conformation etc. I like to see and know the actual dogs if I am breeding. I wouldn't just accept the title as proof positive that the dog had what I wanted or needed in a breeding program.
> Titles in a pedigree are a piece of the information needed but not everything.
> There are dogs with FC's that I avoid in pedigrees because they are not the dog for me.
> Your example of trying to get a JH on your dog is a good example. If the dog is failing due to lack of training or handler errors that is no reflection on the dog. If I see a dog run and like what I see, even if the handler mucks things up, I will take a closer look at the dog.
> And it is not about proving anything to anyone else. It is a working relationship between you and your dog. People get titles for different reasons.


I think in the larger context of the discussion we have recently been having in this thread, the standard is what is the minimum title you need to see to be able to admit that a certain dog -- say one of my show dogs, for example -- still retains the qualities or purpose of the breed.

I agree that it seems like the goal posts are constantly moving. I'm offering to take the challenge. But I need those goal posts set in stone.


----------



## Megora

To follow up with what Barb just said.

1. Be an owner handler and show a golden at a show and beat a bunch of other dogs, including well known dogs handled by well-known handlers. And only get one point.  

Swallowed that? OK. 

Once you've convinced yourself that's not really that bad and hey you really worked hard for that point, blah blah...

Go watch some other breeds show. 

While you have to beat a ton of dogs to get a major (3 points).... there's other breeds where the people get majors for beating fewer dogs than you did when you got just 1 point.

And add to that. Some of these breeds have a really "close community" as far as breeders calling buddies to come show their lesser quality dogs to build numbers for a major. Or even just to get points. <- This means that their dogs don't necessarily have to be really GREAT BREED QUALITY to win (like with goldens sometimes), because they don't have the same level of competition. 

I would not want to switch breeds because I love my breed. I'm not in this because I love a sport more than I love the breed. I've seen conversations elsewhere with people asking what's the easiest breed to show as far as what to buy... and I don't understand that mentality.


----------



## Stretchdrive

hotel4dogs said:


> But he can enter again under 3 new judges, and would probably pass at least 1 of them, hence earning the CCA.
> Good to see you here!


 Rivet is almost 8 now, so for him it is not important to me anymore. I did find it very interesting though, and learned some stuff. I like how they give you your written results, and comments since it is easy to forget stuff as they are telling you it all at once. I think it makes you more aware of things. I would do it again, but only with an intact dog/bitch.


----------



## DanaRuns

Hello? Is this thing on? 91 pages, and I'm getting _zero_ responses to my question. Okay, let me ask it another way:

Can we stipulate that a WC or JH will demonstrate that my show dog retains the natural instincts that Goldens were bred for back in the days of gentleman hunters?


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> I think in the larger context of the discussion we have recently been having in this thread, the standard is what do you need to see to be able to admit that a certain dog -- say one of my show dogs, for example -- still retains the qualities or purpose of the breed.
> 
> I agree that it seems like the goal posts are constantly moving. I'm offering to take the challenge. But I need those goal posts set in stone.


If you got your dog certified as a S & R dog I would say that dog exhibited a lot of the best qualities of the breed. That is what you enjoy doing. The dog and handler need to both have a stake in whatever activities are pursued. Titles should be about you and the dog.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> If you got your dog certified as a S & R dog I would say that dog exhibited a lot of the best qualities of the breed. That is what you enjoy doing. The dog and handler need to both have a stake in whatever activities are pursued. Titles should be about you and the dog.


Yeah, that's nice, but that doesn't answer my question. And it's going to take about 3 years to get that SAR certification. It's a way bigger commitment and far more dangerous than a mere hunting dog. And it's a calling. It's not something someone does for fun with their dog.

The challenge was about Claudia taking her dog into the breed ring (I didn't see her offer to put a CH on any dogs), and I accepted the challenge to take one of my "fancie" (sic) show dogs into the field. The notion was that I had to demonstrate that my show dog has not lost the ability to be a gentleman hunter's dog.

So, what is the _minimum_ title you and the other field folks will accept for you to admit that my show dog still retains the ability to fulfill its original purpose (gentleman hunting dog)? I am offering to put a WC or JH on a dog. Will that suffice?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I thought we had answered it by discussing the fact that low level titles don't really mean all that much in terms of instinct and ability....no, I wouldn't accept a JH or WC as proof that the show dog retains the natural instincts that Goldens were bred for back in the day, unless I (or someone I trusted) saw the dog run. 
As I said, there are some dogs (that was not a hypothetical example) who take many, many, many, MANY tries to pass a JH. That, to me, proves nothing about the dog's ability.
OTOH, if you, after just a couple of weeks of training, went out and got 4 successive passes and earned the JH, then I would probably agree that it does demonstrate it.




DanaRuns said:


> Hello? Is this thing on? 91 pages, and I'm getting _zero_ responses to my question. Okay, let me ask it another way:
> 
> Can we stipulate that a WC or JH will demonstrate that my show dog retains the natural instincts that Goldens were bred for back in the days of gentleman hunters?


----------



## DanaRuns

So, there's no minimum title you folks would accept as proof that the dog retains its purpose. Therefore, no matter what I do, you can always look down your noses and claim my dog has lost its purpose, because he hasn't gotten that next title, or didn't do it fast enough, or not with enough style for you.

Seems like a lot of cow poop to me.

If a field person wanted to know what it would take to prove that their dog maintains adequate conformation to the breed standard, I might say go put a single point on a dog in the show ring. I don't care how long it takes. You don't have to do it first time out. Just get some judge to say your dog was the best that day. That at least shows that you are attempting to keep your field dog within the standard. But you will not give a conformation breeder the same thing, where there is a title they can put on their dog to show that it hasn't completely lost the original purpose.

There is no pleasing you folks. So why should anyone bother listening to field people?


----------



## Kmullen

hotel4dogs said:


> I thought we had answered it by discussing the fact that low level titles don't really mean all that much in terms of instinct and ability....no, I wouldn't accept a JH or WC as proof that the show dog retains the natural instincts that Goldens were bred for back in the day, unless I (or someone I trusted) saw the dog run.
> As I said, there are some dogs (that was not a hypothetical example) who take many, many, many, MANY tries to pass a JH. That, to me, proves nothing about the dog's ability.
> OTOH, if you, after just a couple of weeks of training, went out and got 4 successive passes and earned the JH, then I would probably agree that it does demonstrate it.


Barb, so I am going back to Claudia's comment that a dog or bitch should not be bred if he/she doesn't have a JH/WC In the first five generations. Just saying awesome Tito would not have existed  And IMO Tito is quite an awesome golden retriever.


----------



## Loisiana

I agree with Barb, it's not about earning the title, it's about HOW the dog trained and earned it. If you have to train really, really hard for a really really long time before the dog is successful, then that is a title you should be proud of because you worked hard towards a goal, but it shows a lot more about your training determination than your dog's hunting skills. 

I do think a dog with decent natural field abilities should be able to pass JH level skills after a handful of training sessions. That does not mean I necessarily think good dogs should be entered after just a few training sessions, a good trainer who is looking to go far with their dog will train much farther than minimum JH standards before their dog is entered.


----------



## DanaRuns

hotel4dogs said:


> I thought we had answered it by discussing the fact that low level titles don't really mean all that much in terms of instinct and ability....no, I wouldn't accept a JH or WC as proof that the show dog retains the natural instincts that Goldens were bred for back in the day, unless I (or someone I trusted) saw the dog run.
> As I said, there are some dogs (that was not a hypothetical example) who take many, many, many, MANY tries to pass a JH. That, to me, proves nothing about the dog's ability.
> OTOH, if you, after just a couple of weeks of training, went out and got 4 successive passes and earned the JH, then I would probably agree that it does demonstrate it.


I have a question: If a dog failed a JH three times, is that a dog that should be bred? Would a field person want a puppy from such a dog?


----------



## Kmullen

DanaRuns said:


> So, there's no minimum title you folks would accept as proof that the dog retains its purpose. Therefore, no matter what I do, you can always look down your noses and claim my dog has lost its purpose, because he hasn't gotten that next title, or didn't do it fast enough, or not with enough style for you.
> 
> Seems like a lot of cow poop to me.
> 
> If a field person wanted to know what it would take to prove that their dog maintains adequate conformation to the breed standard, I might say go put a single point on a dog in the show ring. I don't care how long it takes. You don't have to do it first time out. Just get some judge to say your dog was the best that day. That at least shows that you are attempting to keep your field dog within the standard. But you will not give a conformation breeder the same thing, where there is a title they can put on their dog to show that it hasn't completely lost the original purpose.
> 
> There is no pleasing you folks. So why should anyone bother listening to field people?



I agree with you as that is what I have felt the whole time... But I have an answer for you! Your dog must be a field trial dog to maintain the purpose of the dog.


----------



## Kmullen

Loisiana said:


> I agree with Barb, it's not about earning the title, it's about HOW the dog trained and earned it. If you have to train really, really hard for a really really long time before the dog is successful, then that is a title you should be proud of because you worked hard towards a goal, but it shows a lot more about your training determination than your dog's hunting skills.
> 
> I do think a dog with decent field natural field abilities should be able to pass JH level skills after a handful of training sessions. That does not mean I necessarily think good dogs should be entered after just a few training sessions, a good trainer who is looking to go far with their dog will train much farther than minimum JH standards before their dog is entered.


I very much agree with this.


----------



## Megora

kfayard said:


> Barb, so I am going back to Claudia's comment that a dog or bitch should not be bred if he/she doesn't have a JH/WC In the first five generations. Just saying awesome Tito would not have existed  And IMO Tito is quite an awesome golden retriever.


Kelli - shhh!

I like Claudia's statement. I'm not a breeder but it says good things about my dogs who both have JH's in the first 5 generations behind them. First 3 for Bertie and first 3 for Jacks if you pull up a vertical pedigree and look at a Mirasol dog (not a big name but a girl with a UD, JH, and WC) behind him. If that's all you need.... lol.


----------



## Loisiana

DanaRuns said:


> Just get some judge to say your dog was the best that day. That at least shows that you are attempting to keep your field dog within the standard. But you will not give a conformation breeder the same thing, where there is a title they can put on their dog to show that it hasn't completely lost the original purpose.


To me, that's the difference right there. To get a conformation point you have to WIN. It's not a judge saying your dog conforms to the standard, it is the dog saying you have the best dog there that day. If you want the equivalent of that, you'd need a field event where there is competition. Which would be field trials. I, for one, would be willing to say that if you won (heck, got any placement) at a field trial stake your dog has some aptitude for field. That does not mean that only dogs who do field trials are good hunting dogs though.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

DanaRuns said:


> I have a question: If a dog failed a JH three times, is that a dog that should be bred? Would a field person want a puppy from such a dog?


Based on the comments in the thread, I would be surprised if a "field person" wanted a puppy from a dog that failed the JH several, let's say 3, times unless there were extenuating circumstances. Even with extentuating circumstances I'm not sure they would.


----------



## cubbysan

Selli-Belle said:


> I have volunteered to help run the Marshbanks GRC CCA event this fall. The club runs one every other year. We are a small but active club and Marcia Schlehr (who basically founded the club) was instrumental in creating the CCA. We are also in an area with a number of Golden clubs.
> 
> Maybe because of Marcia, I don't think the club is overly concerned with making money on the CCA, it wasn't even mentioned when discussing the arrangements. Oh and Marshbanks is far more of a performance/field club than a show club.


We lose money every specialty, so we can afford to lose anymore. AKC fees, property rental, porta potty rentals, tent rentals and all the judge fees are more than the entry fees. Maybe it costs us more in judge travel fees because the are usually coming from the two coasts. We have a separate show later in the year for all breed agility, that is what help pays for our specialty. Adding a CCA would just put us more in the red for that specialty show. $75 times 20 dogs would barely pay the three judges plane tickets.


----------



## Loisiana

What if the GRCA were to look at allowing a CCA to be held with less than 3 judges. The dog still had to qualify with three judges, they would just have to go to multiple events. 

So my local club brings in one CCA judge in conjunction with their specialty every year. And the club five hours away does the same thing. So I go to the local club's specialty and get a qualifying score, go to the other club's specialty and get a score, and then the following year go back to my local club, and in one year I've gotten the CCA. Reduce entry fees some, but not by a third so clubs don't lose money. Yeah it's more time and money on my part, but as it is NEITHER of those clubs offer CCA so it's something I'd be willing to do.

I wonder if that would be something GRCA should consider?


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Loisiana said:


> To me, that's the difference right there. To get a conformation point you have to WIN. It's not a judge saying your dog conforms to the standard, it is the dog saying you have the best dog there that day. If you want the equivalent of that, you'd need a field event where there is competition. Which would be field trials. I, for one, would be willing to say that if you won (heck, got any placement) at a field trial stake your dog has some aptitude for field. That does not mean that only dogs who do field trials are good hunting dogs though.



Some aptitude in the field? I'd say a placement at any stake would be indicative of well more than that. Remember, you can get 1 point in conformation by beating just one dog.... It's probably not likely, but someone who has competed in conformation might be able to give an idea about how many dogs you might see at a small show. A small entry would never be the case at a field trial, to my knowledge. With the land requirements and cost, I've never really gotten the impression that there is an over abundance of them to be had. Just a thought. I personally don't think there's any really good perfect match between any level of conformation and any level of field that couldn't be argued to be unfair to one side or the other on some level. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## cubbysan

Megora said:


> To follow up with what Barb just said.
> 
> 1. Be an owner handler and show a golden at a show and beat a bunch of other dogs, including well known dogs handled by well-known handlers. And only get one point.
> 
> Swallowed that? OK.
> 
> Once you've convinced yourself that's not really that bad and hey you really worked hard for that point, blah blah...
> 
> Go watch some other breeds show.
> 
> While you have to beat a ton of dogs to get a major (3 points).... there's other breeds where the people get majors for beating fewer dogs than you did when you got just 1 point.
> 
> And add to that. Some of these breeds have a really "close community" as far as breeders calling buddies to come show their lesser quality dogs to build numbers for a major. Or even just to get points. <- This means that their dogs don't necessarily have to be really GREAT BREED QUALITY to win (like with goldens sometimes), because they don't have the same level of competition.
> 
> I would not want to switch breeds because I love my breed. I'm not in this because I love a sport more than I love the breed. I've seen conversations elsewhere with people asking what's the easiest breed to show as far as what to buy... and I don't understand that mentality.



I have always said that a Championship for a popular breed like Golden is worth so much more than smaller breeds. In New England, I have seen over 50 goldens entered. German Shepherds too. Must get so frustrating. My friend showed English Mastiffs, and usually less than five would be in the ring and they would enter their pet quality dogs to build up points.


----------



## Selli-Belle

cubbysan said:


> We lose money every specialty, so we can afford to lose anymore. AKC fees, property rental, porta potty rentals, tent rentals and all the judge fees are more than the entry fees. Maybe it costs us more in judge travel fees because the are usually coming from the two coasts. We have a separate show later in the year for all breed agility, that is what help pays for our specialty. Adding a CCA would just put us more in the red for that specialty show. $75 times 20 dogs would barely pay the three judges plane tickets.


I am lucky (as a person who really likes the CCA program) that I live where I do since we have three clubs within a few hours and many well-known breeders, breeder-judges and CCA evaluators in that same area.


----------



## DanaRuns

This is the problem with extremists all over the world. You cannot be reasonable with them. Their only level of acceptance is to be one of them. So it is with field people; they are not so much Golden enthusiasts as field enthusiasts who love a very narrow sliver of Goldens.



cubbysan said:


> I have always said that a Championship for a popular breed like Golden is worth so much more than smaller breeds. In New England, I have seen over 50 goldens entered. German Shepherds too. Must get so frustrating. My friend showed English Mastiffs, and usually less than five would be in the ring and they would enter their pet quality dogs to build up points.


We had 88 Goldens this weekend. And only two of them got points (one dog and one bitch).


----------



## LJack

Loisiana said:


> To me, that's the difference right there. To get a conformation point you have to WIN. It's not a judge saying your dog conforms to the standard, it is the dog saying you have the best dog there that day. If you want the equivalent of that, you'd need a field event where there is competition. Which would be field trials. I, for one, would be willing to say that if you won (heck, got any placement) at a field trial stake your dog has some aptitude for field. That does not mean that only dogs who do field trials are good hunting dogs though.


I don't really think the two disciplines are directly relatable in that way. Much like the many horse disciplines are not the same: roping, racing, dressage, jumping, etc and they are hard to compare levels of aptitude, training and achievement.

But staying in this vain, I would hazard placing in a trial would be closer to a group placement and winning the trial would be more closely related to Best In Show. As I undestand it trials are usually gun dog not breed specific. Maybe a Championship or even Major Wins would be closer to a Golden placing or winning a Golden only field trial.


----------



## Loisiana

My point wasn't that field trial wins are equal to conformation wins, but pointing out that conformation points require wins while WC and JH just require meeting the minimum standard. Which is why I think they are more comparable to a CCA.


----------



## John G

DanaRuns said:


> Claudia, judges do say none are good enough to award championship points to, and will refuse to name a winner.
> 
> Plus, let me move that line where it belongs. You NEVER see 30 dogs, 28 short in leg with big head and small eyes and 2 dogs are correct in leg, correct in muzzle but has other more serious faults. Never.
> 
> Out of 88 Goldens in the ring today, I'd say maybe four or five were too short in leg (and none of them won anything). A few others were too long, with too much loin. None had both short legs and too much loin. The world you describe is not one I've ever seen, and I'm at dog shows almost every weekend.
> 
> Of course, if your idea of just enough leg is this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...then you will think all the dogs in the conformation ring are short of leg. But that's not what Jeff Pepper was talking about. That dog, imho, is out of standard concerning leg: "a symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, *not ... long in the leg*."
> 
> Have you seen what the GRCA thinks a Golden looks like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the kind of leg most of the dogs in the ring had today.


 I've taken the time to read the OP and then the last 25 pages or so. I'm not a Conformation expert and don't pretend to be. I do, however, have a bit of experience with the breed.

Goldens were not created or invented to win Beauty or Conformation shows. They didn't really exist then. The breed was created as most "older" breeds were to work or hunt. 

As with many early breed standards the "form" or looks followed function-to hunt or retrieve. In other words, the conformation was one that was thought would optimally make the dog perform his task of hunting. That is why chest, leg proportion, movement, etc. were spelled out in the days before radiographs and slow motion camaras and other means of evaluating dogs not to mention better understanding and testing of genetics.

Mention has been made about Jeffrey Pepper and his assessment of Goldens. he is very knowledgeable about the breed, but his is just an opinion, not a fact. He, like many (or most) are biased.

I take with the photo that Dana posts here. I don't believe (even for a second) that Lucy is in any way a bench worthy Golden specimen. However, all the angles and symmetry and ratios that are used to predict how well a dog will function in the field are of little value with her.

She is over ten years old in this picture. I know this dog. Yes, she is a very rare FC AFC. More importantly she can and will still at this age still run circles around most Goldens even those a fraction of her age. So much for her legs and proportions! Same goes for her intelligence and style, focus, prey drive and so much more. On the bench you can't tell that she has excellent hips, but she does. 

Also, I would like to comment on the picture that Stacy posted of the Golden with the white with the nice head and chest. I know this dog well, also. He definitely would not stand a chance in the ring. What a shame perhaps. BTW Jake is 13 years old in this picture!

The white would be a deal breaker for most. Heck I'm not crazy about the white on Jake any more than I like the ears on Lucy. 

Dogs should be looked at in their entirety. (The GRCA says so, so I know it's true!) To me both dogs have faults (as do all dogs). These two dogs to me, have strengths that far outweigh their cosmetic faults. 

To me, the breed is about the functional dog. A dog that is able to function and perform and excel at the highest level. Yes, almost any dog can be trained to retrieve (remember Lassie?). Our breeds purpose is to excel at this task.

Temperament and style are part of this. They also should not look like a Curly Coat or Pyrenees or any other breed. They can still have much variety in looks and still "conform".

The Oldest pictures we have do for the most part more favor the current range of field dogs than the current Conformation dogs. 

Yes, our breed has, and should continue to evolve. If you are not advancing, you most definitely are moving backwards! As Judy Rasmussen pointed out in her article, overdone or excess wins in the ring because they stand out in the crowd. 

Do you think that a dog has to stand out to win a 100 dog Open Field Trial where 90-99% of the dogs are not even Goldens? How do those of you competing in agility feel about only getting your MACH title if you had to win an event against 100 Border Collies and Aussies?

Golden's are great because of their field heritage, not in spite of it. That does not mean that the only good Golden is a field Golden or that everyone should attempt field work with their Golden.

It is a great versatile breed that can and does excel in many venues because of their field heritage complete with athleticism and brains. Temperament is very important. Looks are just icing on the cake. 

A few other thoughts and comments;
Stacy, I don't think Stanley is too curly, many Goldens of earlier days had this type coat. Unfortunately, many Goldens being shown today have coats that are so sculpted, we can't tell how much wave or curl they have unless you know the dog before the blow dryer.

Claudia, I don't believe that every litter has some that will be good in the field. Some just don't.

Dana, first of all, thank you for your service to our Country. No, I don't hope you fail on your field title, should you attempt it. Furthermore, I would be happy to help you should you seek any help in this endeavor. I am a Field enthusiast that happens to compete with Goldens in Field Trials and Hunt Tests. My dogs are first and foremost members of our household and hunters. I have competed with them in other venues such as obedience, CCA, WC/X, agility, Dock Diving (former world champion) as well as doing therapy work and think that any and all things that we participate with our dogs (including Conformation) are great. 

I am a Golden Enthusiast! I agree that you don't have to compete in field events to prove that your dog retains what the breed was intended to do. You also don't need titles. 

How many, though will go out and hunt with the dog to see how well it performs, or do SAR and see it's ability to problem solve or work all day?

The show ring does not replicate a field dog's ability to run and swim all day. Hunting or running a dog all day does.
Hard to compare the CCA to a WC or JH. No dogs are excluded automatically from getting a field certificate. Some dogs, though have conformation faults that will exclude them no matter how much they "train" for the CCA assessment.

WC and JH are both great ways for people to show that their dog still retains the basics of what the breed is intended for. I don't belittle them. My most accomplished field dog failed a JH once when a friends son was running him and he got tangled in a decoy string. I'm inclined to think more about his FC and AFC titles and that he was one of the first dogs in the Nation one year to qualify for the National Open Stake.

I get those that don't want to mess with dead birds for whatever reason. There are so many other ways to enjoy and prove your dogs mettle. Challenge your dogs and yourself.

Enjoy our breed and it's diversity. Enjoy training. Enjoy competing. Enjoy your dogs!

John 

Owned by FC AFC Firemarks Elusive One OD, 
FC AFC La Crosse Max Q Jake JH FDHOF OS
Riverbottoms Max Q Annie*** MH CCA CGC
also Maverick-Derby list and Louie-Derby points and still running.
They look the best with a bird or a blue ribbon.


----------



## LJack

John G...Simply...Thank You.


----------



## Megora

John - that was the most well presented and intelligent thing said on this thread and probably in a long time. THANK YOU.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Loisiana said:


> What if the GRCA were to look at allowing a CCA to be held with less than 3 judges. The dog still had to qualify with three judges, they would just have to go to multiple events.
> 
> So my local club brings in one CCA judge in conjunction with their specialty every year. And the club five hours away does the same thing. So I go to the local club's specialty and get a qualifying score, go to the other club's specialty and get a score, and then the following year go back to my local club, and in one year I've gotten the CCA. Reduce entry fees some, but not by a third so clubs don't lose money. Yeah it's more time and money on my part, but as it is NEITHER of those clubs offer CCA so it's something I'd be willing to do.
> 
> I wonder if that would be something GRCA should consider?


I am the GRCA CCA Chair- and I can say no really quickly to this idea~
the program is set up to require 3 evaluators. Only two of the three must be judges as well - the third can be a breeder who has been approved as an evaluator. That person is called a Cat 2 while the judges are called Cat 1= a title takes a minimum of 2 Cat 1 passes, the third can be from either category. 
Having all the evaluators see the dog on the same day, in mingle with the same dogs, is an important aspect of the temperament section. It'd be impossible to do that w/events spread all over, and the paperwork- so crucial to the program and the backbone really, that would be insane to try to manage!! It's so labor intensive already I'd be on my knees begging for help if we did them one eval at a time!

Some clubs DO make money on their CCA events. It's not a lot,but it's not in the red. Those clubs have super organized secretaries, and know how to choose their evaluators, use a somewhat local Cat 2 person (each event must have at least 2 Cat 1's) and they fill quickly- because of the extensive time involved in a CCA evaluation, a max of 24 dogs may be evaluated and they are taken in groups of three, then rotated between the evaluators. There is a great article on the GRCA site under events/CCA/for the participant about the day of the event. It's a quick read and explains how it happens. The dogs are scheduled and most of the time, it's a half day commitment, since you know when you are to be evaluated. 
We worked YEARS to develop the program, and more years to refine it- it's hugely successful, several other breeds have modelled their own programs after the CCA, and we strive to educate people about their dogs! Most evaluators don't get paid but some do- it all depends on the agreement reached between the club and the evaluator. We have a large (I think) number of evaluators in each area of the country, and they have over the years become much more consistent. And (I'm touching on previous CCA posts ) lots of dogs do not pass the first time around... we have also had quite a few CHs enter and evaluate. I used to count them, but don't any more, since they number now over 30 or so. About 250 dogs a year earn the CCA title, more or less (though I do count every year for the year end report which can be found in the GRN fall issue)- 
I don't think it is lack of positive cash flow as much as it is a very labor intensive event for a club to hold. It takes a really organized mind to do well, and many clubs don't have those folks. (thanks Hank - one of the most organized secretaries we have!)


----------



## hotel4dogs

I didn't agree with Claudia  , hence my point about titles not being the be-all and end-all. 
But your point is very, very well taken. There are no working dogs in his pedigree anywhere. So no, he should not exist, according to a lot of people (including me!). He wasn't bred to be a show dog, either, and neither of his parents were shown. He was bred by someone whose desire was to maintain the integrity of the original Golden retriever, and in that, she was successful.




kfayard said:


> Barb, so I am going back to Claudia's comment that a dog or bitch should not be bred if he/she doesn't have a JH/WC In the first five generations. Just saying awesome Tito would not have existed  And IMO Tito is quite an awesome golden retriever.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I don't know what to think any more. If the dog went on to easily get a high level title, the answer might be yes. Why did the dog fail? Was it because he was young and over-exuberant, or because he refused to pick up birds?



DanaRuns said:


> I have a question: If a dog failed a JH three times, is that a dog that should be bred? Would a field person want a puppy from such a dog?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I am not a "field person", nor am I a "show person". I am not a breeder, nor do I intend to become one.
Just love Goldens, and not real happy with a lot of what I see going on in the Golden world, on both sides of the coin.
If the answers were easy, someone would have fixed it by now.
If one intends to breed their dog, I feel that they must do what they can to insure the dog is to the Golden standard in ALL ways, not just the ones that they pick and choose to go along with. But how you determine your dog is to the standard is sometimes a personal decision, there is no hard and fast rule to say that the dog meets X,Y,Z requirements and therefore should be bred. Or conversely, just because the dog has A,B,C titles that doesn't mean the dog necessarily should be bred.
And I come back full circle to my original statement that breeding should be to return the breed to what it was, not necessarily to improve it, since we all have different opinions on what improvement means.




DanaRuns said:


> So, there's no minimum title you folks would accept as proof that the dog retains its purpose. Therefore, no matter what I do, you can always look down your noses and claim my dog has lost its purpose, because he hasn't gotten that next title, or didn't do it fast enough, or not with enough style for you.
> 
> Seems like a lot of cow poop to me.
> 
> If a field person wanted to know what it would take to prove that their dog maintains adequate conformation to the breed standard, I might say go put a single point on a dog in the show ring. I don't care how long it takes. You don't have to do it first time out. Just get some judge to say your dog was the best that day. That at least shows that you are attempting to keep your field dog within the standard. But you will not give a conformation breeder the same thing, where there is a title they can put on their dog to show that it hasn't completely lost the original purpose.
> 
> There is no pleasing you folks. So why should anyone bother listening to field people?


----------



## Brave

I've slept on it. And I think we should set the WC or JH as the minimum. Why? Cause even if it won't satisfy certain people depending on the style or length of time it took or how the dog ran. It does provide more information about the dog which could make for a bigger and better picture when breeders are choosing pairings. 

We've spent pages and pages talking about how it's all pieces of a puzzle that the individual breeder would need to weigh on a case-by-case basis. So this would be just one more tool in the toolbox. 

I'm sure breeders would get slammed for breeding a bitch, or using a stud, that doesn't meet the standards of another breeders. But realistically that already happens (referencing the Icthy argument). 

And when breeders do their due diligence they can decide if the individual dog has what it takes to improve their breeding program.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Just to muddy the waters...
Labrador Retriever Club of America requires at least a WC on the dog before they will acknowledge the dog as a CH (not the AKC CH, but LRC club).
So what happened?
They dumbed down the Labrador's WC to the point that a 3 legged beagle with one eye closed could pass it. 
Which ends up proving nothing.



Brave said:


> I've slept on it. And I think we should set the WC or JH as the minimum. Why? Cause even if it won't satisfy certain people depending on the style or length of time it took or how the dog ran. It does provide more information about the dog which could make for a bigger and better picture when breeders are choosing pairings.
> 
> We've spent pages and pages talking about how it's all pieces of a puzzle that the individual breeder would need to weigh on a case-by-case basis. So this would be just one more tool in the toolbox.
> 
> I'm sure breeders would get slammed for breeding a bitch, or using a stud, that doesn't meet the standards of another breeders. But realistically that already happens (referencing the Icthy argument).
> 
> And when breeders do their due diligence they can decide if the individual dog has what it takes to improve their breeding program.


----------



## Ljilly28

John G said:


> I
> 
> Goldens were not created or invented to win Beauty or Conformation shows. They didn't really exist then. The breed was created as most "older" breeds were to work or hunt.
> .


Conformation is not a beauty contests, nor is it the dog version of Toddlers & Tiaras. The purpose of conformation is to evaluate breeding stock openly, shoulder to shoulder with peers. Thre criteria for evaluation is founded on and encompasses the breed's original purpose, and the dogs are judged against the standard not against each other. Whichever best meets the standard wins.

Many sporting dogs have bird hunting as its original purpose. In order to preserve breed type and the essence of a golden retriever as opposed to a generic dog, the details of the breed standard must be attentively maintained beyond sheer working ability.


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> Just to muddy the waters...
> 
> Labrador Retriever Club of America requires at least a WC on the dog before they will acknowledge the dog as a CH (not the AKC CH, but LRC club).
> 
> So what happened?
> 
> They dumbed down the Labrador's WC to the point that a 3 legged beagle with one eye closed could pass it.
> 
> Which ends up proving nothing.



Is it too simplistic to say don't make it a requirement? Make it a preferred step (like genetic testing) but don't disqualify a dog simply because they don't hold the title. Then there is no reason to "dumb it down" and breeders can choose to get the title or not at their discretion and other breeders can choose if an individual dog's title (and assuming due diligence the information gathered about their runs) would enhance or detract from their breeding program. 

And on the flip side, encourage field breeders to get a CCA on their dog. As another piece of the puzzle.


----------



## marsh mop

John G said:


> I've taken the time to read the OP and then the last 25 pages or so. I'm not a Conformation expert and don't pretend to be. I do, however, have a bit of experience with the breed.
> 
> Goldens were not created or invented to win Beauty or Conformation shows. They didn't really exist then. The breed was created as most "older" breeds were to work or hunt.
> 
> As with many early breed standards the "form" or looks followed function-to hunt or retrieve. In other words, the conformation was one that was thought would optimally make the dog perform his task of hunting. That is why chest, leg proportion, movement, etc. were spelled out in the days before radiographs and slow motion camaras and other means of evaluating dogs not to mention better understanding and testing of genetics.
> 
> Mention has been made about Jeffrey Pepper and his assessment of Goldens. he is very knowledgeable about the breed, but his is just an opinion, not a fact. He, like many (or most) are biased.
> 
> I take with the photo that Dana posts here. I don't believe (even for a second) that Lucy is in any way a bench worthy Golden specimen. However, all the angles and symmetry and ratios that are used to predict how well a dog will function in the field are of little value with her.
> 
> She is over ten years old in this picture. I know this dog. Yes, she is a very rare FC AFC. More importantly she can and will still at this age still run circles around most Goldens even those a fraction of her age. So much for her legs and proportions! Same goes for her intelligence and style, focus, prey drive and so much more. On the bench you can't tell that she has excellent hips, but she does.
> 
> Also, I would like to comment on the picture that Stacy posted of the Golden with the white with the nice head and chest. I know this dog well, also. He definitely would not stand a chance in the ring. What a shame perhaps. BTW Jake is 13 years old in this picture!
> 
> The white would be a deal breaker for most. Heck I'm not crazy about the white on Jake any more than I like the ears on Lucy.
> 
> Dogs should be looked at in their entirety. (The GRCA says so, so I know it's true!) To me both dogs have faults (as do all dogs). These two dogs to me, have strengths that far outweigh their cosmetic faults.
> 
> To me, the breed is about the functional dog. A dog that is able to function and perform and excel at the highest level. Yes, almost any dog can be trained to retrieve (remember Lassie?). Our breeds purpose is to excel at this task.
> 
> Temperament and style are part of this. They also should not look like a Curly Coat or Pyrenees or any other breed. They can still have much variety in looks and still "conform".
> 
> The Oldest pictures we have do for the most part more favor the current range of field dogs than the current Conformation dogs.
> 
> Yes, our breed has, and should continue to evolve. If you are not advancing, you most definitely are moving backwards! As Judy Rasmussen pointed out in her article, overdone or excess wins in the ring because they stand out in the crowd.
> 
> Do you think that a dog has to stand out to win a 100 dog Open Field Trial where 90-99% of the dogs are not even Goldens? How do those of you competing in agility feel about only getting your MACH title if you had to win an event against 100 Border Collies and Aussies?
> 
> Golden's are great because of their field heritage, not in spite of it. That does not mean that the only good Golden is a field Golden or that everyone should attempt field work with their Golden.
> 
> It is a great versatile breed that can and does excel in many venues because of their field heritage complete with athleticism and brains. Temperament is very important. Looks are just icing on the cake.
> 
> A few other thoughts and comments;
> Stacy, I don't think Stanley is too curly, many Goldens of earlier days had this type coat. Unfortunately, many Goldens being shown today have coats that are so sculpted, we can't tell how much wave or curl they have unless you know the dog before the blow dryer.
> 
> Claudia, I don't believe that every litter has some that will be good in the field. Some just don't.
> 
> Dana, first of all, thank you for your service to our Country. No, I don't hope you fail on your field title, should you attempt it. Furthermore, I would be happy to help you should you seek any help in this endeavor. I am a Field enthusiast that happens to compete with Goldens in Field Trials and Hunt Tests. My dogs are first and foremost members of our household and hunters. I have competed with them in other venues such as obedience, CCA, WC/X, agility, Dock Diving (former world champion) as well as doing therapy work and think that any and all things that we participate with our dogs (including Conformation) are great.
> 
> I am a Golden Enthusiast! I agree that you don't have to compete in field events to prove that your dog retains what the breed was intended to do. You also don't need titles.
> 
> How many, though will go out and hunt with the dog to see how well it performs, or do SAR and see it's ability to problem solve or work all day?
> 
> The show ring does not replicate a field dog's ability to run and swim all day. Hunting or running a dog all day does.
> Hard to compare the CCA to a WC or JH. No dogs are excluded automatically from getting a field certificate. Some dogs, though have conformation faults that will exclude them no matter how much they "train" for the CCA assessment.
> 
> WC and JH are both great ways for people to show that their dog still retains the basics of what the breed is intended for. I don't belittle them. My most accomplished field dog failed a JH once when a friends son was running him and he got tangled in a decoy string. I'm inclined to think more about his FC and AFC titles and that he was one of the first dogs in the Nation one year to qualify for the National Open Stake.
> 
> I get those that don't want to mess with dead birds for whatever reason. There are so many other ways to enjoy and prove your dogs mettle. Challenge your dogs and yourself.
> 
> Enjoy our breed and it's diversity. Enjoy training. Enjoy competing. Enjoy your dogs!
> 
> John
> 
> Owned by FC AFC Firemarks Elusive One OD,
> FC AFC La Crosse Max Q Jake JH FDHOF OS
> Riverbottoms Max Q Annie*** MH CCA CGC
> also Maverick-Derby list and Louie-Derby points and still running.
> They look the best with a bird or a blue ribbon.



Thank you for this brother John
Jim


----------



## Ljilly28

> rd to compare the CCA to a WC or JH. No dogs are excluded automatically from getting a field certificate. Some dogs, though have conformation faults that will exclude them no matter how much they "train" for the CCA assessment.


So do you think that dogs who cannot pass the CCA bc of severe conformation faults should be bred under the OP's question of what it means to improve the breed?


----------



## hotel4dogs

That, in theory, is where we are now.
Until one side starts sniping at the other, and vice versa, about not meeting the requirements that the particular side sees as most important. (Whew, that was a handful of a sentence!)



Brave said:


> Is it too simplistic to say don't make it a requirement? Make it a preferred step (like genetic testing) but don't disqualify a dog simply because they don't hold the title. Then there is no reason to "dumb it down" and breeders can choose to get the title or not at their discretion and other breeders can choose if an individual dog's title (and assuming due diligence the information gathered about their runs) would enhance or detract from their breeding program.
> 
> And on the flip side, encourage field breeders to get a CCA on their dog. As another piece of the puzzle.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Ok, I've been thinking.
Maybe the reason people get so emotional about this topic is because it implies that their particular dog shouldn't have been whelped, or should not be bred. People are taking it personally. It's not a personal attack on any dog, or forum breeder, it's a discussion of the future of the breed. 
Tito probably should not have existed, then. But he does, and I'm pretty glad. Obviously I can't move backward in time, so if I want to move forward with where I think the breed should be headed (and that's an opinion, where the breed should be headed) I need to very honestly assess him and decide whether or not he has qualities that need to be preserved in the Golden gene pool. If the answer is yes, then he should be bred to suitable females. If the answer is no, he should not be.

edit to add....and we must be very careful not to be "kennel blind". To honestly assess our dog, and what they have to offer. It's why I found the CCA so valuable for breeding decisions. A judge in the breed ring just points to your dog as first place. The CCA gives you valuable, written information about your dog's weaknesses so that you can intelligently discuss them with a potential mate's owner, and helps to decide whether or not the match will improve something in the line of dogs (not necessarily the breed).


----------



## hotel4dogs

So maybe what we need (this is totally impractical) is a CFA. Certificate of field assessment. 
Three judges. No prior training required. Get the dogs out and do a field evaluation on them, with written results. Much the same as a pro trainer does an evaluation before agreeing to take on an older dog for training or lessons. 
Pass/fail, just like the CCA. Not mandatory, like the CCA isn't mandatory, but valuable information as part of the decision to breed/not breed.
Interesting thought!


----------



## Ljilly28

Breeding decisions are also more complicated than what a dog him or herself brings to the table, but also involves the track record of what he/she produces and what is behind the dog too. There is so much more then the dog itself to consider. Some great dogs cannot reproduce themselves, and some not so great dogs produce far better than they themselves are.


----------



## Kmullen

hotel4dogs said:


> Ok, I've been thinking.
> Maybe the reason people get so emotional about this topic is because it implies that their particular dog shouldn't have been whelped, or should not be bred. People are taking it personally. It's not a personal attack on any dog, or forum breeder, it's a discussion of the future of the breed.
> Tito probably should not have existed, then. But he does, and I'm pretty glad. Obviously I can't move backward in time, so if I want to move forward with where I think the breed should be headed (and that's an opinion, where the breed should be headed) I need to very honestly assess him and decide whether or not he has qualities that need to be preserved in the Golden gene pool. If the answer is yes, then he should be bred to suitable females. If the answer is no, he should not be.
> 
> edit to add....and we must be very careful not to be "kennel blind". To honestly assess our dog, and what they have to offer. It's why I found the CCA so valuable for breeding decisions. A judge in the breed ring just points to your dog as first place. The CCA gives you valuable, written information about your dog's weaknesses so that you can intelligently discuss them with a potential mate's owner, and helps to decide whether or not the match will improve something in the line of dogs (not necessarily the breed).


My point was not really that they should not have existed, but that most goldens do have a "hunting instinct" without have "titles." Tito is one example and I know another example where a dam has absolutely NO working titles in more than 5 generations produced 2 littermates with SH at 1 1/2 years old and now currently working on MH. I am not saying all lines you have the "it" factor, but I know the lines I tend to want to gravitate to.

I am certainly not saying that all show goldens possess the ability to be great field dogs. I just do not like Blank statements on either side. 

But, I really do wish that most CH goldens had atleast a WC or JH behind their name. That would be a start and I think it would get people's foot in the door to the hunting side and maybe they would like it and go further.


----------



## Loisiana

Keep in mind I do not consider myself a field or show person, I have no interest in field trials or conformation shows. I have dabbled minimally in hunt tests, and I would enter a CCA for the educational gain, but my dog doesn't meet the height standard so I don't want to take a slot knowing my dog would not pass. We'll see about my youngster when he is older.

Comments about CCA: I have seen a few breeders post comments received from their CCA evaluations. Not just the strengths noted, but weaknesses too. I wish more breeders did that. If we really want to improve the breed, then let's put it out there what our dogs' strengths and weaknesses are so fully informed decisions can be made. 

Comments about field work: I've already said I don't think a WC or a JH necessarily indicates anything about a dog. But what it SHOULD do is give information to the owner. By getting out there and actually training the dog, they should get a better feel of what dogs have decent natural abilities and which don't. Of the four goldens I have done light field training with, I can tell you this: one was a mess, was too nervous and not enough drive to really go after the birds, could probably train hard enough to get a WC on her, but it would be pushing it. Dog 2 was a pretty good dog on land, but didn't have a lot of water courage. Would have probably passed a WC fairly easily because water on WC tends to be very minimal. Bigger JH water would have done him in. Dogs 3 and 4, while not having the makings of field trial dogs, have a definite increase in natural abilities, drive, courage, etc that it takes to be successful in the field. There is no excuse for either of them not to get WC and JH even with the minimal training they get (and one of them does have the WC and 2 JH legs). Higher level work would be dependent on me being able to do more training. This is why I feel a title itself might not say a lot, but information provided in earning that title is very valuable. I think all four of my dogs could earn a WC, one with a lot of work, 3 fairly easily, but I only feel that 2 out of the 4 actually have the qualities to make a good hunting dog.


----------



## Alaska7133

John Gassner,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a great response. You have wonderful dogs and I truly enjoyed grooming and photographing them. And I also appreciate all the help I got from everyone that weekend with my own dog in field training.

Since you are a field trial judge (I was a gunner for John at 2013 national field trial puppy stakes), could you give us a break down of the types of field trials and the scoring process? I know that's a lot to bite off, but maybe a synopsis? Not all field trials are created equal.

FTGoldens convinced me it wasn't silly for me to put my show puppy in a field trial. So last summer I ran my Lucy in what's called a Derby. It's for young dogs under 2. We had a great time and I'm glad we got the chance to do it. For all my future dogs, show puppies or not, I plan on running them all in Derbies. It was really fun! I do thank FTGoldens for encouraging me to do it.


----------



## hollyk

kfayard said:


> But, I really do wish that most CH goldens had atleast a WC or JH behind their name. That would be a start and I think it would get people's foot in the door to the hunting side and maybe they would like it and go further.


I wish this too. We should be encouraging people to train and enter, not calling it pitiful.


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is awesome. It goes along with honestly assessing the strengths and weaknesses of your dog. Title or not, like you said, the owner gets some idea of what their dog is truly like.
I never did anything at all with Tiny or Toby, but I can tell you both would have been a mess in the field. Tiny was gun (and all noise) shy. Toby didn't like water.



Loisiana said:


> Comments about field work: I've already said I don't think a WC or a JH necessarily indicates anything about a dog. But what it SHOULD do is give information to the owner. By getting out there and actually training the dog, they should get a better feel of what dogs have decent natural abilities and which don't. Of the four goldens I have done light field training with, I can tell you this: one was a mess, was too nervous and not enough drive to really go after the birds, could probably train hard enough to get a WC on her, but it would be pushing it. Dog 2 was a pretty good dog on land, but didn't have a lot of water courage. Would have probably passed a WC fairly easily because water on WC tends to be very minimal. Bigger JH water would have done him in. Dogs 3 and 4, while not having the makings of field trial dogs, have a definite increase in natural abilities, drive, courage, etc that it takes to be successful in the field. There is no excuse for either of them not to get WC and JH even with the minimal training they get (and one of them does have the WC and 2 JH legs). Higher level work would be dependent on me being able to do more training. This is why I feel a title itself might not say a lot, but information provided in earning that title is very valuable. I think all four of my dogs could earn a WC, one with a lot of work, 3 fairly easily, but I only feel that 2 out of the 4 actually have the qualities to make a good hunting dog.


----------



## hotel4dogs

A CFA would be even better  .

Seriously, I think that's valid. How many of us, including me, had no idea about field at all, until we saw how much our dogs like it? Then we decided to pursue it after the first introduction to it.




kfayard said:


> But, I really do wish that most CH goldens had atleast a WC or JH behind their name. That would be a start and I think it would get people's foot in the door to the hunting side and maybe they would like it and go further.


----------



## 2golddogs

I agree Barb. I had no idea about field training until a friend suggested it and I saw how much my dog loved it. I was hesitant at first because my dog was 3 at the time, nothing in his pedigree to suggest he would be good at field, and I thought you had to start them as puppies. A person in our club who runs their dogs in field trials holds a beginner field handling class and evaluated Jackson. Especially on water she said he has a lot of courage and drive. So we began our journey, getting his JH and WC and 2 SH legs so far. He would have finished if I was a better handler, but we are both learning together and enjoying the process. I really hope he is well enough for us to continue.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I hope he is, too, Rita.


----------



## Selli-Belle

I have had a thought about expecting a field assessment as a requirement for breeding. My Selli is not birdy although she has very nice prey drive with furred prey. In addition, she is not the best retriever in a formal retrieve (it took me months to get a dumbell retrieve). Plus she has no interest in dead things. Given those facts, she does not seem like a good prospect to breed.

However she has many, many things that a great hunting dog needs. She does have great prey drive, she will chase ducks and geese and the one time her brother wounded a duck in a pond, they both stayed right with that duck until I called her off. She has great water and land courage and I mean that in a serious way, she loves forcing her way through briar patches to find rabbits and is more than willing to go through deep muck, logs, dense water plants to get her toy and go back again and again. 

She is very biddable and works well independently but loves working with me to find her prey. By that I mean that we have developed commands by which I tell her which way to go and if she loses a track she looks to me for help. She also naturally quarters and is a talented tracker.

Added to that she is a pretty girl who meets the standard and has a wonderful easy-care coat.

So should she be ruled out as a breeding girl because she would need significant training to get a JH (plus I would not be willing to force fetch her)? Would it tend to limit out gene pool to remove a dog like this from the breeding pool? Would it make sense to breed her to a dog who was a strong retriever and birdy?

Just to state, Selli is 10 1/2 y.o. and very active as a spayed girl and was never bred.


----------



## K9-Design

Loisiana said:


> Comments about field work: I've already said I don't think a WC or a JH necessarily indicates anything about a dog. But what it SHOULD do is give information to the owner. By getting out there and actually training the dog, they should get a better feel of what dogs have decent natural abilities and which don't.


YES -- THIS -- exactly!!!!!!!


----------



## hotel4dogs

First, it isn't going to happen, it's just hypothetical. 
But this exactly is why it might be suggested, not required. Like the CCA. There are some dogs who bring enough to the table that other things can be overlooked. The individual breeder determines what "enough" is.




Selli-Belle said:


> I have had a thought about expecting a field assessment as a requirement for breeding. My Selli is not birdy although she has very nice prey drive with furred prey. In addition, she is not the best retriever in a formal retrieve (it took me months to get a dumbell retrieve). Plus she has no interest in dead things. Given those facts, she does not seem like a good prospect to breed.
> 
> However she has many, many things that a great hunting dog needs. She does have great prey drive, she will chase ducks and geese and the one time her brother wounded a duck in a pond, they both stayed right with that duck until I called her off. She has great water and land courage and I mean that in a serious way, she loves forcing her way through briar patches to find rabbits and is more than willing to go through deep muck, logs, dense water plants to get her toy and go back again and again.
> 
> She is very biddable and works well independently but loves working with me to find her prey. By that I mean that we have developed commands by which I tell her which way to go and if she loses a track she looks to me for help. She also naturally quarters and is a talented tracker.
> 
> Added to that she is a pretty girl who meets the standard and has a wonderful easy-care coat.
> 
> So should she be ruled out as a breeding girl because she would need significant training to get a JH (plus I would not be willing to force fetch her)? Would it tend to limit out gene pool to remove a dog like this from the breeding pool? Would it make sense to breed her to a dog who was a strong retriever and birdy?
> 
> Just to state, Selli is 10 1/2 y.o. and very active as a spayed girl and was never bred.


----------



## Loisiana

Selli-Belle said:


> So should she be ruled out as a breeding girl because she would need significant training to get a JH (plus I would not be willing to force fetch her)? Would it tend to limit out gene pool to remove a dog like this from the breeding pool? Would it make sense to breed her to a dog who was a strong retriever and birdy?


IMO (and I'm not a breeder so take it for what it's worth), breeding is about looking at the overall strengths and weaknesses and finding an appropriate match. So I would not think there is need to throw out every dog that doesn't show superb hunting skills. Instead, if there is enough other things of value from that dog, then take that into consideration and look into breedings that have the potential to strengthen those areas that are weak. Breeding isn't just about that generation either, it can be a longer term plan that can involve several generations to get together the goals you are working towards in your breeding program. 

I don't think every dog lacking hunting skills needs to be taken out of the breed pool. But I do think it should be in the breeders minds while they are making breeding choices, and not just completely ignored generation after generation. The same could be said of field dogs who have conformation faults - those dogs don't need to be thrown out of the breeding pool, but breeders should keep those faults in mind when looking for potential mates.


----------



## boomers_dawn

kfayard said:


> My point was not really that they should not have existed, but that most goldens do have a "hunting instinct" without have "titles." Tito is one example and I know another example where a dam has absolutely NO working titles in more than 5 generations produced 2 littermates with SH at 1 1/2 years old and now currently working on MH. I am not saying all lines you have the "it" factor, but I know the lines I tend to want to gravitate to.
> 
> I am certainly not saying that all show goldens possess the ability to be great field dogs. I just do not like Blank statements on either side.


This statement is timely to what I observed last night in field class.
(Our club has a Puppy> Basic> CGC curriculum, plus field class, rally drop in, obedience and agility offerings.)

We frequently get dogs who complete the CGC and the handlers decide they want to keep working with them; so they sign up for field class intending to teach them whistle sit and come for hiking. Most of the dogs do ok because they're good citizens who like to work with the owners, but there have been 2 dogs I was surprised by their intensity.

One has a vague breeding but we've seen him work and with some training and polishing he could easily get a JH.

Another spends the class fixated on any bumper bouncing or flying around the room (we're not supposed to throw bumpers around but some of the handlers get carried away with the fun bumpers). He quickly picked up hold and over/back. He's a fool for the bumper. I kind of hope the owner gets bit by the field bug so we can see what he can really do! Most of the people become uninterested when they find out dead birds are involved in field work, but he was talking about ice fishing, so who knows ... 

Since I'm the CGC tester, I happened to remember the kennel name on his paper (since he took it so many times - he tries to be good but was extremely energetic) so I looked it up expecting some pet breeder with health clearances, but was kind of stunned to find a lot of CH in their linesl with some WC and an X or JH here or there in the 2nd or 3rd gen. I don't know about this particular dog's exact pedigree, but titles or not, he has DRIVE and he's SMART.

This isn't to say these are the next field trial winners, but how would we ever know? Since they belong to pet homes with working class owners not involved in the AKC show/trial circuit. Think of all the unmined diamonds out there. It reminded me of that recent article in the GR news about diversity.


----------



## cubbysan

One thing that I love about goldens is how gentle they are with other animals, even baby ducks. So would this be flaw or an asset? In my world, it is an asset.


----------



## DanaRuns

Asset, in my book.

Dogs aren't simple. They can hold complex combinations of traits. Everything is not black and white.

I had a dog, Chelsea, who gently loved small animals and simultaneously had fierce drive and courage. She was raised on a sailboat, which we lived on at the time: me, Chelsea and my little white bunny, AJ (named after apple juice, the only thing he would eat when I first got him). AJ had the run of the ship, but the forward stateroom all to himself, with his bedding, chew toys and litter box in there. As an 8-week old puppy, in her first days with me Chelsea would try to cuddle with AJ Bunny. In her mind, AJ was a littermate.

On hikes in the Santa Monica Mountains, Chelsea would hunt rabbits with tireless energy, a laser focus and a heated obsession. But when she found them, she would just lie down and get as small as she could, and do everything she could do to make friends with the bunny. She actually was able to get nose to nose with them a few times, which thrilled her to no end. Doubtless this tale horrifies field folk. Lol!  But I loved it. It was amazing to watch. She was my little Dr. Doolittle.

This is the same dog who worked with the Coast Guard in water rescue and retrieval. This gentle creature thought nothing of leaping off the deck of Coast Guard vessels into roiling seas too rough for humans, saving drowning people and retrieving bodies and important objects (often in marine wreckage). Fierce, courageous and driven, she seemed to know that rescuing was not a game, but serious business. She turned her hunting instincts and skills from retrieving wounded or dead game to retrieving injured or helpless people and animals. 

I remember one time I was puttering along in my dinghy with Chelsea in her customary position in the bow, when she suddenly leaped out of the boat into the water and swam like a maniac a good hundred yards or more, whereupon she grabbed something in her mouth that I couldn't identify, and brought it back to me. It turned out to be a Great Blue Heron that had swallowed a fishing hook and was tangled up in fishing line, and was unable fly, move or extricate itself. Somehow, Chelsea saw it, recognized that it was in danger, and brought it to me. She never leaped out of the boat to chase Seagulls and other birds that sat in the water, just this one bird in distress. I don't know how she recognized the difference, but she did. And she used all those hunting instincts for good instead of evil.

I have no idea how she would have done in hunt tests or field trials. Probably miserably. Perhaps from being "raised by a bunny," she had an incredible instinct for nurturing the small and the helpless. She would probably have been a terrible hunting dog. But she had all that drive and all those instincts that would have made for a great hunter. It's just that, like me, she preferred to preserve life rather than take it.

Dogs are complex beings.

Thanks for letting me tell this story. I miss her.  She was an amazing friend.


----------



## cubbysan

DanaRuns said:


> Asset, in my book.
> 
> Dogs aren't simple. They can hold complex combinations of traits. Everything is not black and white.
> 
> I had a dog, Chelsea, who gently loved small animals and simultaneously had fierce drive and courage. She was raised on a sailboat, which we lived on at the time: me, Chelsea and my little white bunny, AJ (named after apple juice, the only thing he would eat when I first got him). AJ had the run of the ship, but the forward stateroom all to himself, with his bedding, chew toys and litter box in there. As an 8-week old puppy, in her first days with me Chelsea would try to cuddle with AJ Bunny. In her mind, AJ was a littermate.
> 
> On hikes in the Santa Monica Mountains, Chelsea would hunt rabbits with tireless energy, a laser focus and a heated obsession. But when she found them, she would just lie down and get as small as she could, and do everything she could do to make friends with the bunny. She actually was able to get nose to nose with them a few times, which thrilled her to no end. Doubtless this tale horrifies field folk. Lol!  But I loved it. It was amazing to watch. She was my little Dr. Doolittle.
> 
> This is the same dog who worked with the Coast Guard in water rescue and retrieval. This gentle creature thought nothing of leaping off the deck of Coast Guard vessels into roiling seas too rough for humans, saving drowning people and retrieving bodies and important objects (often in marine wreckage). Fierce, courageous and driven, she seemed to know that rescuing was not a game, but serious business. She turned her hunting instincts and skills from retrieving wounded or dead game to retrieving injured or helpless people and animals.
> 
> I remember one time I was puttering along in my dinghy with Chelsea in her customary position in the bow, when she suddenly leaped out of the boat into the water and swam like a maniac a good hundred yards or more, whereupon she grabbed something in her mouth that I couldn't identify, and brought it back to me. It turned out to be a Great Blue Heron that had swallowed a fishing hook and was tangled up in fishing line, and was unable fly, move or extricate itself. Somehow, Chelsea saw it, recognized that it was in danger, and brought it to me. She never leaped out of the boat to chase Seagulls and other birds that sat in the water, just this one bird in distress. I don't know how she recognized the difference, but she did. And she used all those hunting instincts for good instead of evil.
> 
> I have no idea how she would have done in hunt tests or field trials. Probably miserably. Perhaps from being "raised by a bunny," she had an incredible instinct for nurturing the small and the helpless. She would probably have been a terrible hunting dog. But she had all that drive and all those instincts that would have made for a great hunter. It's just that, like me, she preferred to preserve life rather than take it.
> 
> Dogs are complex beings.
> 
> Thanks for letting me tell this story. I miss her.  She was an amazing friend.


Thanks for telling that story! We have also had bunnies that my goldens have loved. It is amazing how my conformation bred golden will go flat to the ground with any small animal. He loves the babies and helped raise many. Our late bunny loved Brady too. 

My MacKenzie is a rescue, and appears to be field bred. She spends all day chasing rabbits, squirrels and birds. She has her own agenda and I Have a very hard time keeping her in the house during the day, because she finds there is always something outside for her to do. I don't trust her as much with my birds, she will keep a three feet distance from them but protects them. Like she knows they are ours, while Brady is right in the middle of them all the time.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Thanks for your story about Chelsea!
Tito was raised with domestic bunnies, also. They were named "Hoss" and "Fefer". I know, sick sense of humor. Then "Fefer" died, and we got "Stew". I know, more sick humor. My daughter was responsible, not me.
Anyway, Tito was sweet and gentle with the bunnies. Also with our cat. 
But they seem to know the difference between domestic animals and "critters". He is a critter chaser to the extreme.
I don't tend to think of hunting as evil, though. I totally get when others don't want to do it, but I don't think of it as evil.


----------



## cubbysan

hotel4dogs said:


> Thanks for your story about Chelsea!
> Tito was raised with domestic bunnies, also. They were named "Hoss" and "Fefer". I know, sick sense of humor. Then "Fefer" died, and we got "Stew". I know, more sick humor. My daughter was responsible, not me.
> Anyway, Tito was sweet and gentle with the bunnies. Also with our cat.
> But they seem to know the difference between domestic animals and "critters". He is a critter chaser to the extreme.
> I don't tend to think of hunting as evil, though. I totally get when others don't want to do it, but I don't think of it as evil.


We had a rabbit by the name of Soup ( my brother named her ).

Thanks for sharing. Always wondered what the dogs used for hunting would do with pets.


----------



## hotel4dogs

They really do seem to understand the difference. Now I've never had a pet duck, so I can't tell you how that would work out.



cubbysan said:


> We had a rabbit by the name of Soup ( my brother named her ).
> 
> Thanks for sharing. Always wondered what the dogs used for hunting would do with pets.


----------



## Megora

Ljilly28 said:


> Conformation is not a beauty contests, nor is it the dog version of Toddlers & Tiaras. The purpose of conformation is to evaluate breeding stock openly, shoulder to shoulder with peers. Thre criteria for evaluation is founded on and encompasses the breed's original purpose, and the dogs are judged against the standard not against each other. Whichever best meets the standard wins.


Jill - I've watched Toddlers and Tiaras (I actually was addicted to it at one time - it was like something terrible that you can't look away from). And it cracked me up because having been into obedience and now conformation.... dog owners ABSOLUTELY look and sound like that.  Obedience is not a beauty contest, but the people are kinda like that. LOL. 

Having somebody use the term "beauty contest" doesn't bother me as long as they respect the history and purpose of conformation. If you did not have the conformation aspect to what AKC does... there would be no evaluation of whether these breeders are in fact maintaining a very specific type and look year after year.


----------



## AmberSunrise

I did :doh::doh: Very bad idea for my crew ... poor duck was given away for everyone's safety 



hotel4dogs said:


> They really do seem to understand the difference. Now I've never had a pet duck, so I can't tell you how that would work out.


----------



## Megora

> I get those that don't want to mess with dead birds for whatever reason. There are so many other ways to enjoy and prove your dogs mettle. Challenge your dogs and yourself.
> 
> Enjoy our breed and it's diversity. Enjoy training. Enjoy competing. Enjoy your dogs!


 ^^^ I was busy with work today and meant to say this early, but I got all teary eyed reading this last bit. Because missing from all of the statements from various people on this subject was the part where it shouldn't just be all about title-hunting for the sake of title hunting. You have to believe in and love what you are doing. 

I see the suggestions to somehow "force" people to attempt WC's (correct me if I'm wrong guys, but WC's are preferable for people who just want to get it done in one go as opposed to 4 passes? Am I WRONG?) or JH's... and it makes me cringe. 

Because forcing people to do stuff they hate is not going to make them change their minds. It's just going to bring a lot of negativity and slop into your sport. I don't think you want that. 

All sports would be better off if they get more people actually enjoying them or having fun. On its own, if you have a lot more progeny getting titles in X sports with varied owners, that tells you more than anything else.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I have a feeling that might be the case here, too :doh:



Sunrise said:


> I did :doh::doh: Very bad idea for my crew ... poor duck was given away for everyone's safety


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yes, it tells you that the pups were placed in homes where the people were interested in pursuing that type of thing.
People often ask me what the rest of Tito's litter is like. There were 11 puppies; 9 boys and 2 girls. As far as I know, he's the only one with any titles. 
This breeder bred for pet homes. She did not promote nor sell the dogs as performance dogs, show dogs, etc., only as family companions who would be quite able to do a variety of things if someone so desired. Her dogs are fairly well known in this area among "Golden people" as having fantastic temperaments and as being terrific family pets. Nothing more.
I told her many times that I was so, so lucky that Tito ended up with me. (The other 10 all went to strictly pet homes). Her response was always that, as a breeder, she felt that SHE was so so lucky that Tito ended up with me.
I don't mean to sound obtuse, although it probably is coming across that way. Just want to point out that there are lots of dogs out there with no titles who probably could have many, if the people were so inclined, and the fact that they don't have any isn't a reflection on either the sire nor the dam nor the breeding program.




Megora said:


> On its own, if you have a lot more progeny getting titles in X sports with varied owners, that tells you more than anything else.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> Yes, it tells you that the pups were placed in homes where the people were interested in pursuing that type of thing.


And you see why some breeders are so particular about where and how they place puppies... and why prior experience (titled dogs) does matter. 

I do think that with this breed... people shouldn't be surprised or stunned to see them acting like golden retrievers regardless of pedigree. This is a breed that if well bred potentially can do anything if the owner puts the work in. 

Different owners will have different levels of success. Lot of different types of people out there going for the same titles. Lot of different approaches. And a lot of different temperaments. Some people rush into show time before they are ready. Other people hold back as long as possible while ginning up their nerves.


----------



## cubbysan

hotel4dogs said:


> Yes, it tells you that the pups were placed in homes where the people were interested in pursuing that type of thing.
> People often ask me what the rest of Tito's litter is like. There were 11 puppies; 9 boys and 2 girls. As far as I know, he's the only one with any titles.
> This breeder bred for pet homes. She did not promote nor sell the dogs as performance dogs, show dogs, etc., only as family companions who would be quite able to do a variety of things if someone so desired. Her dogs are fairly well known in this area among "Golden people" as having fantastic temperaments and as being terrific family pets. Nothing more.
> I told her many times that I was so, so lucky that Tito ended up with me. (The other 10 all went to strictly pet homes). Her response was always that, as a breeder, she felt that SHE was so so lucky that Tito ended up with me.
> I don't mean to sound obtuse, although it probably is coming across that way. Just want to point out that there are lots of dogs out there with no titles who probably could have many, if the people were so inclined, and the fact that they don't have any isn't a reflection on either the sire nor the dam nor the breeding program.


How did you pick out Tito? Did she pick him out for you, were you looking for something specific? Or was everything just luck?


----------



## hotel4dogs

She picked the puppies based on a lengthy questionaire about your expectations, goals, lifestyle, and so on.
We wanted Tito as a pet for my daughter, nothing more. But we did put on the questionaire that he needed to be very middle-of-the-road, because of his interactions with other dogs here at the pet hotel. Neither dominant nor submissive. Very non-reactive, with a calm disposition. 
Based on the temperament test, there were 3 puppies that she felt would be suitable for us, but she felt that Tito (gold collar  ) would be the most suitable. On the noise part of the test, one of the puppies ran and hid, and it took her a couple minutes to convince him to come back out. Another puppy went over and started barking at it (pan lid). That puppy, she felt, might be a little too bold for us based on other elements of the test as well. Gold collar, later to become Tito, just picked his head up from the toy he was chewing on, looked at it, and went back to what he was doing. We agreed, that was the puppy for us.




cubbysan said:


> How did you pick out Tito? Did she pick him out for you, were you looking for something specific? Or was everything just luck?


----------



## hotel4dogs

We do, however, need some people breeding for great pets. 

This statement of yours is the key to what I've been saying all along! And "well bred" is a critical part of it.




Megora said:


> And you see why some breeders are so particular about where and how they place puppies... and why prior experience (titled dogs) does matter.
> 
> I do think that with this breed... people shouldn't be surprised or stunned to see them acting like golden retrievers regardless of pedigree. *This is a breed that if well bred potentially can do anything if the owner puts the work in.
> *
> Different owners will have different levels of success. Lot of different types of people out there going for the same titles. Lot of different approaches. And a lot of different temperaments. Some people rush into show time before they are ready. Other people hold back as long as possible while ginning up their nerves.


----------



## Stretchdrive

I spent almost a year training with people on some hunt test stuff, and traveling to some very good seminars. While I found out that I am not interested in pursuing it any further I found I did learn stuff about the two dogs I trained. Who was more naturally birdy, who was more balanced, who the better marker was, who was flashier, the strong swimmer, the cheater. I only did the very basic stuff, but my dogs showed me a lot about themselves, and I think it helped me in the other dog sports I do. I also enjoyed watching how the different dogs that belonged to other people worked, especially when it was a bird I threw out and I got to see them coming in for their retrieve. I think it was a good experience, and was very impressed with how some of the dogs I got to see worked.


----------



## DanaRuns

Well, I'm set up to start some field training this coming Sunday morning. But after what has been said in this thread, I'm not very enthusiastic about it, and I will be watching and listening for negative comments and attitudes. And if I receive them, we will leave. Life is too short. I'm doing this despite my distaste for the immorality of killing for fun, and solely out of a feeling of responsibility to the breed. Plus I'm sure my dog -- whichever one or ones I bring -- will find it fun, though they would have just as much fun retrieving bumpers. But, boy has this thread put me off it. I'm hoping the people I encounter won't be like the people in this thread. I'm hoping they will be positive and encouraging, instead, but I am not optimistic.

We shall see.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> We do, however, need some people breeding for great pets.
> 
> This statement of yours is the key to what I've been saying all along! And "well bred" is a critical part of it.


Great pets are not a separate production altogether though. Read that breed standard. Everything there says this breed of dog should be an ideal pet. Regardless of what he has been bred for. A dog is well-bred if he is what that breed standard says. 

Where you have problems are when people produce dogs who are more like other breeds as far as constantly needing something to do or needing excess amounts of exercise per day to keep them from destroying the home. 

Or in the certain cases I've seen myself or heard of... you have dogs who slog around in field, agility, and obedience and in the words of the owners only come alive in the conformation ring (where they respond to crowds and food).


----------



## Sally's Mom

hotel4dogs said:


> We do, however, need some people breeding for great pets.
> 
> This statement of yours is the key to what I've been saying all along! And "well bred" is a critical part of it.


Totally agree..have owned comformation bred Goldens for 15 years and am grateful that they were bred as pets first and foremost.


----------



## John G

Barb, as I've already told you on RTF, congratulations on Tito's big accomplishment-the first Golden ever to achieve an MHU. I wanted to attempt this, but there are no Spaniel HTs nearby.

Dana, I think a WC or a JH pass would suffice to show that you dog retains some of his hunting heritage. I'm sorry you think so negatively about this discussion and field in general. I respect your disdain for killing or working with dead animals or maybe even gunfire.

Dogs can show their prey drive, intelligence, stamina and most other field traits without fur or feathers. Almost all dogs that love retrieving and hunting for bumpers will also do well with birds. Yes, I like any dog (even my wife's toy poodle-but don't tell her) that have a born interest in game.

The Labrador club's WC is a watered down version of the Golden Club's lowest field recognition. It still has merit in that it shows a dog still will do the very basics of what it's breed's purpose. To find game and retrieve them. For those pursuing higher level field titles, this minimum criteria probably has no effect on future breedings.

Lilly, Conformation events ARE beauty contests. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The judge. You cannot judge a dogs intended field ability in the ring. you can't test it's nose. You can't test it's eyes, it's intelligence, stamina. You can't even see how fast it can get to game since most dogs can outrun the handlers they are tethered to.

The judges are judging to their own modern and evolving (right or wrong) interpretation of the standard. Many, if not most field dogs are within the Standard. They don't stand a chance of even getting a single point in the breed ring. Why? They look like the CH's of years gone by.

In Conformation, if dogs are judged against a standard and not against each other and the Standard has not changed, then what or specifically who has? Obviously People like to win (dogs just like to just do stuff) and they breed to what wins, not what works best in the field.

Selli, Force Fetch is not an absolute. My dog Annie is QAA MH and has never been forced and has never been collar conditioned. Yes, you heard it right! No E-collar.

Ljilly, I absolutely believe in breeding dogs that don't or can't pass a CCA. If they were a sure thing you would only need one unbiased judge or all three would always agree. I also believe in breeding (sometimes) without all clearances.

You have to look at the big picture. If you don't have all clearances, you better have a very good reason for this breeding and full disclosure of clearance shortcomings must be out in the open. Full disclosure.

By the way, most registered Goldens are the products of BYBs. Those of us that compete and breed or are just professional breeders should be held to a higher standard. Know as much as you can about all traights in all dogs in pedigrees.

I just spoke with a Golden breeder of over 40 years today. She is currently marketing her 4th Golden litter in as many months. She has no idea about the either sires temperament or family longevity on her upcoming two litters. This is wrong!

I am not against any of the games we play in with our dogs. I think Goldens are the best no matter what the size or shade or angles or whatever. I am against belittling any of these venues especially the field events and field breedings. 

Even though I don't compete regularly in all these areas (there are too many for me with a full time job) I do appreciate them all and respect them. All of them.

I don't have to agree with each and every thing that goes on in the dog world. That doesn't keep me from appreciating those that are at the top of their game, whatever it might be.

For what it's worth, there is a group of folks attempting to have a "new" dog game similar to Hunt Tests and Field Trials but using "rubber ducks" or bumpers instead of real game. Let the flaming begin.

John


----------



## John G

Stacey, I would be happy to explain the different levels. Is this thread appropriate or should it be started elsewhere?

John



Alaska7133 said:


> John Gassner,
> Thank you for taking the time to write such a great response. You have wonderful dogs and I truly enjoyed grooming and photographing them. And I also appreciate all the help I got from everyone that weekend with my own dog in field training.
> 
> Since you are a field trial judge (I was a gunner for John at 2013 national field trial puppy stakes), could you give us a break down of the types of field trials and the scoring process? I know that's a lot to bite off, but maybe a synopsis? Not all field trials are created equal.
> 
> FTGoldens convinced me it wasn't silly for me to put my show puppy in a field trial. So last summer I ran my Lucy in what's called a Derby. It's for young dogs under 2. We had a great time and I'm glad we got the chance to do it. For all my future dogs, show puppies or not, I plan on running them all in Derbies. It was really fun! I do thank FTGoldens for encouraging me to do it.


----------



## Ljilly28

John G said:


> Ljilly, I absolutely believe in breeding dogs that don't or can't pass a CCA. If they were a sure thing you would only need one unbiased judge or all three would always agree. I also believe in breeding (sometimes) without all clearances.
> 
> John



I own a field dog who is sleeping on my feet who I hold dear and adore- but he is far too long in loin and after a lifetime of athletic stunts has sponsyliosis in his back and he has epilepsy that can be found in the line. I love the dog so- he has companioned me for more than a decade of my life, and giving him adequan shots, gabapentin, etc and watching him in pain emphasizes to me the importance of breeding a dog with a correct structure.

It is not a beauty contest to laud a shorter loin correct height/length ratio, but rather those things are directly related to an older dog moving freely across a green field at age 13 rather than being in pain. 


I bought a field dog from a famous field breeder, and she arrived so poorly structured her upper arms are almost straight and she has grade III elbow dysplasia bilaterally. Bc she has so much drive to work combined with horrid structure, her good points only injure her. 

I dont doubt you when you say you would breed dogs too structurally incorrect to pass the CCA or who fail clearances, but I dont think that should be said lightly.

Lucky for the the golden retriever, you can make those breeding decisions for your own program and dogs, while others make them for theirs according to their values, priorities, and reading of the breed standard.

Working to preserve and safeguard the whole golden retriever in its defining components -structure, breed type, temperament, health, . . . working ability is acting as a trustee of the generations. 

It is extreme to prioritize working ability ONLY and will lead to the loss of breed type just as it is extreme to prioritize breed type and style only as it will lead to a loss of working ability. 

I grew up with a wonderful breeder- Mrs. Flinn- and terrific longlived dual bred dogs who duck hunted where we live in Maine as well as served as confidantes and best friends for children. I am in no way anti hunting, but I have as little belief that training for a modern field trial shows much about a hunting dog of fifty years ago- the time period romanticized above- as you do in conformation.


----------



## John G

Obviously dogs that are so poorly structured that they "fall apart" prematurely should not be considered for breeding purposes. I'm not talking about those. Dogs that are just slightly but clearly out of the standard be it size, weight, whatever, yet displaying high levels of talent and other desirable traits such as temperament and longevity should at least be considered.

John


----------



## Claudia M

Jill, I have vowed not to post on this thread again. Your post about your field golden moved me though. I know to some extent how you feel. Owning a golden with seizures, allergies, ED or HD (did not xray and was small enough to be managed) combined is painful to the human mind and soul. My husband has owned such a dog and I was so very very lucky to have met him.

I can also understand the hesitance to own a future field golden. I have been there. And most definitely my husband has been there. He was the one who for 8 years has tried different foods, different medicine, took him to different hospitals etc. He was the one who for 8 years had his heart broken watching him thru a seizures and could not sleep at night, the littlest sound would wake him up thinking - another seizure. 
When he died peacefully in 2005 my husband said no more dogs. Jack was still young enough to get another pup but my husband's heart was so broken he could not do it. I respected that as much as I wanted otherwise. 

While he has shot at a national hunt test before (noticed I said "a" - because he is not very keen on shooting farm raised birds - to him that is not hunting) he has never pursued hunt tests or field trials. All he wanted was a hunting companion dog. Nor would he ever have pursued obedience/agility/tracking venues. 

His previous hunting dog (a BYB dog) has put titled dogs to shame in an actual hunt. She was slower but she was good. So he went next for the field well bred dog to do more. No matter his health problems he was the best and smartest dog ever owned. And he holds a very special place in all our hearts. I have been with him for the last two to three years of his life and I cannot tell you how much I still love him. His picture is in every bedroom, living room and family room. I hope it will be the same to you. I noticed you do not have him listed in your current dogs and I hope he will find his way to your heart to be proud of him for who he is. No matter of the rest. 

I tried to figure out his pedigree for years and tried to figure out the WHY. To no avail. Other than sometimes you just get unlucky as far as health but so so lucky to be there for him, to have met him, to have learned from him. 

Yes, I know where you come from. With this new puppy I hesitated. I took a long time and did a parallel of the pedigree. I put it all in front of my husband; no matter how much I wanted the puppy I wanted him to be comfortable (he has gone thru more than I did before). 

Love him, care for him and be proud of him. It was fate that brought him to you just like it was fate that brought Trooper to us. As I told my husband, you cannot equate one golden retriever with the rest of them. The breeder has not decided to breed epileptic dogs and has not done this on purpose. I have never or will I ever hold the breeder accountable. And that breeder has a track record of the best golden retrievers ever bred. Trooper would not have been possible without that breeder, my new pup would not have been possible without that breeder. To that I say to that breeder - Thank you!


----------



## DanaRuns

John G said:


> Obviously dogs that are so poorly structured that they "fall apart" prematurely should not be considered for breeding purposes. I'm not talking about those. Dogs that are just slightly but clearly out of the standard be it size, weight, whatever, yet displaying high levels of talent and other desirable traits such as temperament and longevity should at least be considered.
> 
> John


Quick question along those lines: In the same vein, would you also be in favor of breeding dogs that lack field/hunting traits, yet display high levels of conformation and adherence to the breed standard for size, structure, etc.? Just trying to get a handle on your philosophy.


----------



## Alaska7133

John G said:


> Stacey, I would be happy to explain the different levels. Is this thread appropriate or should it be started elsewhere?
> 
> John


 John,
maybe you could start a sticky over on the field forum that talks about US and Canadian field trials. The various levels and the requirements that dogs would have at each level (retrievers, blinds, distances, etc.).

Everyone,
John Gassner is on the GRCA Field Education Committee, so he's an excellent resource all things field related. And he is a field trial judge.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Barb, so I am going back to Claudia's comment that a dog or bitch should not be bred if *he/she doesn't have a JH/WC In the first five generations*. Just saying awesome *Tito would not have existed*  And IMO Tito is quite an awesome golden retriever.


Very nice try of an indirect attack. 

On Tito's father side: Am. CH Tangleloft Odds On Pebwin CD *WC* VC OS 4th generation

On Tito's mother side: Especial Tanner Bar CDX *WCX*; Am CH Gold-Rush Angel Of Golden Oaks CD, *WC* - both in the fifth generation. 

So based on the above most definitely Tito should exist and he is a wonderful example of a golden retriever. 

It is easier to hate and attack, taking words out of context - carry on. I won't have part of it, just setting data straight.


----------



## Brave

Claudia M said:


> Very nice try of an indirect attack.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tito's father side: Am. CH Tangleloft Odds On Pebwin CD *WC* VC OS 4th generation
> 
> 
> 
> On Tito's mother side: Especial Tanner Bar CDX *WCX*; Am CH Gold-Rush Angel Of Golden Oaks CD, *WC* - both in the fifth generation.
> 
> 
> 
> So based on the above most definitely Tito should exist and he is a wonderful example of a golden retriever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is easier to hate and attack, taking words out of context - carry on. I won't have part of it, just setting data straight.



Can you help me read the pedigree on K9data? I clicked on "view five generation pedigree" and I gave me 6 generations (including Tito). On the very last generation I see Tangleloft odds on Pebwin, but I don't see any of the other names you listed. Do I need to go further back?


----------



## Claudia M

Brave said:


> Can you help me read the pedigree on K9data? I clicked on "view five generation pedigree" and I gave me 6 generations (including Tito). On the very last generation I see Tangleloft odds on Pebwin, but I don't see any of the other names you listed. Do I need to go further back?


You click on each parent for Tito. Then click on the 5 year generation. 

Tanglefoot is in the father's 4th generation

The other two are in the mother's 5th generation.

Note there is no question if Tito should have been bred (Gosh I sure hope not - because indeed he should be bred). 

The question is if the two bred dogs from which Tito resulted have hunt titles in their 5 year pedigree. Do not count Tito as a generation, he is the result.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Just for fun, you can trace Tito thru K9data (and lots of other dogs you can do this, too) with some patience back to the original Goldens. It's LOTS of generations back!


----------



## Brave

Thanks!! I got overwhelmed with how many names there were. Such tiny print. 

In the end, (and this isn't to question whether any person's golden should have been born) it'll come down to that thin thin thin line between excluding genes b/c of x, y, or z; and maintaining genetic diversity. 

It's been really informative to hear some explain why they chose to breed dogs slightly out of standard. It's a really hard job, to be a breeder, and I do commend those who take the job seriously and do what they can to preserve the breed.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Considering most of us who have dogs whose pedigrees have been entered at length into k9data can trace our dogs all the way back to the original Goldens, it tells you just how little genetic diversity there truly is in the breed. We all go back to the same few dogs.





Brave said:


> Thanks!! I got overwhelmed with how many names there were. Such tiny print.
> 
> In the end, (and this isn't to question whether any person's golden should have been born) it'll come down to that thin thin thin line between excluding genes b/c of x, y, or z; and maintaining genetic diversity.
> 
> It's been really informative to hear some explain why they chose to breed dogs slightly out of standard. It's a really hard job, to be a breeder, and I do commend those who take the job seriously and do what they can to preserve the breed.


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> Considering most of us who have dogs whose pedigrees have been entered at length into k9data can trace our dogs all the way back to the original Goldens, it tells you just how little genetic diversity there truly is in the breed. We all go back to the same few dogs.



Do you think we'll be looking at the same problem the Dalmatians have? Where they're re-opening the breed to other influences to try to solve some of the health problems (presumably associated with the lake of genetic diversity)?

www.dalmatianheritage.com


----------



## hotel4dogs

The experiment with opening up the dalmations to some crossing with another breed (might have been GSP, not sure) was a failure. The parent club insisted the AKC allow the dal mixes to be registered as purebred dals, in an attempt to breed out some of the genetic health issues. They found the dalmations lost the "essence of dalmation" and reversed their decision, and they are now purebred dalmations again.




Brave said:


> Do you think we'll be looking at the same problem the Dalmatians have? Where they're re-opening the breed to other influences to try to solve some of the health problems (presumably associated with the lake of genetic diversity)?
> 
> The Dalmatian Heritage Project - Breeding Dalmatian Puppies for Adoption - Hayward, California


----------



## hotel4dogs

in fact, if you go WAY back in Tito's pedigree, on k9data, you will find some Curly coats listed in there!
http://www.k9data.com/fivegen.asp?ID=2775
here's the end of Tito's pedigree thru just one of many ancestors:
http://www.k9data.com/fivegen.asp?ID=17135
and his son
http://www.k9data.com/fivegen.asp?ID=17129


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> Considering most of us who have dogs whose pedigrees have been entered at length into k9data can trace our dogs all the way back to the original Goldens, it tells you just how little genetic diversity there truly is in the breed. We all go back to the same few dogs.


This is how far we could go... ETA - for a full three gen pedigree 

Pedigree: Prim (yellow; 1889)


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> The experiment with opening up the dalmations to some crossing with another breed (might have been GSP, not sure) was a failure. The parent club insisted the AKC allow the dal mixes to be registered as purebred dals, in an attempt to breed out some of the genetic health issues. They found the dalmations lost the "essence of dalmation" and reversed their decision, and they are now purebred dalmations again.



Can you expand on that? It seems that project is still going strong. Idk if the project leaders are betting on being able to be called purebreds down the line or not. 

What essence did they lose?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I find that very, very cool!





Claudia M said:


> This is how far we could go... ETA - for a full three gen pedigree
> 
> Pedigree: Prim (yellow; 1889)


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> in fact, if you go WAY back in Tito's pedigree, on k9data, you will find some Curly coats listed in there!
> Five generation pedigree: Rajah (Curly Coat)
> here's the end of Tito's pedigree thru just one of many ancestors:
> Five generation pedigree: Mount (Lady Marjoribanks)
> and his son
> Five generation pedigree: Rock (Lord Tweedmouths)




Thank you for that. I posted this on the k9data FB page. The website did not allow to edit Jubilee. See the picture and the link. 

Pedigree: Wavertree Sam < Faithful Sam


----------



## hotel4dogs

This isn't the best source in the world, but here's a little background:
Dalmatian (dog) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i wasn't aware they are re-visiting the idea.

Here's a pretty good write-up:

The Dalmatian/Pointer Backcross Project | LUA Dalmatians World EN



Brave said:


> Can you expand on that? It seems that project is still going strong. Idk if the project leaders are betting on being able to be called purebreds down the line or not.
> 
> What essence did they lose?


----------



## hotel4dogs

love it, thanks!




Claudia M said:


> Thank you for that. I posted this on the k9data FB page. The website did not allow to edit Jubilee. See the picture and the link.
> 
> Pedigree: Wavertree Sam < Faithful Sam


----------



## Kmullen

Claudia M said:


> Very nice try of an indirect attack.
> 
> On Tito's father side: Am. CH Tangleloft Odds On Pebwin CD *WC* VC OS 4th generation
> 
> On Tito's mother side: Especial Tanner Bar CDX *WCX*; Am CH Gold-Rush Angel Of Golden Oaks CD, *WC* - both in the fifth generation.
> 
> So based on the above most definitely Tito should exist and he is a wonderful example of a golden retriever.
> 
> It is easier to hate and attack, taking words out of context - carry on. I won't have part of it, just setting data straight.



Not sure how that was an indirect attack, but ok.


----------



## Brave

hotel4dogs said:


> This isn't the best source in the world, but here's a little background:
> 
> Dalmatian (dog) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> i wasn't aware they are re-visiting the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a pretty good write-up:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dalmatian/Pointer Backcross Project | LUA Dalmatians World EN



I read that second link and it says in 2011, the AKC is now accepting descendants as purebreds. 

And a little after that, it reads: "The Dalmatian-Pointer Backcrosses Project can now serve as a model for other breeds that are faced with issues that cannot effectively be dealt with through selective breeding from within the existing gene pool for that breed."

Which is why I think it holds some
Merit for the discussion on this thread.


----------



## marsh mop

100! 100! 100! 100!
Continue on.


----------



## Claudia M

marsh mop said:


> 100! 100! 100! 100!
> Continue on.


Well, maybe this will make it to "101 dalmatians"  

the person that sent me the picture also sent this link

http://www.toga.cc/ta/tandaweb.nsf/a98d0a3754088ff8c1256c480068c851/600d3f78d28940a9c1256c4800658a58/$FILE/g148.html#I1518

Hope someone from k9data gets it and updates it and connects the dots for Jubilee. Or maybe there is something I am not seeing here.


----------



## lhowemt

Brave said:


> What essence did they lose?


Their spots


----------



## hubbub

To add a bit of funny, I've followed this thread and my work computer is now offering ads to collect and preserve my dog's semen, etc. My coworkers are going to wonder... LOL! 

Seriously though, like Brave, I've found this very informative. The concrete examples, photos and experiences have helped me get a better view and I hope I'll be able to conduct any future search with confidence and a clearer picture of what I'm ideally looking for.


----------



## Alaska7133

For those of you with phones and finding it difficult to figure out how to use k9data, here's a copy of Tito's pedigree.

I also looked at a couple of my dogs and their pedigrees. Some actually have had some great field dogs in them, some not so much. The one that so many of us trace our roots to is Rip. You can look him up, his name is just Rip.

Here's most of the goldens I've owned if you want to look up their pedigrees:
www.k9data.com

Wiseman Wildfire Grayling Fish On "Lucy"
Grayling Reilly "Reilly"
Grayling Pennie "Pennie"
Tiger Brandy Lee "Tiger"


----------



## Brave

lhowemt said:


> Their spots



I snorted my water when I read that. Well.... Yep.... That's a pretty darn important distinguishing feature. The articles I've read on it, said it took 30 years and 5 generations for the dogs to comply with the breed standard again. 

Which speaks to the longevity in breeding plans. How you won't see all the results you want after one breeding /one generation. 

This is all so fascinating. I cannot thank everyone enough for what I've learned (and hopefully retain) from this thread.


----------



## Conquerergold

Brave said:


> I snorted my water when I read that. Well.... Yep.... That's a pretty darn important distinguishing feature. The articles I've read on it, said it took 30 years and 5 generations for the dogs to comply with the breed standard again.
> 
> Which speaks to the longevity in breeding plans. How you won't see all the results you want after one breeding /one generation.
> 
> This is all so fascinating. I cannot thank everyone enough for what I've learned (and hopefully retain) from this thread.


One of the most interesting 'experiments' which was granted approval by the KC in the UK, was breeding Boxer x Pembroke Corgi crosses. Docking of tails had been banned in the UK, and this was to try and introduce the natural bobtail gene that some lines of Pem's have.

It is amazing how quickly they were able to get Boxer type back, in less than a handful of generations.

Genetics can be fun | Bobtail Boxers


----------



## John G

Absolutely, I'd be in favor of breeding these other dogs. I'd be more in favor of them if they do have some hunting traits. That I believe in sometimes using dogs that might not conform to CCA standards, I of course prefer those that do.

John



DanaRuns said:


> Quick question along those lines: In the same vein, would you also be in favor of breeding dogs that lack field/hunting traits, yet display high levels of conformation and adherence to the breed standard for size, structure, etc.? Just trying to get a handle on your philosophy.


----------



## cubbysan

In the 1950's, they had to do that with the Shih Tzu too. I forget if it was the Pekingese or the Lhasa Apso that they had to breed back in. The AKC did not recognize them until the 1970s. They are now considered a pretty healthy and long lived breed.

I have also heard of them doing this with the English Mastiffs with the Great Danes, but most of the Mastiff people stay away from any pedigree that has that kennel in their lines.


----------



## Titan1

I had a long comment and I am just going to shorten it.. I would take a clone of my Titan a million times over and he is under the standard. He has what I believe the perfect blend of good looking dogs and amazing natural talent and sweet sweet personality. It's all there in his pedigree.. Pedigree: OTCH Dal-Rhe's Sunfire Titanium UDX17 OGM RAE NJP VER TD UCDX CanCD Wv-N Tn-N..


----------



## Stretchdrive

Titan is a very nice dog, and I actually prefer his size over what is actually within the standard.


----------



## Claudia M

Titan1 said:


> I had a long comment and I am just going to shorten it.. I would take a clone of my Titan a million times over and he is under the standard. He has what I believe the perfect blend of good looking dogs and amazing natural talent and sweet sweet personality. It's all there in his pedigree.. Pedigree: OTCH Dal-Rhe's Sunfire Titanium UDX17 OGM RAE NJP VER TD UCDX CanCD Wv-N Tn-N..


A Noranby Campfire descendent! 

Pedigree: Eng. CH. Noranby Campfire


----------



## Claudia M

Alaska7133 said:


> For those of you with phones and finding it difficult to figure out how to use k9data, here's a copy of Tito's pedigree.
> 
> I also looked at a couple of my dogs and their pedigrees. Some actually have had some great field dogs in them, some not so much. The one that so many of us trace our roots to is Rip. You can look him up, his name is just Rip.
> 
> Here's most of the goldens I've owned if you want to look up their pedigrees:
> www.k9data.com
> 
> Wiseman Wildfire Grayling Fish On "Lucy"
> Grayling Reilly "Reilly"
> Grayling Pennie "Pennie"
> Tiger Brandy Lee "Tiger"


Just did Lucy and also went back to Noramby Campfire. I went back in time by couple dogs I have read about (IE Haagen Dazs) and then tracked back by the field titles listed. If you go by Speedwell Emerald.

Pedigree: Eng. CH. Noranby Campfire

If you go by Rory of Bentley they you get back to Primrose Nell and Faithful Sam and Jubilee!

http://www.k9data.com/fivegen.asp?ID=2660


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> A Noranby Campfire descendent!
> 
> Pedigree: Eng. CH. Noranby Campfire


You'd probably be pretty hard pressed to find a golden from field lines that isn't a descendant. I don't know enough about conformation pedigrees to know for them.


----------



## Conquerergold

Loisiana said:


> You'd probably be pretty hard pressed to find a golden from field lines that isn't a descendant. I don't know enough about conformation pedigrees to know for them.


It can pretty much be safely said he is behind every Golden Retriever alive today.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> You'd probably be pretty hard pressed to find a golden from field lines that isn't a descendant. I don't know enough about conformation pedigrees to know for them.


Yup. If you go forward from the first entries the only one I could find that did not have Noramby Campfire is Rory Boy but the line stopped there - no offspring listed.


----------



## AmberSunrise

I certainly agree with this  http://k9data.com/fivegen.asp?ID=541502

Breeding toward an ideal of standard is not black & white. It is about balance.

Heck, there have been comments suggesting my Faelan should not have been bred since he (gasp) failed some hunt tests!! Oh my, ignore the Utility title, the Excellent Std and JWW agility titles, the CCA, the JH, the clearances. the fact that is a marvelous companion etc -- he failed some hunt tests so he must not be good enough to pass on his genes ... throwing out all the good qualities because of a perceived lack will certainly do nothing to help maintain and improve our golden breed.





Titan1 said:


> I had a long comment and I am just going to shorten it.. I would take a clone of my Titan a million times over and he is under the standard. He has what I believe the perfect blend of good looking dogs and amazing natural talent and sweet sweet personality. It's all there in his pedigree.. Pedigree: OTCH Dal-Rhe's Sunfire Titanium UDX17 OGM RAE NJP VER TD UCDX CanCD Wv-N Tn-N..


----------



## Claudia M

Sunrise said:


> I certainly agree with this  Five generation pedigree: Titan x Towhee
> 
> Breeding toward an ideal of standard is not black & white. It is about balance.
> 
> Heck, there have been comments suggesting my Faelan should not have been bred since he (gasp) failed some hunt tests!! Oh my, ignore the Utility title, the Excellent Std and JWW agility titles, the CCA, the JH, the clearances. the fact that is a marvelous companion etc -- *he failed some hunt tests so he must not be good enough to pass on his genes* ... throwing out all the good qualities because of a perceived lack will certainly do nothing to help maintain and improve our golden breed.


OK, I will take the bite and play the devil's advocate. Faelan is a nice dog from what I see in his pedigree. I have never met the guy, not have I ever seen him run. But why did he fail the tests? Could it be because the handler did not have the heart in it? Dogs can sense that. They feed off the handler's emotions. Could it be because he was switched from one activity to the other? Very few dogs can go from the agility, obedience ring into the field from week to week and not get confused. 

Even in one arena - (I use field because I am somewhat familiar with it and so are you) when you start and get better at handling and blinds the dog loses the marking ability. 

Even after you go hunting with your dog, it is harder to get back and simply enter in a SH or MH test and think your dog will pass with brio. It is not the same thing. 

Also sometimes it is harder to start later in life. IMHO it is one thing to start at 2 or 3 and completely another to start at 5 or 6 especially for a dog that has done other sports. 

Sharon, I am not asking these questions to compel you to answer. You already have your answers and this is what matters.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Actually I was using Faelan as an example of how breeding is not black & white  

The choices of which dogs to mate are difficult enough without adding requirements from some unknown source.


----------



## Christen113

Going back to the dalmatian experiment, this was a really interesting article relating to goldens. I do wonder if they were to experiment with a breed less prone to cancer (maybe a lab) with goldens if we could make it a healthier breed. They have many of the same characteristics, similar personalities, similar look and they're less prone to cancer than goldens. But then the question-is cancer part of being a golden like spots are part of being a dalmatian?-comes into play.

Here's the article:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf


----------



## Megora

Labs have just as much cancer as goldens. All the retriever breeds do.


----------



## Tahnee GR

And Labs bring their own issues to the table with EIC and dwarfism.


----------



## Christen113

Labs do have cancer (virtually all breeds do, not just retrievers) but the rates are lower in labs (especially for hemangio) than in goldens, and they still generally have a longer lifespan. I assume some of the other issues labs have (like EIC and dwarfism) might be recessive since they're not overly common in goldens (at least to my knowledge).


----------



## Megora

Christen113 said:


> Labs do have cancer (virtually all breeds do, not just retrievers) but the rates are lower in labs (especially for hemangio) than in goldens, and they still generally have a longer lifespan. I assume some of the other issues labs have (like EIC and dwarfism) might be recessive since they're not overly common in goldens (at least to my knowledge).


Where are you getting your information from?


----------



## Christen113

My vet for starters  She breeds labs and goldens and has for 25 or 30 years. I'm not denying cancer in labs, but Bernese Mountain Dogs, Goldens, German Shepherds, Portugese Water Dogs, etc. are the most "likely" breeds to get hemangio. 5-7% of canine cancer is due to hemangio but goldens have a 1 in 5 chance. There's also some (perhaps) significant data about the popular sire syndrome and the fact that early on in the breed a dog with hemangio was widely bred. If the popular sire is the reason for the high rate in hemangio in goldens, my thought was just that it might be recessive and another breed might help wipe it out. I'd just be interested in the outcome if anyone did it.

This is also interesting-and no, I haven't studied the logistics of this study so maybe it's totally off but the lab is less likely to die of cancer (interestingly this shows the same life expectancy though so no help there). Breed-Predispositions to Cancer in Pedigree Dogs : Table 1

And maybe the answer wouldn't be a lab, but some other breed...or maybe the answer is what they're already doing and trying to isolate the genes and be able to test early.


----------



## DanaRuns

They have to die of something. And we're all shooting in the dark on cancer. I hope the Morris study sheds some light, but until then it's all guesswork. If the goal is longevity, it seems to me that you breed dogs that live a long time, pretty much regardless of what they died from. No?


----------



## hotel4dogs

Christen, that was an interesting chart. But I thought they should have sorted it by median age at death rather than % of deaths from cancer. The Golden (38.8%) is listed higher than for example, the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (33%) but the median age of the Golden was 12. 25 years (not bad, really) whereas the Tollers was 8 years. I'd rather have the Goldens' issue than the tollers.

On another note, a brilliant neuromuscular scientist at a big teaching university here told me that if an organism is prone to Hemangiosarcoma, by definition (something to do with the DNA that I didn't even begin to think about understanding what he was explaining) they must also be prone to Lymphoma and Osteosarcoma.


----------



## Christen113

Agreed, and my concern isn't hemangio in a 10-12 year old dog. Honestly, in an old dog, it's probably not the worst way to go since it is so quick. There are just so many that die at 6 (or younger) of hemangio in the golden population. I've seen dogs that came from long lived lines that still die at 6 or 7 so that's not fool proof either. 

And yes, hopefully the Morris study does shed some light.


----------



## Christen113

hotel4dogs said:


> Christen, that was an interesting chart. But I thought they should have sorted it by median age at death rather than % of deaths from cancer. The Golden (38.8%) is listed higher than for example, the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (33%) but the median age of the Golden was 12. 25 years (not bad, really) whereas the Tollers was 8 years. I'd rather have the Goldens' issue than the tollers.
> 
> On another note, a brilliant neuromuscular scientist at a big teaching university here told me that if an organism is prone to Hemangiosarcoma, by definition (something to do with the DNA that I didn't even begin to think about understanding what he was explaining) they must also be prone to Lymphoma and Osteosarcoma.


Interesting. 

And yes, I'd agree with you on goldens and tollers, too.


----------



## tippykayak

Goldens have life expectancy on par with other dogs their size, so there's no clear advantage for outcrossing with another breed. If there were a specific gene (like in the dals) that was in every dog, then bringing in dogs that don't have it would make sense. Cancer doesn't work that way (as far as we know), and neither does general longevity.


----------



## Megora

Christen113 said:


> Agreed, and my concern isn't hemangio in a 10-12 year old dog. Honestly, in an old dog, it's probably not the worst way to go since it is so quick. There are just so many that die at 6 (or younger) of hemangio in the golden population. I've seen dogs that came from long lived lines that still die at 6 or 7 so that's not fool proof either.


The issue with overly sampled examples is.... I don't think that those young deaths are as common as you would think. I believe majority of goldens die between 10 and 12. 

That doesn't say there aren't young cancers in the breed... these are concerning and basically people within the breed are always talking about how to fix that. I'm sure it is possible without producing mixed breeds that people wouldn't want.


----------



## Christen113

tippykayak said:


> Goldens have life expectancy on par with other dogs their size, so there's no clear advantage for outcrossing with another breed. If there were a specific gene (like in the dals) that was in every dog, then bringing in dogs that don't have it would make sense. Cancer doesn't work that way (as far as we know), and neither does general longevity.


Very true and that's a good point.


----------



## Ljilly28

I love the description of a gentleman's hunting dog( from wherever the heck the term stems) . The golden is not a chessie, and the golden is not a lab. Beauty to satisfy the eye of a nobleman is part of the selection of a golden, the happy bright eyes and gentle companionship as well has the capacity to servicably retrieve birds. . . A golden is never meant to be a chessie or a lab or a field trial dog. Those are changes to a more hard core, more driven, and sometimes less beautiful dog. Just like there is a worry about taking the retrieve out of the golden retriever, there is a worry about taking the golden out of the hunting machine.


----------



## Megora

I was going to post this in the "preserve and protect" thread, but since that involved a different breed altogether, thought it belonged here. 

People need to really consider our different backgrounds and expectations as far as this breed goes. If somebody says they want to preserve and protect the breed, I'm immediately thinking about those reasons why I choose goldens over all other breeds. And those things are what I want protected and preserved. 

Without much more ado, more photo spamming (sorry). 




































^ CH Elysian Sky High Exposure UDT MH WCX **


























































All these pictures and the ones previously posted come from the same book.


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> I love the description of a gentleman's hunting dog( from wherever the heck the term stems) . The golden is not a chessie, and the golden is not a lab. Beauty to satisfy the eye of a nobleman is part of the selection of a golden, the happy bright eyes and gentle companionship as well has the capacity to servicably retrieve birds. . . A golden is never meant to be a chessie or a lab or a *field trial dog*. *Those are changes to a more hard core, more driven, and sometimes less beautiful dog.* Just like there is a worry about taking the retrieve out of the golden retriever, there is a worry about taking the golden out of the hunting machine.


Can you please indicate what breed is meant to be a field trial dog?

*"Those are changes to a more hard core, more driven, and sometimes less beautiful dog." *WOW - what do you mean by that?


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> Can you please indicate what breed is meant to be a field trial dog?


Labs. Field trials have been specifically tailored to them.


----------



## Claudia M

DanaRuns said:


> Labs. Field trials have been specifically tailored to them.


Last time I checked Field trials were not breed specific. :no:

Field trials have been tailored to the *winners* and NOT to a specific breed.

ETA - I seriously doubt that field trials are won by show labs!


----------



## TrailDogs

Ljilly28 said:


> I love the description of a gentleman's hunting dog( from wherever the heck the term stems) . The golden is not a chessie, and the golden is not a lab. Beauty to satisfy the eye of a nobleman is part of the selection of a golden, the happy bright eyes and gentle companionship as well has the capacity to servicably retrieve birds. . . A golden is never meant to be a chessie or a lab or a field trial dog. Those are changes to a more hard core, more driven, and sometimes *less beautiful dog*. Just like there is a worry about taking the retrieve out of the golden retriever, there is a worry about taking the golden out of the hunting machine.


Please define 'less beautiful dog'.


----------



## Kmullen

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## TheZ's

kfayard said:


> I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


Was going to say the same thing. I think it's very true with respect to dogs.


----------



## Kmullen

Beauty is only an opinion and we know we all have one! I guess I would be ugly because I don't have blonde hair,blue eyes, skinny-rocking figure, and 5'8".

There are so many forms to beauty.


----------



## Ljilly28

To some degree, temperament and beauty are both in the eye of the beholder, but to some degree are informed by an expert eye and long experience with applying the breed standard to the breed hands on. 

For example:_ Broad in skull, slightly arched laterally and longitudinally without prominence of frontal bones (forehead) or occipital bones._ _Muzzle straight in profile, blending smooth and strongly into skull; when viewed in profile or from above, slightly deeper and wider at stop than at tip_

In my training center, all goldens are beautiful to their own owners, which is as it should be. There are BYB goldens, puppy mill goldens, field goldens, show goldens, and golden mixes that we work with week in and week out- all are gorgeous to their owners. Are all broad in skull? No. Does our breed standard specifically require broad in skull? Yes. 
A golden retriever narrow in skull is not what we as breeders want to find beautiful in an educated opinion because we have set a standard for the look and beauty of the dog. 

A knowledge bump is not correct. Does that mean I love my field bred dog less for having one ? No- I adore my soulful bestie who has companioned me for more than a decade and from whom I have only been parted for two nights of his entire life. . Am I going to argue that because I love him or because he has working lines, that he meets the standard for beauty of headpiece crafted by the breed standard? No. His muzzle is narrow and more pointy than allowed by the standard for beauty set by the blueprint which reads that it can be only slightly wider at the stop than at the tip.

The educated eye looks for the teachings of the breed standard in the actual dog, from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail. While it is of course affirming to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it isnt enough rigor for breeders in a thread about breeding to improve the breed. We have a written standard that describes what beauty is in elaborate detail, and it is our job to educated our eye to see the dog against that standard in breeding.


----------



## marsh mop

TrailDogs said:


> Please define 'less beautiful dog'.


I will try to locate some noblemen for that answer.


----------



## Claudia M

And still Jill you have not explained the erroneous comment about the field trials. Or the hard core and high drive comment. I get an idea about the high drive (which IMHO they should all have) but not sure what hard core means. 

And I would say the trend right now in the show goldens is to take the broad skull to a complete extreme. Just like it has happened to other breeds. 

I am confused about your field bred dog. Finn - in your signature? Tango - not in your signature? None of them look to me like field bred golden. Can you clarify field bred?


----------



## Ljilly28

marsh mop said:


> I will try to locate some noblemen for that answer.


Finally, we admit the romancing of the past when all the dogs were much better than now is a little like a monty python skit.Thank you for that!


----------



## SheetsSM

Claudia M said:


> None of them look to me like field bred golden.


I thought "field" goldens were bred for performance not appearance--not every golden out there that doesn't look like what's in the conformation ring means it's a "field" golden just as a golden that matches the style in the ring in the areas of "looks" shouldn't be dismissed as not being a "field" golden. Or is all of this talk about performance for not & it really boils down to two camps saying your golden doesn't look like mine so you're wrong.


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> Finally, we admit the romancing of the past when all the dogs were much better than now is a little like a monty python skit.Thank you for that!


I may be wrong but I believe Marsh mop was referring to this in his/her quest to search for noblemen: "Beauty to satisfy the eye of a nobleman is part of the selection of a golden, the happy bright eyes and gentle companionship as well has the capacity to servicably retrieve birds. . ." 

Unless there is some secret society in the US (nobility titles are forbidden under our Constitution) one would have to search abroad. Hope they will indulge us and talk to us peasants.


----------



## Claudia M

SheetsSM said:


> I thought "field" goldens were bred for performance not appearance--not every golden out there that doesn't look like what's in the conformation ring means it's a "field" golden just as a golden that matches the style in the ring in the areas of "looks" shouldn't be dismissed as not being a "field" golden. Or is all of this talk about performance for not & it really boils down to two camps saying your golden doesn't look like mine so you're wrong.


If you *look* at the pedigree none *look* to me like they were field bred goldens. 

I do see how the word look can be confusing especially with the latest emphasis on "less beautiful dogs" and more eye pleasing to the noblemen statements.


----------



## Ljilly28

To me, a field bred dog is one whose pedigree says so, not looks. Since Tango and Finn both have MH parents, I consider them field bred or dually bred- certainly not conformation prospects and not byb dogs as Tango is from Topbrass and Kuventre .

Here is the litter for Finn's dad:

UCDX HR SR Sand Dancer's XX MTB Ranger UDT MH WCX ** 
Sand Dancer's Super Nova MH CDX WCX CGC
Sand Dancer's Solar Wind (5/24/2004-8/19/2005) Hit By Car
Sand Dancer's Winter Diamond UD, SH, WCX, CGC 


Here is Tango's mom ( her dad is a MH/ GCH DDHF) 
Mom: 
Call name:	"Sarah"
Kuventre You Were Born TaFly MH
U-UD Topbrass Shudabin A Cowboy UDX MNH WCX OS	
Tigathoe's Rusty Rocket *** OS	
FC AFC Stony-Brook's Jersey Devil OS FDHF
Topbrass Ace in the Hole ***
Sundust Rose of Topbrass OD	
Frisbies Olympia Gold ** OS
Sundust Gypsy *** WCX
Selfaires Steel Magnolia MH OD	
OTCH KC Jubilee of Selfaire UDX MH	
AFC KC's Chip Off the Ole Block MH WCX OS
Powderhorn's Flight Of Fancy MH WCX *** OD
Tanbark's Punkin of Selfaire	
OTCH Shoreland's Big Harry Deal ** OS
Tanbarks Frisbee Fetcher OD


With Finn , my point is like Dorothy's scarecrow I love him best of all but that doesnt mean in reading line by line by line through the breed standard he is correct when it is applied to him in the details of breed type. 

The problem is people love their dogs and take it personally if there is an implication the dog does not meet the breed standard. However, there are many concrete details that are not in the eye of the beholder. People who try to improve the breed are those who can love and adore their dogs, but see their weaknesses honestly, and hold them to the official written standard. Yes, some of the standard is eye of the beholder but much is right there on paper.

In Tango's case, her mom finished her MH very young and all her titles in straight passes. Tango has a ton of drive, gusto, and go, and she is fearless. However, she has many srtuctural glitches, with her shoulders set too far back and her elbows loose rather than close to her body. She has catastrophic FCP ebow dysplsia bilaterally that required surgery at 7 months. The sad thing is the wonder of her superior drive only serves to do her injury.

With Finn, his uncle Ranger (who we adore too) is MH *** owner trained and his dad finished his MH owner trained and handled. I loved the journey, and I wanted a field dog and to focus on field. Finn though has epilepsy and his longer loin led to spondyliosis in his spine and Tango has ED. Thus, I learned there is no possible way to stress working ability above structure, and not pay a price in the dogs quality of life imo.


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> To me, a field bred dog is one whose pedigree says so, not looks. Since Tango and Finn both have MH parents, I consider them field bred or dually bred- *certainly not conformation prospects* and not byb dogs as Tango is from Topbrass and Kuventre .
> 
> Here is the litter for Finn's dad:
> Sand Dancer's Solar Wind (5/24/2004-8/19/2005) [PennHip .50,.41]
> Sand Dancer's Winter Diamond UD, SH, WCX, CGC (1/20/2001-11/19/2014) [OFA GR-78478G24F,PennHip.41/.39]
> UCDX HR SR Sand Dancer's XX MTB Ranger UDT MH WCX ** (1/20/2001-) [OFA GR81724G36M-PI,PennHip.35,.35]
> Sand Dancer's Super Nova MH CDX WCX CGC (1/20/2001-4/19/2012) [OFA GR-78511G24M,PennHip.38/.46]
> 
> Here is Tango's mom ( her dad is a MH/ GCH DDHF)
> Mom:
> Call name: "Sarah"
> Kuventre You Were Born TaFly MH
> 
> U-UD Topbrass Shudabin A Cowboy UDX MNH WCX OS
> Tigathoe's Rusty Rocket *** OS
> FC AFC Stony-Brook's Jersey Devil OS FDHF
> Topbrass Ace in the Hole ***
> Sundust Rose of Topbrass OD
> Frisbies Olympia Gold ** OS
> Sundust Gypsy *** WCX
> Selfaires Steel Magnolia MH OD
> OTCH KC Jubilee of Selfaire UDX MH
> AFC KC's Chip Off the Ole Block MH WCX OS
> Powderhorn's Flight Of Fancy MH WCX *** OD
> Tanbark's Punkin of Selfaire
> OTCH Shoreland's Big Harry Deal ** OS
> Tanbarks Frisbee Fetcher OD
> 
> 
> With Finn , my point is like Dorothy's scarecrow I love him best of all but that doesnt mean in reading line by line by line through the breed standard he is correct when it is applied to him in the details of breed type.
> 
> The problem is people love their dogs and take it personally if there is an implication the dog does not meet the breed standard. However, there are many concrete details that are not in the eye of the beholder. People who try to improve the breed are those who can love and adore their dogs, but see their weaknesses honestly, and hold them to the official written standard. Yes, some of the standard is eye of the beholder but much is right there on paper.
> 
> In Tango's case, her mom finished her MH very young and all her titles in straight passes. Tango has a ton of drive, gusto, and go, and she is fearless. However, she has many srtuctural glitches, with her shoulders set was too far back and her elbows loose rather than close to her body. She has catastrophic FCP ebow dysplsia bilaterally that required surgery at 7 months. The sad thing is the wonder of her superior drive only serves to do her injury.
> 
> With Finn his uncle Ranger who we adore too is MH *** owner trained and his dad finished his MH owner trained and handled. I loved the journey, and I wanted a field dog and to focus on field. Finn though has epilepsy and his longer loin led to spondyliosis in his spine and Tango has ED. There is no possible way to stress working ability above structure and not pay a price in the dogs quality of life imo.


What about all the Conformation titles in Tango? Or a few hunt titles eliminates and/or automatically puts a dog in the "less beautiful" field bred category? 

Pedigree: BISS GCH CH HRCH U-CD Springcreek Everlore All Time Hi CDX BN RN MH WCX VCX DDHF BOSS BOVSS

Tango's dad.


----------



## tippykayak

Claudia M said:


> What about all the Conformation titles in Tango? Or a few hunt titles eliminates and/or automatically puts a dog in the "less beautiful" field bred category? .


The words "dually bred" are literally two words before what you bolded in your quote of her post.


----------



## Claudia M

tippykayak said:


> The words "dually bred" are literally two words before what you bolded in your quote of her post.


True, in that one post, but all the previous statements about either of the two dogs (which I am not sure which one is actually referred to) indicated *field bred dog*.


----------



## Ljilly28

To me, Finn s the most beautiful dog in the world. My love for him and his dear familiar face with its heart and soul is the most beautiful of all dogs to me. However, it doesnt conform to the actual language of the actual standard: muzzle must be only slightly wide at base than tip, there must be no knowledge bump etc.

To improve the breed, you have to reach a place in which you can simultaneously LOVE your dog and then in a disinterested( not uninterested) way apply the standard without letting it change your feelings about the dog.

I never said field bred dogs are not beautiful, but I am answering the suggestion made that dogs who cannot pass the CCA even be bred based on working ability with a counterclaim that the beauty, breed type, and structure are just as much defining of the golden than its working ability is defining of a retriever. 

Yes, to me, this is an excellent example of a staight up field bred dog who rocks. I was so excited to chose a puppy from her, and still think she is wonderful. I am not a conformation person with no appreciation of field style dogs, but I am skeptical anyone with no appreciation of the conformation style dog if they have never even owned one. I give respect to Stoney, Tito, Bally, and Manny who can do it all- Marry beauty, structure, temperament, to working ability. They are the 1 percent. 

Kuventre's You Were Born TaFly MH
U-UD Topbrass Shudabin A Cowboy UDX MNH WCX OS	
Tigathoe's Rusty Rocket *** OS	
FC AFC Stony-Brook's Jersey Devil OS FDHF
Topbrass Ace in the Hole ***
Sundust Rose of Topbrass OD	
Frisbies Olympia Gold ** OS
Sundust Gypsy *** WCX
Selfaires Steel Magnolia MH OD	
OTCH KC Jubilee of Selfaire UDX MH	
AFC KC's Chip Off the Ole Block MH WCX OS
Powderhorn's Flight Of Fancy MH WCX *** OD
Tanbark's Punkin of Selfaire	
OTCH Shoreland's Big Harry Deal ** OS
Tanbarks Frisbee Fetcher OD


----------



## Claudia M

Sorry, Jill - not getting personal at all. You have used your own dog (not sure which) to once again denigrate the field bred dogs after erroneous and romanticized statements. None of the two are field bred dogs. And that was my exact point. 

Seizures are in the golden retrievers either conformation or field. Like it or not. To attribute it to only field bred dogs I find it quite disingenuous and misleading.


----------



## tippykayak

SheetsSM said:


> I thought "field" goldens were bred for performance not appearance--not every golden out there that doesn't look like what's in the conformation ring means it's a "field" golden just as a golden that matches the style in the ring in the areas of "looks" shouldn't be dismissed as not being a "field" golden. Or is all of this talk about performance for not & it really boils down to two camps saying your golden doesn't look like mine so you're wrong.


The funny thing is that I don't think anybody would disagree with the concept of trying to preserve or improve the type, structure, and ability of the breed. The disagreements seem to come over how different people do it. I would think that putting the dogs together to compete with each other or with a standard on structure and type would help preserve those things. And putting dogs together to compete against each other or with a standard on ability would help preserve that. To do one to the total exclusion of the other would seem to risk losing the characteristic you were ignoring.

To divide the breed in half in our conversation does, I think, a real disservice to the breed and frankly to reality. Most Goldens are bred in backyards and factories with _no_ sense of working purpose, structure or type. It's just Golden + Golden = Golden. Frequently, those dogs still carry the hallmarks of the breed anyway, and there are plenty of diamonds in that rough. But I think we can agree that those willy-nilly breedings are the least likely to protect the breed's legacy.

So to dump on _all_ breeders who compete in conformation for losing the breed's ability or to dump on _all_ breeders who compete in field, agility, obedience etc. seems like a massive misdirection of energy. And while nobody probably intends to do so, the dividing of the dogs into "show" and "field" categories forces our conversation to do exactly that. Comments discussing the value of "show" automatically sound like they are opposing "field" and vice versa.

It's black-and-white thinking to place other people's comments into different camps as one reads them. The issue is complex and deserves better. I have yet to read a post that says that working ability and competition should not be valued, and while I have read a few that seem to have quite a bit of hostility for conformation competition, I don't see anybody saying that a dog's structure should not be evaluated dispassionately as part of deciding whether he should be bred.

So the question that's a lot more interesting to me is how a modern, ethical breeder tries to strike that balance. Calling other people out on their dogs or waxing nostalgic for a largely fictional version of the past seems like a big distraction from that.


----------



## Ljilly28

Claudia, I wish you well, and I hope in twenty years you have the ***FC dog of your dreams, that you earn your very first title with a golden this year, and that you can practice what you preach in actual time by breeding to improve the golden with your love and with your care to pups and mom. Anyone who sets high goals and high standards and reaches them is excellent in my eyes even if I do not share their goals or opinions. Go for it and show us how it is done!


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> Claudia, I wish you well, and I hope in twenty years you have the ***FC dog of your dreams, that you earn your very first title with a golden this year, and that you can practice what you preach in actual time by breeding to improve the golden with your love and with your care to pups and mom. Anyone who sets high goals and high standards and reaches them is excellent in my eyes even if I do not share their goals or opinions. Go for it and show us how it is done!


 
Thank you! And while I do that I will still be scratching my head about what breeds are actually intended for field trials. I should be used to be at odds since the white dog is more of a pet and not a golden retriever and the field bred dogs are less beautiful, at least they still make the golden retriever category.


----------



## SheetsSM

Claudia M said:


> Thank you! And while I do that I will still be scratching my head about what breeds are actually intended for field trials. I should be used to be at odds since the white dog is more of a pet and not a golden retriever and the field bred dogs are less beautiful, at least they still make the golden retriever category.


Is this really necessary? Several pages back this thread made great headway finding its way to the "middle", and we're now back full circle attempting to pit people against each other vice working together. How disappointing.


----------



## Claudia M

Tippy - are you sincerely interested in structure?

What about the extreme broad skulls, short muzzles, blocky heads and short legs.

I have started a thread "*Protect and* *Preserve* the breed" and that should be the purpose of the breeder. You call that fictional version of the past, others call them primitive dogs. Fortunately with the CCA they fit the standard and with the hunt tests, field trials and regular hunting they can still fulfill their purpose. 

The breed standard starts with purpose and then structure. Structure follows purpose. Not some nobleman's pleasing eyes. 

No one is attacking any ones dog. If a dog is used with the purpose of denigrating the field goldens then a clarification and full pedigree is in order.


----------



## Brave

kfayard said:


> I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



I really identify with this sentiment. Bear is gorgeous in my eyes. My bond and emotional investment/attachment color the degree in which I find him beautiful. He isn't "classically" beautiful. He has a myriad of faults (drooping eyes, lack of coat, length of leg (IMO), to name a few) that take away from what I typically find aesthetically pleasing. 

I don't love him less because of it. I wouldn't change his looks or trade him for a more classically beautiful dog. But that doesn't stop me from finding certain looks more appealing. 

I wonder if the golden ratio (?) plays a factor in what we find beautiful. I could be out of place cause there is more to the standard than physical aesthetics. 

Just some thought food, my brain was chewing on this morning.


----------



## Claudia M

SheetsSM said:


> Is this really necessary? Several pages back this thread made great headway finding its way to the "middle", and we're now back full circle attempting to pit people against each other vice working together. How disappointing.


I found this much more disappointing:

"I hope in *twenty years* you have the ****FC dog* of your dreams, that you earn your *very first* *title* *with a golden* this year.

Unfortunately I came to the conclusion that there is no middle way. The conformation will take the road of the conformation lab and the field will take the road of the field lab. Same as the BC working vs show, same with all the other breeds that have been "improved" in the ring to the detriment of the breed purpose. 

And unfortunately the middle way will only be brought by the conformation judges (quite a lot to put on their shoulders), or a poor dog that would be embarrassed in front of the whole world like it happened with the labs until people will wake up.


----------



## tippykayak

Claudia M said:


> Tippy - are you sincerely interested in structure?
> 
> What about the extreme broad skulls, short muzzles, blocky heads and short legs.


I'm going to respond here because you literally asked me a question, but once again, I don't think your post makes any sense when I actually try to connect the thoughts. Of course I would not be a fan of these extremes outside the standard, especially since I just wrote a whole post about how I think type and structure are an important part of the breed. 

What I am not interested in is debating your highly erroneous understanding of the dogs who compete in conformation, since I've been to a bunch of shows and have never seen this epidemic of stumpy, blocky dogs you seem so upset about. I certainly have my opinions about the dogs who get put up as winners sometimes, but the things I don't like about this or that winner are totally out of sync with your complaints about the breed in general.



Claudia M said:


> I have started a thread "*Protect and* *Preserve* the breed" and that should be the purpose of the breeder. You call that fictional version of the past, others call them primitive dogs. Fortunately with the CCA they fit the standard and with the hunt tests, field trials and regular hunting they can still fulfill their purpose.


OK...here's where your grammar and your logic break down together. You said I called "that" a fictional version of the past. What does the word "that" refer to? I certainly did not call your other thread a fictional version of the past, and I am at a loss for what noun to attach the word "that" to. This kind of non-sequitur is what I'm talking about when I say your points don't connect.



Claudia M said:


> The breed standard starts with purpose and then structure. Structure follows purpose. Not some nobleman's pleasing eyes.


Where do you think the breed started if not literally with the dogs who pleased (visually and in terms of ability) an actual nobleman? To pretend that the beauty and look of a Golden aren't also a key part of the breed ignores both the standard and the history.



Claudia M said:


> No one is attacking any ones dog. If a dog is used with the purpose of denigrating the field goldens then a clarification and full pedigree is in order.


It is not "denigrating the field goldens" to use one's own dogs to make a point about the importance of structure (or type or ability for that matter). It is very hard to watch your own beloved dog develop a health issue that seems to be related directly to a structural issue in his conformation. For example, if Jax develops spondylosis like his Uncle Finn, I will think it quite likely that his long loin was a contributing factor. That's not an attack on "field goldens," especially since I reject the black-and-white thinking it represents to be dividing Golden world in half like that.


----------



## Loisiana

Being beautiful and meeting the standard aren't necessarily the same thing. One is totally subjective opinion.


----------



## Claudia M

tippykayak said:


> I'm going to respond here because you literally asked me a question, but once again, I don't think your post makes any sense when I actually try to connect the thoughts. Of course I would not be a fan of these extremes outside the standard, especially since I just wrote a whole post about how I think type and structure are an important part of the breed.
> 
> What I am not interested in is debating your highly erroneous understanding of the dogs who compete in conformation, since I've been to a bunch of shows and have never seen this epidemic of stumpy, blocky dogs you seem so upset about. I certainly have my opinions about the dogs who get put up as winners sometimes, but the things I don't like about this or that winner are totally out of sync with your complaints about the breed in general.
> 
> 
> 
> OK...here's where your grammar and your logic break down together. You said I called "that" a fictional version of the past. What does the word "that" refer to? I certainly did not call your other thread a fictional version of the past, and I am at a loss for what noun to attach the word "that" to. This kind of non-sequitur is what I'm talking about when I say your points don't connect.
> 
> Since the field goldens seem to be once again under attack; "that" refers to field goldens. You did not use the term, maybe you did not intend it that way. Maybe you can explain what you meant by " ....or waxing nostalgic for a largely fictional version of the past seems like a big distraction from that."
> 
> 
> Where do you think the breed started if not literally with the dogs who pleased (visually and in terms of ability) an actual nobleman? To pretend that the beauty and look of a Golden aren't also a key part of the breed ignores both the standard and the history.
> 
> Phew - I doubt that those noblemen were searching to indulge their pleasing eyes. After all the flat coated retriever was the gentleman's dog. From what I have read so far on the history of the breed I have yet to come to "beautiful eyes etc". I did come across ,quite often about the hunting abilities, premier worker, biddability and athleticism.
> 
> It is not "denigrating the field goldens" to use one's own dogs to make a point about the importance of structure (or type or ability for that matter). It is very hard to watch your own beloved dog develop a health issue that seems to be related directly to a structural issue in his conformation. For example, if Jax develops spondylosis like his Uncle Finn, I will think it quite likely that his long loin was a contributing factor. That's not an attack on "field goldens," especially since I reject the black-and-white thinking it represents to be dividing Golden world in half like that.


:scratchch Attributing the seizures to just field goldens IS denigrating. While you reject the use of "field goldens" and I thank you for that (even though it may be too late for the breed in general) that is how it was used. If it wasn't then the words "field bred" should not have been included in the previous statements. 

A person who reads that statement would conclude that "field goldens" are full of structural issues and seizures.


----------



## elly

A gentle but important reminder to please keep on topic in a constructive manner and restrain from posting personal attacks or inflammatory remarks.
It's an interesting informative thread, please let's keep it as such. 
Many thanks


----------



## tippykayak

Claudia M said:


> :scratchch Attributing the seizures to just field goldens IS denigrating.


Nobody did that. Once again you are responding to what you thought you read rather than what's actually in a post. But I'm going to excuse myself for awhile now. This is utterly pointless.


----------



## TrailDogs

The standard is not the holy grail, it is a written description of the breed, subject to change and interpretation. It does not define the ultimate dog. It defines a broad range of ideal dogs. 
It has been changed over the years and can be changed again. It is not even the same from one country to the next for the exact same breed so it needs to be considered in a much broader scope.


----------



## Claudia M

Ljilly28 said:


> ........
> A golden retriever narrow in skull is not what we as breeders want to find beautiful in an educated opinion because *we have set a standard* *for* *the look and beauty of the dog*.
> 
> A knowledge bump is not correct. *Does that mean I love my field bred dog less for having one ?* No- I adore my soulful bestie who has companioned me for more than a decade and from whom I have only been parted for two nights of his entire life. . Am I going to argue that because I love him or because he has working lines, that he meets the standard for beauty of headpiece crafted by the breed standard? No. His muzzle is narrow and more pointy than allowed by the standard for beauty set by the blueprint which reads that it can be only slightly wider at the stop than at the tip.
> 
> The educated eye looks for the teachings of the breed standard in the actual dog, from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail. While it is of course affirming to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it isnt enough rigor for breeders in a thread about breeding to improve the breed. We have a written standard that describes what beauty is in elaborate detail, and it is our job to educated our eye to see the dog against that standard in breeding.



Tippy - can you please help educate my poor ESL interpretation of this?


----------



## Sally's Mom

TrailDogs said:


> The standard is not the holy grail, it is a written description of the breed, subject to change and interpretation. It does not define the ultimate dog. It defines a broad range of ideal dogs.
> It has been changed over the years and can be changed again. It is not even the same from one country to the next for the exact same breed so it needs to be considered in a much broader scope.


I think this statement makes a lot of sense to all golden lovers.


----------



## tippykayak

Thought the better of it.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia don't you _dare_ get my thread locked.

Moderators, if there's a problem, please make your solution an action dealing with the actual perpetrators, and not by locking my very nice thread.

Thank you, everyone.


----------



## Rob's GRs

DanaRuns said:


> Claudia don't you _dare_ get my thread locked.
> 
> Moderators, if there's a problem, please make your solution an action dealing with the actual perpetrators, and not by locking my very nice thread.
> 
> Thank you, everyone.


 There are issues all the way around, and through this thread. If this thread does not stay on track and civil it will be closed and actions could be taken.

All members please be civil in responses as well there is no need to "call out" members on issues.


----------



## Megora

Changed my mind.


----------



## DanaRuns

Nevermind, I changed my mind about posting on beauty.


----------



## Selli-Belle

It is silly to argue that Lord Tweedmouth and the other founders of the breed did not care what their dogs looked like, there is more than enough written evidence to demonstrate that they did including the fact that they did write a standard. But there is even clearer evidence that looks mattered to those noblemen and that is that they decided to create a breed of dogs who two most distinguishing features, its color and coat length are recessive traits. Therefore, in creating the breed they selected for looks rather than ability.


----------



## TrailDogs

Selli-Belle said:


> It is silly to argue that Lord Tweedmouth and the other founders of the breed did not care what their dogs looked like, there is more than enough written evidence to demonstrate that they did including the fact that they did write a standard. But there is even clearer evidence that looks mattered to those noblemen and that is that they decided to create a breed of dogs who two most distinguishing features, its color and coat length are recessive traits. Therefore, in creating the breed they selected for looks rather than ability.


Here is a quote from the GRS original handbook: _'To encourage the breeding and type of the Golden Retriever most suitable for work'_. That doesn't sound like it's all about looks to me. Seems like the gentlemen hunters that founded the breed wanted a working retriever.


----------



## Conquerergold

TrailDogs said:


> Here is a quote from the GRS original handbook: _'To encourage the breeding and type of the Golden Retriever most suitable for work'_. That doesn't sound like it's all about looks to me. Seems like the gentlemen hunters that founded the breed wanted a working retriever.


The original GRS handbook was made in 1950, 4 years after the club was formed.

The club was formed by a group of field trial enthusiasts, 42 years after the death of Lord Tweedmouth.

42 years later that statement in the handbook was changed to read; "Encourage the type as laid down in the Breed Standard".

I'm not pretending to know what the founders of our breed were after, just wanted to point out some historical info pertaining to that quote.


----------



## Ljilly28

tippykayak said:


> Nobody did that. Once again you are responding to what you thought you read rather than what's actually in a post. But I'm going to excuse myself for awhile now. This is utterly pointless.


You said you are going to excuse yourself bc you have seizures!???


----------



## TrailDogs

Conquerergold said:


> The original GRS handbook was made in 1950, 4 years after the club was formed.
> 
> The club was formed by a group of field trial enthusiasts, 42 years after the death of Lord Tweedmouth.
> 
> 42 years later that statement in the handbook was changed to read; "Encourage the type as laid down in the Breed Standard".
> 
> I'm not pretending to know what the founders of our breed were after, just wanted to point out some historical info pertaining to that quote.


It's not a mystery at all, from the AKC website:

'In the early 1800s, game was plentiful in England and Scotland, and hunting was both a sport and a practical way of obtaining food. Retrievers came into prominence because of the desire for a medium-sized dog that would do well in wild-fowling, both upland game and waterfowl. Records kept from 1850 to 1890 at the Guisachan estate of Dudley Marjoribanks, first Lord Tweedmouth, near Inverness, Scotland, record the development of the original strain of Golden Retrievers.'


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Here is a quote from the GRS original handbook: _'To encourage the breeding and type of the Golden Retriever most suitable for work'_. That doesn't sound like it's all about looks to me. Seems like the gentlemen hunters that founded the breed wanted a working retriever.


I don't think anyone here, in any post in over 100 pages said "it's all about looks." But let me ask you a question by rearranging the words you used: Is it about looks, _at all_?


----------



## Conquerergold

TrailDogs said:


> It's not a mystery at all, from the AKC website:
> 
> 'In the early 1800s, game was plentiful in England and Scotland, and hunting was both a sport and a practical way of obtaining food. Retrievers came into prominence because of the desire for a medium-sized dog that would do well in wild-fowling, both upland game and waterfowl. Records kept from 1850 to 1890 at the Guisachan estate of Dudley Marjoribanks, first Lord Tweedmouth, near Inverness, Scotland, record the development of the original strain of Golden Retrievers.'


That quote also doesn't state that looks were of no or little importance. That is what I'm not pretending to have insight into.

If we want to argue quotes and intent. What about this one from the GRC, the first club for the breed formed in 1911: "They showed their Goldens at every show to which they could afford to travel, guaranteed the classes and won their own prizes. In a comparatively short time, one or two Goldens managed to catch the eye of Field Trial Judges, simply because it became impossible to ignore the sterling work done by them in the field."

Thus, according to that quote, they were show dogs who then went on to catch the eye of Trial Judges.

Or this one, by Elma Stonex who discovered the origins of the breed, about the dogs from pre WWI:"At that time the breed was still big and heavy, with rather long backs and often with tremendous coats. These dogs were criticised as cumbersome and a good deal slower in the field than the other Retriever breeds, although they had the softest of mouths and were exceptionally good in water. We owe a great debt to those early breeders, whose efforts and work in careful breeding were crowned with success in producing from them down the years (without the use of outside blood) a balanced short-coupled dog, with a dense and water-resisting but manageable coat, and who although remaining powerful and heavily boned, should yet be active, fast and handy in size. In doing this, these pioneers also succeeded in retaining the broad skull and powerful muzzle, ideal for brains and for practical work, and with them the very kindly and noble expression so characteristic of the original Guisachan dogs - the aim of all breeders today."

So the dogs before 1914 were actually big, heavy, long backed dogs with tremendous coats who were slower in the field, but selective breeding changed that.

Quotes like the above, are a reason why I don't pretend to know.


----------



## TrailDogs

DanaRuns said:


> I don't think anyone here, in any post in over 100 pages said "it's all about looks." But let me ask you a question by rearranging the words you used: Is it about looks, _at all_?


Yup, of course it's about looks too. But there is a broad range of looks that are acceptable and beautiful dogs in this breed. Looks are just a piece of what defines a golden retriever.


----------



## Selli-Belle

If all Lord T wanted was the best working dog, how did we wind up with a blonde, long haired dog, especially in a time when in the Lab world at the time, they only wanted black dogs and yellow and chocolate dogs were culled. Lord T was also involved in the "Model Farming" movement which had notions of livestock perfection as evidenced by a standard which included functions and looks.

When I was in my M.Arch. program I took a class on rural architecture (called the barn class) and we debated the idea that farmers were only concerned with utilitarian concerns when it came to building barns and coming from an engineering family, I can see the beauty in functionality.....but believe me both farmers and engineers are very concerned in the look they present to the world.


----------



## Loisiana

DanaRuns said:


> Nevermind, I changed my mind about posting on beauty.


I had read what you wrote, and I still don't agree. To talk about our sense of beauty in people - some people find blonde hair beautiful, some find red heads beautiful. In nature, while some people see beauty in a sunrise, others see beauty in the dark sky during a storm. Some see beauty in it all, but not everyone.

Going back to dogs, just because it is in the standard doesn't mean everyone finds it beautiful. Standard doesn't equal beauty in everyone's eyes. To look at a different perspective, some people think excessive coat is beautiful. Others think it is just a hindrance.


----------



## Brave

Loisiana said:


> I had read what you wrote, and I still don't agree. To talk about our sense of beauty in people - some people find blonde hair beautiful, some find red heads beautiful. In nature, while some people see beauty in a sunrise, others see beauty in the dark sky during a storm. Some see beauty in it all, but not everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to dogs, just because it is in the standard doesn't mean everyone finds it beautiful. Standard doesn't equal beauty in everyone's eyes. To look at a different perspective, some people think excessive coat is beautiful. Others think it is just a hindrance.



I think the use of the term "beauty" arose from conformation shows being equated to beauty contests, earlier in this thread.


----------



## K9-Design

I understand what Jill was getting at with the standard "telling" us what is beautiful. To a trained eye, what is correct per the standard is pleasing because we appreciate it's correctness, we find that beautiful as a representative of the breed. A Golden with a head like a borzoi would NOT be beautiful in this respect, but a Borzoi with a head like a Borzoi IS beautiful.


----------



## Megora

> Going back to dogs, just because it is in the standard doesn't mean everyone finds it beautiful. Standard doesn't equal beauty in everyone's eyes. To look at a different perspective, some people think excessive coat is beautiful. Others think it is just a hindrance.


 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or enthusiast.

Breed standards are breed standards. There is a certain look and appearance you expect with everything considered. And styles in conformation ring have emerged over years of people breeding to a certain ideal. Goldens haven't changed that much in over 50 years. Other breeds may have changed in that period of time. Breeds may yet change. 

When you consider other people's breeds and their breed standards.... not everyone thinks other stuff is beautiful, even when they have show people talking in their ear about how breathtaking those breeds are. Regardless of them being bred absolutely to the black and white word of the breed standard. 

Bedlington terriers, for example. LOL. I have no idea why you'd want your dog to look like a fuzzy something with roached back, but that's what they're supposed to look like.

I guess what I'm saying is that if this is your chosen breed.... you have to have some appreciation for a dog who is bred to standard. Otherwise, you'd be digging into other breeds.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> Yup, of course it's about looks too. But there is a broad range of looks that are acceptable and beautiful dogs in this breed. Looks are just a piece of what defines a golden retriever.


Absolutely agree. But now it appears that we are all in the position of line drawing, so we are not in fundamental disagreement, as it so often seems. We are merely perhaps in disagreement as to where we draw our lines.


----------



## Ljilly28

K9-Design said:


> I understand what Jill was getting at with the standard "telling" us what is beautiful. To a trained eye, what is correct per the standard is pleasing because we appreciate it's correctness, we find that beautiful as a representative of the breed. A Golden with a head like a borzoi would NOT be beautiful in this respect, but a Borzoi with a head like a Borzoi IS beautiful.


Thank you. That is what I was trying to say.


----------



## Claudia M

I mentioned couple pages back that I was unsure about the CCA. The more I read about it and think about it the more it makes sense to me. 
The standard is not up for interpretation with the CCA. 

I found this particularly interesting and informative:

"IT ISN’T a program where Goldens from working lines will get scored tougher and/or evaluated against a style that is being shown in the breed ring today."...
"IT IS a program where the Evaluators are qualified to interpret the Standard. They have met strict criteria, are knowledgeable about the breed’s history and have had years of hands-on experience. They certainly wouldn’t be volunteering all their time and energy if they didn’t care about you, your Golden and the future of this breed."...
"IT IS an educational gateway for everyone to reflect on the written description of what is “ideal” for this incredible breed, the essence of a Golden Retriever, that is timeless, without prejudice and not subject to changing fashion or popular style."

GRCA-What the CCA Program IS AND ISN?T

From what I read on the outline it does take a quite extensive set up, organization and expense. Especially since this is breed specific and the evaluation from what I can read takes longer than the 10 minutes in the show ring. (comparing time based on 21 entries per event). 

For the ones that have completed the CCA - how long would you say it took to evaluate each dog?


----------



## Sally's Mom

It was a hot New England day and I believe when we got there the judging was at least two hours behind...got home very late that night..


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> *The standard is not up for interpretation with the CCA. *
> 
> I found this particularly interesting and informative:
> 
> "IT ISN’T a program where Goldens from working lines will get scored tougher and/or evaluated against a style that is being shown in the breed ring today."...
> "IT IS a program where the* Evaluators are qualified to interpret* the Standard. They have met strict criteria, are knowledgeable about the breed’s history and have had years of hands-on experience. They certainly wouldn’t be volunteering all their time and energy if they didn’t care about you, your Golden and the future of this breed."...
> "IT IS an educational gateway for everyone to reflect on the written description of what is “ideal” for this incredible breed, the essence of a Golden Retriever, that is timeless, without prejudice and not subject to changing fashion or popular style."


Just wanted to point out, the standard is indeed still up for interpretation with a CCA. However, evaluators have a vested interest in the breed and would know the nuances of the breed better than someone who may not have bred or owned a Golden.


----------



## TrailDogs

The CCA took me at least half a day. 
When we arrived they took stacked photos of the dog, and measured the dog. Then we did a group mingle with several other dogs. 
You then go through three different judges who evaluate the dog and have you gait the dog. They each give a written and verbal critique. I did not feel they rushed me through, they really took their time and explained what they thought about the dog.
It does take some time to get through all the dogs. I found it a very worthwhile experience.


----------



## MaureenM

If I remember right we spent about 10 to 15 minutes with each judge for the evaluation. Prior to that Finley was measured and photographed. After all dogs entered had been measured and photographed the individual evaluations started. It was an all day event though between driving almost three hours there and back and waiting for the whole group to finish. 2 of the three judges were very informative. The 3rd judge not so much. But, she did ask if I had any questions....I wish I had been prepared with questions in hand. I'm glad I did it and would do it again.


----------



## Titan1

Claudia M said:


> I mentioned couple pages back that I was unsure about the CCA. The more I read about it and think about it the more it makes sense to me.
> 
> For the ones that have completed the CCA - how long would you say it took to evaluate each dog?


Mighty went through the CCA program at the National in Texas. We reported to be measured the day before. We were to report at the National at 7:00.. we were in the second group. There was two rings with 3 dogs and 3 judges-evaluators.. I know when we went into the ring we were already 15 minutes late and it was a very interesting experience. We had the mingle and then they had us gait right there one after another. The one I learned the most from was the a long time breed judge. She was incredible.. as she went over Mighty and touched him she described everything in detail on what she was feeling. I know one thing that she mentioned I could not see so she actually had me put my hands on him and explained as she moved my hands. She told me the good and bad.. and explained that most of what she was scoring down a bit on were because he was immature yet and explained what I would see in a couple years. I believe the judging was done and we had group pictures taken at 5 or 6 that evening... Those evaluators stood there all day bending over dogs and explaining to us novice people. They were great! 
I am very proud of that title for Mighty..


----------



## TheZ's

I know this was discussed earlier in this thread but it really would be nice if the CCA evaluations were a little more accessible. If I recall correctly the two GRC's closest to me have them on their calendars but then say cancelled or something like that.


----------



## Sally's Mom

The Z'es, I attended a Yankee CCA in Mass, I think Berkshire also does one...look on their websites...


----------



## Claudia M

Titan1 said:


> Mighty went through the CCA program at the National in Texas. We reported to be measured the day before. We were to report at the National at 7:00.. we were in the second group. There was two rings with 3 dogs and 3 judges-evaluators.. I know when we went into the ring we were already 15 minutes late and it was a very interesting experience. We had the mingle and then they had us gait right there one after another. The one I learned the most from was the a long time breed judge. She was incredible.. as she went over Mighty and touched him she described everything in detail on what she was feeling. I know one thing that she mentioned I could not see so she actually had me put my hands on him and explained as she moved my hands. She told me the good and bad.. and explained that most of what she was scoring down a bit on were because he was immature yet and explained what I would see in a couple years. I believe the judging was done and we had group pictures taken at 5 or 6 that evening... Those evaluators stood there all day bending over dogs and explaining to us novice people. They were great!
> I am very proud of that title for Mighty..


While I appreciate all the responses this one has brought tears to my eyes as I am typing right now. 
That must have been an awesome experience and worth the entire time!


----------



## Claudia M

I have paid about $40 for a "5 min of fame" in the show ring. And please do not construe this as a denigration of the conformation ring. I am simply putting this in perspective for more golden retrievers to be able to achieve the CCA. 

Considering that the CCA is breed specific, it takes many hours to complete and all with volunteered judges. But still enough expense. What will it take to have more and more CCA events in the US and more goldens to show they are indeed conforming to the standard?


----------



## Conquerergold

Claudia M said:


> Considering that the CCA is breed specific, it takes many hours to complete and all with volunteered judges. But still enough expense. What will it take to have more and more CCA events in the US and more goldens to show they are indeed conforming to the standard?


I think a good start would be to join one's local GR Club and offer to help co-ordinate CCA events (which I think would also require some fundraising beforehand to help offset some expenses), if the club doesn't already offer them.

I have seen clubs have a CCA in conjunction with other events, and if planned accordingly you can use a judge more than once (should the judge be approved). One event had one of the judges judge the CCA as well as some of the Field events the following day, another judge was able to judge Obedience the following day etc. That can really help save on expenses.


----------



## tpd5

Sally's Mom said:


> The Z'es, I attended a Yankee CCA in Mass, I think Berkshire also does one...look on their websites...


I believe both Yankee and SBGRC offer a cca every other year. Both had one last year so it won't be until 2016 that they have them again.


----------



## K9-Design

Our club has had trouble filling CCAs the past few years.


----------



## Claudia M

K9-Design said:


> Our club has had trouble filling CCAs the past few years.


What do you attribute that to? Not enough knowledge about the CCA?


----------



## cubbysan

Claudia M said:


> What do you attribute that to? Not enough knowledge about the CCA?


If the CCA takes the whole day, sounds like the dog cannot be entered in any other competition that day. Is that correct? Or will they work around the conformation ring or obedience trial?


----------



## K9-Design

Claudia M said:


> What do you attribute that to? Not enough knowledge about the CCA?


Everybody already has earned the title that wants it.


----------



## AmberSunrise

With each of my dogs it has taken half a day.

We start by signing in, having the dogs weighed and measured, and then photos (stacked and frontal) are taken. I am usually in one of the first groups so I can help or fill in afterwards.

Then sometimes mingling is done before individual evaluations, sometimes after.

Then each dog is gone over in detail for 15 minutes with each of the 3 judges. So the entire group takes about an hour (weighing, measuring and photographing continues for the incoming groups while evaluations are going on). Dogs measuring or weighing out of standard are immediately excused if the judge also finds them out of standard when re-measured.

Group photos are taken before lunch for the first group and at events end for the 2nd group.

This is with SBGRC, which generally runs very smoothly and happily. It is truly a fascinating experience and the detailed feedback you receive on your dog is amazing.



Claudia M said:


> I mentioned couple pages back that I was unsure about the CCA. The more I read about it and think about it the more it makes sense to me.
> The standard is not up for interpretation with the CCA.
> 
> I found this particularly interesting and informative:
> 
> "IT ISN’T a program where Goldens from working lines will get scored tougher and/or evaluated against a style that is being shown in the breed ring today."...
> "IT IS a program where the Evaluators are qualified to interpret the Standard. They have met strict criteria, are knowledgeable about the breed’s history and have had years of hands-on experience. They certainly wouldn’t be volunteering all their time and energy if they didn’t care about you, your Golden and the future of this breed."...
> "IT IS an educational gateway for everyone to reflect on the written description of what is “ideal” for this incredible breed, the essence of a Golden Retriever, that is timeless, without prejudice and not subject to changing fashion or popular style."
> 
> GRCA-What the CCA Program IS AND ISN?T
> 
> From what I read on the outline it does take a quite extensive set up, organization and expense. Especially since this is breed specific and the evaluation from what I can read takes longer than the 10 minutes in the show ring. (comparing time based on 21 entries per event).
> 
> For the ones that have completed the CCA - how long would you say it took to evaluate each dog?


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Sunrise said:


> With each of my dogs it has taken half a day.
> 
> We start by signing in, having the dogs weighed and measured, and then photos (stacked and frontal) are taken. I am usually in one of the first groups so I can help or fill in afterwards.
> 
> Then sometimes mingling is done before individual evaluations, sometimes after.
> 
> Then each dog is gone over in detail for 15 minutes with each of the 3 judges. So the entire group takes about an hour (weighing, measuring and photographing continues for the incoming groups while evaluations are going on). Dogs measuring or weighing out of standard are immediately excused if the judge also finds them out of standard when re-measured.
> 
> Group photos are taken before lunch for the first group and at events end for the 2nd group.
> 
> This is with SBGRC, which generally runs very smoothly and happily. It is truly a fascinating experience and the detailed feedback you receive on your dog is amazing.



You weigh the dogs? I've only been to a couple CCA events but I hadn't seen that done. Pretty cool. But I am confused about excusing dogs that weigh out of standard. Weight isn't a disqualifying fault.... Why would dogs who are appropriate height be excused due to weight? Jersey got his CCA. He is within the allowable range for height but at tip top shape he only ever carried 59 lbs. Would he have been excused at your club?

Julie and the boys


----------



## Sally's Mom

At the CCA I went to, they only measured the dogs. We had to report what our dogs weighed.


----------



## Loisiana

This is an area I keep asking about. If the dog measures out of standard, can you still get the evaluation done even though they won't pass? I've gotten mixed answers on that one. It seems that since the main purpose of the CCA is for education, it would be educational for the owner to still get the evaluation.


----------



## Claudia M

Jersey's Mom said:


> You weigh the dogs? I've only been to a couple CCA events but I hadn't seen that done. Pretty cool. But I am confused about excusing dogs that weigh out of standard. Weight isn't a disqualifying fault.... Why would dogs who are appropriate height be excused due to weight? Jersey got his CCA. He is within the allowable range for height but at tip top shape he only ever carried 59 lbs. Would he have been excused at your club?
> 
> Julie and the boys


The weight is listed in the standard. Maybe the weight in combination with other faults would excuse a dog but otherwise just noted? Also, since there is a 1" allowable deviation under or above the standard height. Is there such a thing as x allowable lbs under or above the standard? I do not recall reading anything about that.


----------



## Titan1

When when we did the CCA weight was not a consideration. Jodie.. No the message I got when I asked about Titan was you could not even get into the rings if you did not pass the height requirement. If you are right in the give (-1 or +1) I believe you have to measured a second time by a judge or evaluator.. Could be wrong here though..


----------



## AmberSunrise

Sorry, I should have been clearer .. dogs in good shape were not excused .. dogs very heavy could be


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Sunrise said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer .. dogs in good shape were not excused .. dogs very heavy could be



Is that done for the owner's benefit? Like being excused in that manner, since an obese dog might be unlikely to pass, would allow them to still have 2 attempts at the CCA if they were to get the excess weight off the dog? Would be a good idea. 

Or would a dismissal automatically count as 3 fails? In that case I would think the person would/should still have the right to present their dogs to the judges since weight, though a range is given in the standard, is not a disqualifying fault. Right?

Julie and the boys


----------



## Alaska7133

I was the photographer for my club's CCA in 2013. It was the first time we held one ever. We only had about 18 dogs. since Alaska is so far away, we don't draw from other states or provinces (CCA is same in Canada). But our club had to fly up judges, house them, etc. and we lost money. Even with volunteer judges. 

We did have one dog come straight from a field trial to the CCA. She passed with a nice score. 

I wanted to do the CCA at national, but they had 2 or 3 times as many dogs as they had room.


----------



## K9-Design

No way they dismissed dogs who were under or over the ideal weight range. Weight is not a disqualification. I have never seen dogs weighed at a CCA.


----------



## Conquerergold

K9-Design said:


> No way they dismissed dogs who were under or over the ideal weight range. Weight is not a disqualification. I have never seen dogs weighed at a CCA.


Agree. Here is the CCA Descriptors info for evaluators. It makes note of where a dog can be dismissed/DQ'd. http://www.grca.org/pdf/events/cca/CCADescriptors.pdf


----------



## Claudia M

So since the weight IS included in the standard - why not take it into consideration and if it is, when is it and why?

I can completely see how an overweight dog should not pass the CCA. Just as much as I can see how a very skinny dog (and not referring to lean athletic dogs) should not pass the CCA.


----------



## hotel4dogs

While it's not technically a DQ, they could give low enough points in enough categories that the dog won't pass the CCA.
For example....
size/substance....solid, midsized retriever
condition/musculature....hard working condition, well muscled, athletic
fitness for purpose....workmanlike, athletic
I suspect their gait wouldn't be prime, either
and so on.

We did 2 CCAs, including the one at National 2012. Despite huge entries, to be honest I didn't see a single obese dog entered. 



Claudia M said:


> So since the weight IS included in the standard - why not take it into consideration and if it is, when is it and why?
> 
> I can completely see how an overweight dog should not pass the CCA. Just as much as I can see how a very skinny dog (and not referring to lean athletic dogs) should not pass the CCA.


----------



## Loisiana

I'll admit I didn't read the whole page, but this discussion on Salukis seem similar to our topic The functional Saluki


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> I'll admit I didn't read the whole page, but this discussion on Salukis seem similar to our topic The functional Saluki


That is absolutely awesome!


----------



## DanaRuns

So, just so I can get a sense of what you're thinking of when you post, for those who have been saying that conformation dogs are too fat, short on leg, carry too much coat, have extreme blocky heads, don't look like what Golden Retrievers looked like in the olden days, and are built such that they can't hunt, and further that dogs that can hunt can't compete in the show ring: Do you think this conformation dog fits the above description of conformation dogs?










Just trying to get an idea of what you're talking about, because it's not what I see, unless you are talking about dogs like this. And I was thinking about it today when I snapped this photo at a dog show (sorry for the poor quality). Feel free to discuss this particular dog, she's mine, and I won't be offended. Is this what you're thinking of when you say they are too fat, too much coat, look wrong, etc.?


----------



## Megora

I was thinking about something along the same lines as Dana while I was showing my boy today after seeing something online.... 

When the judge does the hands on exam on my boy in the ring... he can feel what my dog has by way of weight. If there is extra flab or fatty bulk, he can feel that. 

I think Barb and others have described the hands on weight check as far as seeing if your dogs are carrying too much weight? 

I guess what I'm saying is that if a dog is actually overweight by a large amount (not just talking an odd 5#) - I'm sure that's going to be noticeable during the exam. I don't know if a judge necessarily would call for a scale to NQ a dog and I don't know if that would mean weighing every dog in the ring, but he can definitely make sure the overweight dog is not given points on that day. <- My naïve opinion?


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Seems we've all been thinking about this thread today. I was thinking about the reason they would put a specific weight range in the standard. We hear all this talk about show dogs having dinner plates for feet and tree trunks for legs, as though they are somehow much larger (not in height) than was intended. But the amount of bulk (bone and muscle) a golden should carry is right there in the standard. Dogs are supposed to be between 23 and 24 inches tall and 65 to 75 lbs (I don't know the numbers for bitches off the top of my head, so I will just stick with the boys for now). Obviously with a one inch range for height (not counting the allowable inch on either end) and a 10 lb range for weight, there is some variation in bulk to be expected. But those proportions certainly do not describe a feather weight dog. 

I would be willing to bet that most dogs in the show ring are roughly within the weight range described in the standard... allowing that there are always exceptions. Below as an example is one of Banyan's grandfathers. He is 23' and weighs about 65 lbs. I chose him because he is a CH and I was able to access those stats, not to say this dog is any better than anyone else's or that every golden should look exactly like him. He is simply an example of a dog who did not stand out for his size in the show ring, yet meets the height and weight proportions prescribed in the standard to a T. For the record, he also has some basic field titles (WX, JH, and SHR) and more. 








Julie and the boys


----------



## Megora

Julie - I had the same thought and was about to say as much... particularly as in other countries where the golden retriever breed standard does not include weight, you see stockier heavier dogs being shown.

Except I remembered that labs have actual weights included in their breed standard. It would be interesting to see if the heavy weights with the breed is based on visual perception as far as what a 22" 80# male dog or 21" 70# bitch looks like.... or if these dogs are actually vastly overweight as they appear.


----------



## TrailDogs

Loisiana said:


> I'll admit I didn't read the whole page, but this discussion on Salukis seem similar to our topic The functional Saluki


This is a great article. I particularly liked this statement:
I WANT YOU TO LEAVE HERE with this idea: things you cannot see are more important than things you can. There are many things about Salukis that a judge can't see and can't feel, and functionally, those things are more important than the visible and palpable ones.

This article is applicable to any working breed of dog.


----------



## TheZ's

Loisiana said:


> I'll admit I didn't read the whole page, but this discussion on Salukis seem similar to our topic The functional Saluki


Very interesting article. Wish we had something similar for Goldens. I guess you could argue that because of differences in the way Goldens and Salukis originated, it's not that relevant. But I found very interesting his comments on the performance of various dogs that did and didn't conform to standard , as well as the comments on the function and purpose of various parts of the dogs anatomy.

Another interesting quote:

_This leads to another major idea I'd like you to remember when you leave here today: breeding to the standard will not preserve function. All it can preserve is appearance. That is rather obvious when you stop and think about it, because the qualities that make the dog good at its job are by and large not those described in the standard. Most breed standards were drawn up from dogs that were bred for function. What people did, and this is true for other breeds as well as sighthounds, was to obtain dogs from people who had bred them to do some particular thing. They looked at them and said ‘This is what they should look like if they perform this function,' and drew up a standard accordingly; sometimes very precise, sometimes not. Then they bred dogs to look like those which did that thing, instead of breeding them to do it. That's fine if all they wanted was dogs with that look. But, if they expect those dogs to do what resulted in that look they are going to be disappointed. _


----------



## DanaRuns

These are my Golden Retrievers. They are not to standard, but boy can they run field trials. 










Some folks seem to think that it doesn't matter one bit what a Golden looks like. I disagree. I think it's important. Otherwise, why even bother having a Golden Retriever, just get a generic hunting mutt.


----------



## marsh mop

DanaRuns said:


> These are my Golden Retrievers. They are not to standard, but boy can they run field trials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks seem to think that it doesn't matter one bit what a Golden looks like. I disagree. I think it's important. Otherwise, why even bother having a Golden Retriever, just get a generic hunting mutt.


 Could you be any more offensive to those of us who do run field events with our Goldens ?


----------



## Megora

Marsh Mop - I think you are missing the point of what Dana said... 

You can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unless you put both of them on the bread. This conversation has been winding every which way but hasn't focused on what people are saying specifically. I don't believe it even has been about getting conformation dogs into field. The consensus there seems to be that even if dogs are titled, it isn't enough. 

What it does seem to be about is changing the look and style of what is shown in conformation to what is run in field. And this isn't going to win anyone over because either way you look at it... people are going to feel insulted on behalf of what they like about the breed. 

What I personally like about the breed is personified in my dogs. Other people prefer something else... like at the show this week, I had somebody come up and randomly ask me if I was a breeder (I said "no") and then she was asking about if I knew of any breeders - particularly field breeders. I was able to give them names of people to look up quite easily. I did wonder at her train of thought in even asking me after visiting with my dog while I waited outside the ring, but did not have a problem pointing them the right direction. I made no attempt to talk them into buying my preferred type of golden - because I honestly don't care what people buy as long as they aren't padding the pockets of bad breeders. They looked up the one breeder on the spot and were all teary eyed happy about finding something very close to what they wanted. Happy ending. 

I've said this elsewhere, but I was over the moon thrilled that I was standing in a cleared space in a crowd and able to do an obedience demo for somebody - as far as heads up active heeling with my youngest... not too long before we went into the conformation ring. He has a little more maturing to do before I trust him completely not to have his own mind in the obedience ring, but based on him getting his first AKC title with flair out there in the ring this week and things like that warm up... I know he's not far. <- That in my opinion is the working dog I dreamed of having. All the more so since we put really long hours in on those days we competed in obedience (we did rally in the morning, conformation in the afternoon, and rally again in the evening to finish that up) and each time he put the same level of effort in working and came out of his crate ready to play. <- This is not an obedience bred dog. But he's pretty darn good as far as what I wanted... I think you have people out there who get worked up because they want more than one facet of the breed. Even if it isn't somebody else's idea of what the breed is intended for.


----------



## TrailDogs

Megora said:


> Marsh Mop - I think you are missing the point of what Dana said...
> 
> What it does seem to be about is changing the look and style of what is shown in conformation to what is run in field. And this isn't going to win anyone over because either way you look at it... people are going to feel insulted on behalf of what they like about the breed.


No, it's about preserving function in the breed and accepting a broader range of dogs that do meet the standard. 
Which dog meets the standard better? A dog that can put in a days hunt through heavy cover and brambles and meets the standard, but may not be the stylized show ring specimen, or the CH that won't pick up a bird?


----------



## Megora

But we all agree that form is separate than function?

You have lab and golden mixes and very generic dogs of either breed who have every bit of function while lacking structure and lacking breed type (especially those mixes). 

Form follows function - but a lot of people have a varied definition as far as what ideal function (that moving bar I referred to earlier) and what ideal form is - it seems to turn into primarily picking apart conformation dogs. 

It is truly a very antagonistic approach to the breed. And again doesn't focus on the real issue that not everyone has gotten into this breed for the same reasons. I think this is reasonable and I'll wager we all like each others dogs one way or other.


----------



## Ljilly28

The standard is highly specific document about how the dog looks, though it is based on original function. A CH dog who corresponds highly to every detail of the written standard but has not been taken hunting is to me a better representitive of the standard than a dog that runs hard all day, but has few things in common with the written standard. That is Dana's point. A lab/golden mix might run hard and work hard, and may win the Hard Worker prize, but it is still not a Golden Retriever. A Rhodesian Ridgeback might not hunt lions anymore, but that is WHY there is a breed standard. If it hasnt killed a lion, is it not an RR?


----------



## marsh mop

Megora said:


> Marsh Mop - I think you are missing the point of what Dana said...
> 
> You can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unless you put both of them on the bread. This conversation has been winding every which way but hasn't focused on what people are saying specifically. I don't believe it even has been about getting conformation dogs into field. The consensus there seems to be that even if dogs are titled, it isn't enough.
> 
> What it does seem to be about is changing the look and style of what is shown in conformation to what is run in field. And this isn't going to win anyone over because either way you look at it... people are going to feel insulted on behalf of what they like about the breed.
> 
> What I personally like about the breed is personified in my dogs. Other people prefer something else... like at the show this week, I had somebody come up and randomly ask me if I was a breeder (I said "no") and then she was asking about if I knew of any breeders - particularly field breeders. I was able to give them names of people to look up quite easily. I did wonder at her train of thought in even asking me after visiting with my dog while I waited outside the ring, but did not have a problem pointing them the right direction. I made no attempt to talk them into buying my preferred type of golden - because I honestly don't care what people buy as long as they aren't padding the pockets of bad breeders. They looked up the one breeder on the spot and were all teary eyed happy about finding something very close to what they wanted. Happy ending.
> 
> I've said this elsewhere, but I was over the moon thrilled that I was standing in a cleared space in a crowd and able to do an obedience demo for somebody - as far as heads up active heeling with my youngest... not too long before we went into the conformation ring. He has a little more maturing to do before I trust him completely not to have his own mind in the obedience ring, but based on him getting his first AKC title with flair out there in the ring this week and things like that warm up... I know he's not far. <- That in my opinion is the working dog I dreamed of having. All the more so since we put really long hours in on those days we competed in obedience (we did rally in the morning, conformation in the afternoon, and rally again in the evening to finish that up) and each time he put the same level of effort in working and came out of his crate ready to play. <- This is not an obedience bred dog. But he's pretty darn good as far as what I wanted... I think you have people out there who get worked up because they want more than one facet of the breed. Even if it isn't somebody else's idea of what the breed is intended for.


 I have no problem with the split in the breed. I know and train with four of the CH/MH Goldens. I sang one of them a song just yesterday. It is what it is. 
Did I miss Danaruns point, yes, maybe.
I enjoy Goldens, all Goldens. Even the ones that won't swim. The ones that will not pick up a bird. The ones that are too tall, and too short, too leggy, too long in the loin, too deep in the chest, have a smart bump, have narrow head or wide head, or white markings. I just enjoy Goldens.
Danaruns post was RUDE.


----------



## DanaRuns

marsh mop said:


> Could you be any more offensive to those of us who do run field events with our Goldens ?


It wasn't intended to be offensive, it was intended to take the "it doesn't matter if it meets the standard so long as it hunts" meme to the point of absurdity to demonstrate that such a belief does not improve the breed, at all. You're only looking at one part of it, and completely forgetting the rest. It's exactly as Megora said: No matter how amazing that peanut butter is, you can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unless you put them BOTH on the bread.


----------



## DanaRuns

TrailDogs said:


> No, it's about preserving function in the breed and accepting a broader range of dogs that do meet the standard.
> Which dog meets the standard better? A dog that can put in a days hunt through heavy cover and brambles and meets the standard, but may not be the stylized show ring specimen, or the CH that won't pick up a bird?


All due respect that's a false choice.


----------



## DanaRuns

marsh mop said:


> I have no problem with the split in the breed. I know and train with four of the CH/MH Goldens. I sang one of them a song just yesterday. It is what it is.
> Did I miss Danaruns point, yes, maybe.
> I enjoy Goldens, all Goldens. Even the ones that won't swim. The ones that will not pick up a bird. The ones that are too tall, and too short, too leggy, too long in the loin, too deep in the chest, have a smart bump, have narrow head or wide head, or white markings. I just enjoy Goldens.
> Danaruns post was RUDE.


I am sorry that it came off as rude. It wasn't intended that way. I think you think I was posting that picture to say "this is what I think field Goldens look like." That's not what I was saying, at all, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.


----------



## DanaRuns

So, no one wanted to take up my question as to whether this conformation dog does or doesn't look like a Golden should? Or, conversely, whether a good hunting or field dog can't look like this?



DanaRuns said:


> So, just so I can get a sense of what you're thinking of when you post, for those who have been saying that conformation dogs are too fat, short on leg, carry too much coat, have extreme blocky heads, don't look like what Golden Retrievers looked like in the olden days, and are built such that they can't hunt, and further that dogs that can hunt can't compete in the show ring: Do you think this conformation dog fits the above description of conformation dogs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just trying to get an idea of what you're talking about, because it's not what I see, unless you are talking about dogs like this. And I was thinking about it today when I snapped this photo at a dog show (sorry for the poor quality). Feel free to discuss this particular dog, she's mine, and I won't be offended. Is this what you're thinking of when you say they are too fat, too much coat, look wrong, etc.?


----------



## TrailDogs

Ljilly28 said:


> The standard is highly specific document about how the dog looks, though it is based on original function. A CH dog who corresponds highly to every detail of the written standard but has not been taken hunting is to me a better representitive of the standard than a dog that runs hard all day, but has few things in common with the written standard. That is Dana's point. A lab/golden mix might run hard and work hard, and may win the Hard Worker prize, but it is still not a Golden Retriever. A Rhodesian Ridgeback might not hunt lions anymore, but that is WHY there is a breed standard. If it hasnt killed a lion, is it not an RR?


How do you know it conforms to the 'primarily a hunting dog' part of the standard if you never hunt the dog. So we are once again back to square one. 
I actually don't know any goldens that have few things in common with the written standard so I am not sure what you are talking about here.


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> No, it's about preserving function in the breed and accepting a broader range of dogs that do meet the standard.
> Which dog meets the standard better? A dog that can put in a days hunt through heavy cover and brambles and meets the standard, but may not be the stylized show ring specimen, or the CH that won't pick up a bird?


Well as long as form follows function is thrown out the window.......bye bye breed. 
That article cannot be more wonderful in explaining why function comes first and form has to follow in order to be able to achieve function. 

Frankly, it just goes back to a dog has to be proven in function before it can be proven in form. But then you will lose 3/4 of the show entry fees if not more in all the breeds other than the toy breeds.


----------



## DanaRuns

There is no proving function except to become a field dog, according to hundreds of posts in this thread. Seems useless to even bother trying, for most Golden breeders, as it has been said quite firmly that titles will not suffice to satisfy those who are making the "primarily a hunting dog" argument. It's like conformation people saying that all field dogs must compete and win in conformation, and even a championship won't demonstrate that the dog meets the breed standard, we'd have to see and examine the dog ourselves. It has become absurd, and it is clear that there is no common ground.


----------



## DanaRuns

Claudia M said:


> Well as long as form follows function is thrown out the window.......bye bye breed.


And yet it is just as truly said that as long as form is thrown out the window....bye bye breed.


----------



## marsh mop

DanaRuns said:


> It wasn't intended to be offensive, it was intended to take the "it doesn't matter if it meets the standard so long as it hunts" meme to the point of absurdity to demonstrate that such a belief does not improve the breed, at all. You're only looking at one part of it, and completely forgetting the rest. It's exactly as Megora said: No matter how amazing that peanut butter is, you can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unless you put them BOTH on the bread.


 That is as offensive as " it doesn't get in the water or pick up birds, however it meets the breed standard'.
Danasruns, I don't care. Enjoy your dogs and leave others alone.


----------



## Sally's Mom

I think KFayard and K9Design, on this forum have dogs with titles on both ends..as do so many others. Being attractive and exhibiting working ability are not mutually exclusive...


----------



## Kmullen

Honestly... I was so hoping this thread would stop and then it comes back up again!! I really do love all Goldens. Will mine ever be field dogs? I don't know, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good field golden. Just go have fun with your dogs and do they best you can to breed to the standard (as a whole), not just one part of it.


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> How do you know it conforms to the 'primarily a hunting dog' part of the standard if you never hunt the dog. So we are once again back to square one.
> I actually don't know any goldens that have few things in common with the written standard so I am not sure what you are talking about here.


We are just going back over old ground. As Danaruns has already said, you are taking that phrase out of its important context. "primarily a hunting dog" is just an appositive/dependent clause modifying the MAIN IDEA of the sentence, which is that the dog be SHOWN in hard working condition. It tells you why you must show your breeding stock in good shape/not fat so that judge's eyes may evaluate its conformation against its peers.


----------



## marsh mop

kfayard said:


> Honestly... I was so hoping this thread would stop and then it comes back up again!! I really do love all Goldens. Will mine ever be field dogs? I don't know, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good field golden. Just go have fun with your dogs and do they best you can to breed to the standard (as a whole), not just one part of it.


Thank you, just enjoy your dogs!!


----------



## TrailDogs

Ljilly28 said:


> We are just going back over old ground. As Danaruns has already said, you are taking that phrase out of its important context. "primarily a hunting dog" is just an appositive/dependent clause modifying the MAIN IDEA of the sentence, which is that the dog be SHOWN in hard working condition. It tells you why you must show your breeding stock in good shape/not fat so that judge's eyes may evaluate its conformation against its peers.


Ok, that gives me a better perspective on where you are coming from. The purpose of the breed is to be a show dog. 
I learn something new every day.


----------



## Megora

@Kelli - sorry. I have to blab here, simply because this is something that touches on something I explained to people the last few days while we had all kinds of people coming up to meet Bertie and so on. Regular statement a lot of people had was "You must brush him for hours". 

And it's a misconception about the breed - that may be based on what they have experienced with spay coats or with other breeds whose coats are quite different. 



TrailDogs said:


> No, it's about preserving function in the breed and accepting a broader range of dogs that do meet the standard.
> Which dog meets the standard better? A dog that can put in a days hunt through heavy cover and brambles and meets the standard, but may not be the stylized show ring specimen, or the CH that won't pick up a bird?


I was initially puzzled as to how to answer this because the clear response to me - and this based on me firmly believing you make a dog what he is. The dog isn't born trained. So whether he can pick up a bird or not - how would you know if the dog is never given the opportunity to work in field and trained by somebody who knows how to build a correct field foundation, puts the time in, and goes after it. 

As people have reminded us - there are plenty of CH owners who are bare minimum going after some field titles with the dogs. I think that shows all isn't lost.

The rest....

Stamina and ruggedness is something I hope every golden retriever out there has. To me, it means they are healthy and in shape. 

My dogs who quit on me or balked about exercise - they were sick or crippled. I think anyone looking into purchasing a golden needs to expect an energizer bunny with an off switch. A dog that really takes a lot of joy in going through open land, fields, swimming, running up hills, flying over obstacles real or imagined...... It's something I've experienced with my two boys (even my Jacks with his bilateral HD and sound anxiety). I love this part of the breed. 

These are dogs who basically will swim across lakes to fetch something for you. And they have the strength and determination to do so. Again - these are golden retrievers. They aren't rough collies who may balk about going in water (ours does). 

Coat - to me.... has no bearing on the ability of these dogs to be rugged and active. I probably would not have a golden retriever if they were more like rough collies as far as coats. 

Anyone who thinks the golden retriever breed as shown in the AKC is ruined.... I think they need to borrow a different breed that truly was bred for a different purpose. Or as my family did, adopt a rough collie.  These are wonderful dogs. They have all their herding instincts intact - and I know through friends I train with, these dogs still can do the job herding and get herding titles. But their coats are not easy to care for. Mats form within hours of something getting tangled in that coat (I'm talking LEAVES! Not even burrs!). When brushing the coat, it's important to peel the coat up and brush it out one layer at a time. Otherwise, you will just brush the top layer and deep under coat will not be brushed and will mat.

Goldens are just effortless as far as keeping clean and groomed. The two I have right now have never had a mat in their lives. Never had a hot spot in their lives. Jacks had his yeast issues around his neck, but in theory that was less about his coat and more about his thyroid situation. Brushing is a 1-2 minute exercise that doesn't really require too much work. I just go chest, back, sides, feathering, trousers, tail - done. It's as quick and easy as that. The feathering, as I said... if proper texture - does not mat. You do get stuff caught up in the feathering, but it should brush out very easily. Unlike with other breeds who were bred away from function.


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> Ok, that gives me a better perspective on where you are coming from. The purpose of the breed is to be a show dog.
> I learn something new every day.


The purpose of the breed is to be multipurpose while exemplifying the blueprint called the breed standard. 

The breed standard is about how to evaluate the dog's structure, temperament, and breed type. Working ability doesnt give the dog a hallpass to be bred under the auspices of improving the breed if it doesnt meet the standard concretely. 

Ironically tonight I was talking to someone with one of the top obedience goldens in my state. He has a low opinion of conformation goldens AND field goldens both, and he also has a low opinion of people who just have lower level obedience tiles. Rather than offend me, it made me giggle, because we so often argue for a generalization of the dog that we ourselves love.


----------



## K9-Design

marsh mop said:


> I have no problem with the split in the breed. I know and train with four of the CH/MH Goldens. I sang one of them a song just yesterday. It is what it is.
> Did I miss Danaruns point, yes, maybe.
> I enjoy Goldens, all Goldens. Even the ones that won't swim. The ones that will not pick up a bird. The ones that are too tall, and too short, too leggy, too long in the loin, too deep in the chest, have a smart bump, have narrow head or wide head, or white markings. I just enjoy Goldens.
> Danaruns post was RUDE.



It was a really good song  Fisher loved it!


----------



## Titan1

Ljilly28 said:


> The purpose of the breed is to be multipurpose while exemplifying the blueprint called the breed standard.
> 
> Ironically tonight I was talking to someone with one of the top obedience goldens in my state. He has a low opinion of conformation goldens AND field goldens both, and he also has a low opinion of people who just have lower level obedience tiles. Rather than offend me, it made me giggle, because we so often argue for a generalization of the dog that we ourselves love.


Jill what title does he have that he scoffs at the lower levels? Now I am racking my brain trying to figure out the top golden in your state..lol Curious..


----------



## Brave

TrailDogs said:


> Ok, that gives me a better perspective on where you are coming from. The purpose of the breed is to be a show dog.
> 
> I learn something new every day.



I think you might have misunderstood the post. I took it to mean, when the dog is shown (not that all the dog is meant to do is be shown) that the dog should maintain good physique. The dog should be fit, not too skinny, not too fat - fit enough to work hard all day. Hence "hard working condition"


----------



## Sally's Mom

That is a whole different topic..where does a top obedience golden fit into this scheme? Back when I bought my UD Laney girl, it was because she had Colabaugh and Gaylans as her background. When I would look at Front And Finish, many of the top OB dogs at that time were Colabaugh. And they were multi purpose with Ch frequently on the other end...so where do we put the OB dogs?


----------



## Selli-Belle

Just speaking in terms of logistics, it is much easier to have a dog with a CH and advanced obedience titles than a CH and field titles since shows and obedience trials are frequently held together.


----------



## Loisiana

Selli-Belle said:


> Just speaking in terms of logistics, it is much easier to have a dog with a CH and advanced obedience titles than a CH and field titles since shows and obedience trials are frequently held together.


Last time I checked, there were more CH MH goldens than CH OTCH goldens. Anney pointed out it's common to use handlers for both conformation and field, but not very common for obedience.


----------



## Megora

I got into golden retrievers by way of being exposed to goldens who were CH's with obedience titles as well. I grew up during Cherie Berger's heyday with everything she was doing with her dogs... and there were others like her in the breed who were doing everything. Or you had conformation programs that were strongly behind obedience programs (Halltree, for example). And others. I shared a picture earlier in this thread of Dasu's Better Mousetrap.... it was dogs like that who got me hooked on obedience well after I was hooked on the breed. My first real instructor had her CH/UD golden retriever that she brought out for demos in puppy class - and that became my idea of what a golden retriever should be.  She also had WC's on her dogs, but I did not have as much exposure or interest in that. I grew up in a neighborhood where people take their dogs hunting regardless of breed. It's stuff that's always been around me and not really based on what the dogs look like or much about what they've been trained to do. It's just what they do. That somewhat reinforced my "eh, guy thing" perspective on it + boring. <- I'm trying to change my perspective and working on it with my youngest, but it is a struggle because it still isn't something I personally have a lot of interest in.

Now I did say earlier in this thread that not only do you have a split between field and conformation, but there's a growing split between conformation and obedience. At least the latter has less to do with quibbles about looks and more to do with getting dogs who have more built in talent and drive even as puppies. I can understand why some people who want to get OTCH's get puppies where at least one of the parents has an OTCH. There's politics about getting a show puppy to do obedience with because people have seen show puppies who do not have that built in drive or brains or talent. 

I still think people should get the dogs they want... and focus on doing what they want. I hope my gamble pays off as far as me buying what I want and hopefully doing what I want.  It's wait and see - but he has the whole package at least right now. It's coming down to "What we do with what we got".


----------



## Selli-Belle

Loisiana said:


> Last time I checked, there were more CH MH goldens than CH OTCH goldens. Anney pointed out it's common to use handlers for both conformation and field, but not very common for obedience.


I don't think that a MH and a OTCH are comparable. I think a MH would be more like an UDX.


----------



## Conquerergold

Titan1 said:


> Jill what title does he have that he scoffs at the lower levels? Now I am racking my brain trying to figure out the top golden in your state..lol Curious..


20+ years ago I was on the campaign trail with the #1 Golden, #1 Sporting Dog and #3 All breeds in obedience and his owner. Some of the hardcore obedience competitors scoffed at anything below a UD (this was before OTCh). Now we have OTCh, MOTCh, GMOTCh. 

I imagine it's the same as the rest of the sports. CD/CDX isn't enough. WC/JH isn't enough. CCA isn't enough. NJ/NJP isn't enough. etc. 

However, for the grand majority of exhibitors in all of the above sports, what matters most is seeing people trying, having fun, and learning with their dogs.


----------



## K9-Design

Selli-Belle said:


> I don't think that a MH and a OTCH are comparable. I think a MH would be more like an UDX.



Says who? Those two titles the level of difficulty can vary wildly from team to team. My first field instructor did both and said they were a comparable level of work.


----------



## Loisiana

Selli-Belle said:


> I don't think that a MH and a OTCH are comparable. I think a MH would be more like an UDX.


Well there's more CH MH than CH UDX goldens too.


----------



## Megora

K9-Design said:


> Says who? Those two titles the level of difficulty can vary wildly from team to team. My first field instructor did both and said they were a comparable level of work.


Anney - not talking for Carolyn, but I had the same thought. It wasn't about the difficulty of the title*, it's actually more the level of the title within those areas.

OTCH = Obedience Trial Champion.

MH.... isn't the same as a field champion. And why AKC doesn't recognize a CH/MH as a dual champion. It's not meant to be an insult to the title itself. Just referring to how the AKC determines it? 

*I had a conversation with my one private instructor... one who Carolyn uses as well... and she's the type of person who usually gets really high scores with her goldens. And usually does get OTCH's with them. But it's not easy and she doesn't enjoy the trip. It's a lot of trials and a lot of disappointments, primarily because her dogs who are out there to get their OTCH's do get beat by those career obedience dogs who are constantly out there despite having done everything (meaning they already have their OTCH's). 

It might be easier in other states or areas where the competition is not as high and/or you don't have the same OTCH people vying over whose high score's going to beat the other.


----------



## K9-Design

AKC doesn't recognize a CH OTCH as a dual champion either.

I've never put an OTCH on a dog so honestly I wouldn't know. I do know what it takes to train a MH. It's a tricky situation to try to compare titles to each other because the criteria are so different. An OTCH is a competitive title whereas a MH is not, but that doesn't mean it's easier to achieve. A VST (CT) is not competitive and you only have to pass it once but it seriously blows my mind that dogs can actually do it -- the level of difficulty is astronomical.


----------



## Megora

K9-Design said:


> AKC doesn't recognize a CH OTCH as a dual champion either.


I wish they would! Would give more respect to those who have attained an OTCH. And might motivate more people with CH/UD's to go the extra mile to compete for OTCH if they can. My thought is it's probably a lot easier to get a CH/OTCH than it is to get a CH/FTCH. Not saying it's easy at all. But it might not be too far out of somebody's comfort zone in some cases...


----------



## K9-Design

Megora said:


> I wish they would! Would give more respect to those who have attained an OTCH. And might motivate more people with CH/UD's to go the extra mile to compete for OTCH if they can. My thought is it's probably a lot easier to get a CH/OTCH than it is to get a CH/FTCH. Not saying it's easy at all. But it might not be too far out of somebody's comfort zone in some cases...


Dual Champions are only issued for completion of a bench CH and performance CH. Performance championships are specific to the breed. Ie. Field Champion for spaniels, setters, pointers, retrievers, sighthounds. Herding Champions for herding dogs. 

Obedience, rally, agility and tracking are considered "companion events" not performance events and are not breed specific. 

I can tell you without a doubt a CH-OTCH is about five billion times easier than a CH-FC/AFC. But that's sort of like saying the sun is five billion times bigger than the Earth. They're both really big. One is so big it's inconceivable. At least since the 70s LOL


----------



## Megora

Thank you for that explanation, Anney... makes perfect sense. 

That all said... maybe there needs to be a change in how Obedience and Agility are viewed? Particularly since the term "performance bred" is applied to obedience and agility litters alike? Although I get that would involve too much headaches as far as golden retrievers are a sporting breed. There's no such thing as an Obedience breed. I do get what you are saying...


----------



## Selli-Belle

As you said, a MH is not a competitive title, the OTCH is. And to make it clear, I have never trained a dog to either title, but I have friends with MH dogs (Goldens, Flatties and Tollers) who also have dogs with at least UDs that have told me that the OTCH was much harder than the MH. 

It may be the area I am in or the people I hang out with (who were/are all performance people before they were field people), but I stick with my contention. In addition, since I come from a performance background, most people I know do the agility/obedience and the field stuff themselves and either handle their own dogs or send them out with a handler for the breed ring.


----------



## John G

Megora said:


> I wish they would! Would give more respect to those who have attained an OTCH. And might motivate more people with CH/UD's to go the extra mile to compete for OTCH if they can. My thought is it's probably a lot easier to get a CH/OTCH than it is to get a CH/FTCH. Not saying it's easy at all. But it might not be too far out of somebody's comfort zone in some cases...[/QUOTE
> 
> FTCH is not an AKC title. Other countries use it. AKC recognizes FC for Field Champion and AFC for Amateur Field Champion.


----------



## hotel4dogs

JMO, we're all entitled to one, the only titles that should in any way count toward dual champion are the competitive titles, and they should be the performance titles, not the companion events. To accept other titles toward a Dual Champion designation would dilute the amazing achievement of those who have accomplished the bench/performance championship. Again, JMO, before anyone starts blasting me.


----------



## John G

First of all I think this has been a wonderful thread! I know most participating are very defensive in their views. That is to be expected. I respect these differing views and think that everyone has really been great in their contributions.

The question I have is what is meant by "improving the breed"? Lord T. "invented" or originated the breed, right? What was his goal or standard for the breed? Do we know exactly what he wanted? Did he spell out height, weight, eye color, color range of coat?

The pictures I have seen of his dogs and their immediate offspring is of dogs that appear taller than our current breed standard. They also often have wave or curl in their coats. I don't see any "cream colors" in the pictures. I do see some darker versions. They all have their whiskers.

So who decided what the standard was? Did we take Lord T's "standard" or has it been tampered with? Who is more correct, Lord T. or whoever altered his ideal for their own? Did he think that he had already perfected the breed or was it a work in progress? Is it still a work in progress?

The Saluki link states what I have said for many years. You cannot tell in the ring how the dog will perform in the field. To do so is either naïve or arrogant.

Back to the original question of improving the breed. What does it mean? Hard to answer without knowing some of the story behind the scenes. Again, who set the standards? Where they conformation folks or hunters? Do you really think that power and politics didn't have a roll? Is this OK? 

I spent three days last week working at our clubs Specialty. All the dogs there were beautiful, and some weren't even Goldens. All the dogs appeared to have great temperaments and the Goldens of all shapes and sizes looked great.

I met an OTCH pup from our FC/AFC sire that was the apple of his owner's eye. I was proud too. I saw a young conformation dog I have trained for field get his first placement in the ring. I was proud. I saw a CH that I trained to get his WC win and place in the ring. I was proud.

I am proud to be a small part of this breed and its evolving history. I think each and every one here participating in this wonderful discussion should be too!

With that said, overdone should not be accepted in the ring or the field. Goldens with no "Gold" are still beautiful dogs, but..... . Same goes for too much coat, tree trunk legs and kankles. I'm pretty sure that so much coat that a dog swims like a log is not what Lord T. was striving for.

Goldens that don't have an off switch are just as bad as those that don't have an on switch.

Judges don't have to award dogs that are out of standard. Breeders don't have to try and create the dogs judges give wins to, but, they both do. Are they both wrong?

Whiskers. Why are they removed when the standard says they should be there? I'll bet Lord T. never removed the whiskers from his dogs, did he?

Yes, I think it would be great if all Goldens fell within the standard. Many really do, since it does have some wiggle room. Did Lord T. allow for even more wiggle room? The same dog does not always win. That is because different judges view dogs differently be it field or show.

I'm glad that Goldens come in a range of shades, sizes and types. A breed of all clones does not excite me.

John


----------



## hotel4dogs

Not saying I agree, but in response to the whiskers, they are removed to make the muzzle look broader and neater. 
They can be shown either with or without, it's allegedly not considered preferable to have them removed.


----------



## DanaRuns

John G said:


> The question I have is what is meant by "improving the breed"? Lord T. "invented" or originated the breed, right? What was his goal or standard for the breed? Do we know exactly what he wanted? Did he spell out height, weight, eye color, color range of coat?
> 
> The pictures I have seen of his dogs and their immediate offspring is of dogs that appear taller than our current breed standard. They also often have wave or curl in their coats. I don't see any "cream colors" in the pictures. I do see some darker versions. They all have their whiskers.
> 
> So who decided what the standard was? Did we take Lord T's "standard" or has it been tampered with? Who is more correct, Lord T. or whoever altered his ideal for their own? Did he think that he had already perfected the breed or was it a work in progress? Is it still a work in progress?


I'm thinking of an analogy to the telephone. No one looks to Alexander Graham Bell when they think about how to improve the phone. Times have changed, needs have changed, the things we ask our phones to do have changed. We would have a very limited telephone if Apple had to stay true to Bell's vision. Same with Lord T and Goldens. I don't think he even could have comprehended search and rescue dogs, therapy dogs, agility dogs, guide dogs, show dogs, dock divers, drug dogs, dogs that sniff out cancer or epilepsy, obedience dogs, etc. But I'll bet that, like Alexander Graham Bell, if he had been able to consider those things, he would have. I think he would have prized the versatility of the dogs he created. Lord T invented the basic model. Others have advanced it much farther. And to my mind, that's improving the breed. Indulging my own speculation, I think that if Lord T showed up today and looked at everything Goldens were doing, I doubt he would say, "OMG, you've ruined the breed!" I think he would say, "Yo, dawg! Check out how awesome a thing I made! Goldens are dope!" (Or something like that.  )

As for show dogs and whiskers, I think it's ridiculous that they trim whiskers. Whiskers have a function. It's crazy to deprive a dog of that function for no good reason. And I don't think judges by and large reward or punish whiskers or lack thereof. It's a silly "fashion" thing, designed to make the dog's head look sleeker, and imho should be outlawed in the ring. I have the same opinion on removal of dew claws: they have a function and should never be removed. Silly humans.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I've shown Tito both with and without whiskers. Didn't seem to matter either way.


----------



## tippykayak

DanaRuns said:


> As for show dogs and whiskers, I think it's ridiculous that they trim whiskers. Whiskers have a function. It's crazy to deprive a dog of that function for no good reason. And I don't think judges by and large reward or punish whiskers or lack thereof. It's a silly "fashion" thing, designed to make the dog's head look sleeker, and imho should be outlawed in the ring. I have the same opinion on removal of dew claws: they have a function and should never be removed. Silly humans.


I think whiskers should be on because they do have a function and because the standard clearly states that whiskers on is preferable, though I don't hold the opinion as strongly as you do.

As far as dew claws, though, I believe they are not as functional and attached in some dogs as they are in others, and my understanding is that they can become injured or torn when a dog is hunting in the field. So if a dog has them removed for functional reasons or because they were less attached and got injured badly, I wouldn't want that held against them.


----------



## TheZ's

As I recall, some time ago there was a video posted of a Golden using their dew claws to help pull themselves out of some difficult ice while working in the field. As I recall the video explained how usefull dews can be for field dogs.

Going back to the obedience title discussion. I can't really comment on how difficult it is to obtain the various advanced titles since I haven't accomplished that with any of my dogs. I do think that it's important to note that competition obedience is the one event where Goldens excell these days, consistently turning in very strong performances against all other breeds.


----------



## Megora

John G said:


> FTCH is not an AKC title. Other countries use it. AKC recognizes FC for Field Champion and AFC for Amateur Field Champion.


I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining<:

I DID wonder what the difference between FC and AFC was. Now I know. 

@Dews - my show boy has his dews. My pet bred boy (with a conformation background) had them removed. About the only difference between the two dogs is the youngest will stand still and let me trim all the nails back without flinching. My older boy before I started trimming his nails myself, needed to have 4-5 techs hold him down so they could trim one nail very badly. I've been told there's no correlation between the two, but I've always wondered if the puppies remember getting their toes snipped off. 

Whiskers - they are removed to present a clean muzzle. I just do a puppy trim (I don't snip the whole whisker to the skin - just whatever sticks out past the fur) on Bertie to remove... within a week they are back. So it's not any detriment to his ability to be a dog outside the ring. My one mentor told me to trim them off because they're distracting to the judge. 

About leaving whiskers on - somebody told me (I'm leaving this anonymous because I don't remember if this was the correct reasoning) they leave whiskers on their dog because in theory it broadens the muzzle a bit where the dog lacked. I just about fell over when I saw the whiskers on this dog because I never thought this person was part of the "WHISKERS ARE PART OF THE DOG'S SOUL - YOU CUT THEM OFF, YOU CUT OFF PART OF THE SOUL" (OK people don't say that, but some of these arguments on vibrissae reach that emotive point) and said as much while regarding the dog's fabulous set of whiskers. Was interesting to me (as a novice show person) to learn the reasoning for leaving them on vs off.


----------



## Titan1

Obedience at higher levels is tough.. most of the time there are multiple really good dogs showing while you are and you have to be at the top of your game in highly competitive locations. Megora you mentioned that there are people that continue showing after getting their OTCH and you are correct.. Just to give you an idea.. to get invited to the NOC in goldens most years you have to have maybe 150 OTCH points for the 1st round. Depending on the year of course. It is one thing to get it.. which is awesome by the way.. it is an entirely different animal to have your dog at that level show after show and not run into major issues.. to stay ranked..I am incredibly proud of Titan because even now after a year of retirement he still gets excited to work..last night at class we did part of the heeling on two legs..


----------



## Megora

Michelle - is that 150 every year? 

I wondered, because one of the people I was thinking of has nearly 2000 OTCH points (6 year old). Which is just crazy to me.  You have more than 2000 with Titan, but he's a breeding dog so there's that.


----------



## Loisiana

Megora said:


> Michelle - is that 150 every year?


Every year they want to qualify for the NOC


----------



## Conquerergold

John G said:


> The pictures I have seen of his dogs and their immediate offspring is of dogs that appear taller than our current breed standard. They also often have wave or curl in their coats. I don't see any "cream colors" in the pictures. I do see some darker versions. They all have their whiskers.


While I agree with most all of your post, I did feel the need to address this comment 

There are several paintings/photos that depict very light gold/cream coloured Goldens from way back (below a photo from just after the turn of the century of the Second Lord Tweedmouth's Golden Retrievers, a wide range of shades). It has been discussed at length amongst breed historians, and what I have been witness to, all agree that yes there were very light Goldens from the start. Were they as light as we can see today? No one knows that answer.

Elma Stonex (who is the person who discovered the true origins of the breed) wrote:
"When the breed standard had first been drawn up by the GRC in 1911, cream had been excluded as a permissible colour, and in the 1920's light-coloured dogs were not popular, the favoured colour being sometimes very red and dark indeed. But the lighter colour gained greatly in popularity in the early 30's and in 1936 the Standard was altered to read 'Any shade of gold or cream, but neither red or mahogany' _*as it was realised that a mistake had been made in not allowing the original colour*_." (emphasis mine)

By having the shade excluded, would lead one to believe they were present back then.


----------



## John G

Great picture. Dark and light dogs are OK. Goldens should have some Gold in them don't you think? Black, brown and white are not good colors for Goldens (except for a little white). The quote you use is obviously from Great Britain. GRC is the English version of the GRCA. The AKC and GRCA have slightly different standards.

John


----------



## Claudia M

John G said:


> Great picture. Dark and light dogs are OK. Goldens should have some Gold in them don't you think? Black, brown and white are not good colors for Goldens (except for a little white). The quote you use is obviously from Great Britain. GRC is the English version of the GRCA. The AKC and GRCA have slightly different standards.
> 
> John


 <<<<<“ The distinguishing colour (of the Naworth or Featherstone Setters) is liver and white; they are very powerful in the chest, deep and broad, not narrow or slabby, which some people seem to think is the true formation of the Setter.
If there is any fault to be found with them, it is their size; they are a little too big and heavy.
There is a great profusion of coat, of a light, soft, silky hair ... which is rather longer and heavier that the generality of Setters. They are particularly strong and powerful in their forequarters, beautifully feathered on their fore legs, tail and breeches; easily broken, very lofty in carriage, staunch, excellent dogs and good finders. Though liver, or liver and white is not a recognized colour in shows. My belief is that there are as good dogs of this colour as of any other colour.”​ This description in many ways fits that of a Golden *Retriever. It might even be possible that the now undesirable white that sometimes shows up on Goldens today is a “throw-back” to these Setters. Laverack goes on to mention another strain of liver-colored Setters called Edmond Castle Setters. These were “likewise liver and white ... These dogs were much lighter and more speedy ... They are very deep, wide, and powerful in the forequarters; well bent in the stifles...” It should be pointed out here that during those times “liver” meant any shade of brown, including golden.* Could it be that one of these strains of Setters are the precursors of our Goldens? Was, perhaps, Nous the product of some Setter breeding? It certainly seems possible.
Lord Tweedmouth made mention in his studbooks of at least one cross of his “Yellow Retrievers” to a Setter. Perhaps that Setter was one that fit the description given by Laverack. Sampson makes reference to “Cowslip” (out of Nous and Belle) being bred to a Red Setter in 1868. This same dog appears at least twice in the pedigrees of “Prim” and “Rose”, the last two Yellow Retrievers recorded by the first Lord Tweedmouth, whelped in 1889. Was this “red” a golden color? There is then an eleven-year gap from this litter to the earliest recorded pedigrees of Kennel Club registered dogs, that is from 1890 to 1901. What breedings were done during this time? Out-crosses were commonly used to try to improve a breed’s working abilities. Perhaps even more Setter blood was introduced during this time.>>>

Golden Retriever Club of America (GRCA) HISTORY: The Origins of the Golden Retriever Revisited By Jeffrey Pepper


----------



## Conquerergold

John G said:


> Great picture. Dark and light dogs are OK. Goldens should have some Gold in them don't you think? Black, brown and white are not good colors for Goldens (except for a little white). The quote you use is obviously from Great Britain. GRC is the English version of the GRCA. The AKC and GRCA have slightly different standards.


Personally, I have yet to see a Golden Retriever absent of colour. Even the creamest of creams have some Golden highlight (which in my experience can be seen in more easily in natural sunlight). Set the palest cream Golden next to a Samoyed, and there will be some indication of colour 

The quote is from the Golden Retriever Club (UK). The AKC and KC standard basically describe the same dog, the AKC standard being a bit more detailed driven. Cream is fully acceptable in the AKC standard, it is listed as only undesirable (which still causes confusion, why not follow the amended country of origins standard? Of course, I wasn't around back then, but I have heard it was because dark dogs were popular (much like the reasons cream was excluded from the original KC standard)...I don't know if that holds water or not, if it does it makes sense).

Colour doesn't rank up high for me when making breeding decisions. I've had every shade under the sun here. As long as the coat is correct in texture and substance, I'm blind to Cream through to Deep Dark Gold


----------



## Eowyn

John G said:


> In Conformation, if dogs are judged against a standard and not against each other and the Standard has not changed, then what or specifically who has?
> John


But the standard wasn't based on a single dog that existed. It was a somewhat futuristic "this is what we want our breed to be". The standard is like a blueprint and a building being built to fit it. You wouldn't want to look at the building in the beginning stages and start screaming bloody murder that it didn't fit the blueprint because the work/construction wasn't completed. Nor would you want to look at the end result and start screaming bloody murder because it didn't look like it did in the first stages of being built, and if the beginning stages were within the blueprint than the final stages of building _must_ be outside the blueprints! That would be ridiculous! The first stages were within the blueprints, but they were just the beginning stages not the final product. It's a process! Years ago we were still solidifying certain traits that are now abundant in the breed ring, but at the time were much harder to obtain. It takes years to solidify traits and often you can't work on more than a trait or two at a time. That meant sometimes they had to look past a lot of things that weren't what they were envisioning in order to get closer to that ideal in one area. Then you move forward from there and solidify other things. It's a process. Dogs were still championed/shown to reward the progress (after all, you can't champion/reward a dog you haven't created yet, you can only champion what you have.) but that doesn't mean they were perfect specimens.


ETA: What I am not saying is that current specimens in the ring are "perfect" examples of the breed standard either. But I do believe many of them are closer...


----------



## Eowyn

Titan1 said:


> I had a long comment and I am just going to shorten it.. I would take a clone of my Titan a million times over and he is under the standard. He has what I believe the perfect blend of good looking dogs and amazing natural talent and sweet sweet personality. It's all there in his pedigree.. Pedigree: OTCH Dal-Rhe's Sunfire Titanium UDX17 OGM RAE NJP VER TD UCDX CanCD Wv-N Tn-N..


I'd take a clone of your Titan too!


----------



## Eowyn

Christen113 said:


> Going back to the dalmatian experiment, this was a really interesting article relating to goldens. I do wonder if they were to experiment with a breed less prone to cancer (maybe a lab) with goldens if we could make it a healthier breed. They have many of the same characteristics, similar personalities, similar look and they're less prone to cancer than goldens. But then the question-is cancer part of being a golden like spots are part of being a dalmatian?-comes into play.
> 
> Here's the article:
> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/local-assets/pdfs/UnderstandingCancerinGoldenRetrievers2.pdf


That may help (assuming labs actually had less cancer) but the problem is cancer is fixed in golden retrievers. That means that even if you out cross them with another breed, and then start breeding for golden traits you will end up right back where you started. There is some trait that breeders across the board (since as far as our knowledge goes cancer rates are the same in all styles; show, performance, field, byb etc.) that is linked to cancer. It may be the golden color, it may be their love to retrieve, it may be their temperament. But whatever it is, even if you outcross to another breed as soon as start selectively breeding for the golden traits we all love the breed for you lose the benefit of the outcross. 

Example. Rottweilers have one particular cancer that is rampant in the breed (I can't remember the specific type though). After lots of researching it was discovered what exactly the gene was that was causing so much of the cancer. However that also happened to be the same trait responsible for their characteristic temperament. Breeders had to make the choice between the temperament they loved the breed for, and being rid of the cancer that took the dog they looked from them. Same thing with Dalmatians spots being linked to kidney and bladder stones.


----------



## Loisiana

This is the dog almost all field goldens can be traced back to.


----------



## Alaska7133

Holway Barty I believe is who is in the photo. Bart is in just about every pedigree with even a faint hint of field. 

There is another field dog that many people have forgotten about that many conformation and field dogs have in their pedigree: FC Rip OS FDHF Pedigree: FC Rip OS FDHF
His mother was a show dog and his father had no titles listed on k9data. If you look far enough back you will find him in your dog's pedigree. He wasn't bred very many times, nor were his offspring, but he does show up a tremendous amount of time in pedigrees.


----------



## cubbysan

My breeder just posted an awesome article on breeding that I want to share. 

SUCCESSFUL DOG BREEDING, LINEBREEDING, INBREEDING, OUTCROSSING - by E. Katie Gammill

This website is just a wealth of articles! New place for me to be wasting my computer time on.


----------



## Eowyn

Deleted. I should have finishing reading before posting.


----------



## TheZ's

cubbysan said:


> My breeder just posted an awesome article on breeding that I want to share.
> 
> SUCCESSFUL DOG BREEDING, LINEBREEDING, INBREEDING, OUTCROSSING - by E. Katie Gammill
> 
> This website is just a wealth of articles! New place for me to be wasting my computer time on.


I don't know about the "back breeding" suggested in that article. Does any responsible Golden breeder do that these days?


----------



## Eowyn

Selli-Belle said:


> As you said, a MH is not a competitive title, the OTCH is. And to make it clear, I have never trained a dog to either title, but I have friends with MH dogs (Goldens, Flatties and Tollers) who also have dogs with at least UDs that have told me that the OTCH was much harder than the MH.


I could ask my trainer with her CH OTCH MH which title was the hardest to get, but I think I already know the answer. 

Of course that would also vary dog to dog, as some are more apt for some things than others.


----------



## cubbysan

Eowyn said:


> But the standard wasn't based on a single dog that existed. It was a somewhat futuristic "this is what we want our breed to be". The standard is like a blueprint and a building being built to fit it. You wouldn't want to look at the building in the beginning stages and start screaming bloody murder that it didn't fit the blueprint because the work/construction wasn't completed. Nor would you want to look at the end result and start screaming bloody murder because it didn't look like it did in the first stages of being built, and if the beginning stages were within the blueprint than the final stages of building _must_ be outside the blueprints! That would be ridiculous! The first stages were within the blueprints, but they were just the beginning stages not the final product. It's a process! Years ago we were still solidifying certain traits that are now abundant in the breed ring, but at the time were much harder to obtain. It takes years to solidify traits and often you can't work on more than a trait or two at a time. That meant sometimes they had to look past a lot of things that weren't what they were envisioning in order to get closer to that ideal in one area. Then you move forward from there and solidify other things. It's a process. Dogs were still championed/shown to reward the progress (after all, you can't champion/reward a dog you haven't created yet, you can only champion what you have.) but that doesn't mean they were perfect specimens.
> 
> 
> ETA: What I am not saying is that current specimens in the ring are "perfect" examples of the breed standard either. But I do believe many of them are closer...


I have wondered about this a lot lately. We forget that the golden retriever is a very young breed, less than 150 years. There are many breeds that are thousands of years old. I remember reading about the Great Pyrenees, which is over 3,000 years old, and in the reading by Mary Crane one of the great breeders, it was stating that the breed has not changed from back then because they have been around so long.


----------



## Ljilly28

> But the standard wasn't based on a single dog that existed. It was a somewhat futuristic "this is what we want our breed to be". The standard is like a blueprint and a building being built to fit it. You wouldn't want to look at the building in the beginning stages and start screaming bloody murder that it didn't fit the blueprint because the work/construction wasn't completed. Nor would you want to look at the end result and start screaming bloody murder because it didn't look like it did in the first stages of being built, and if the beginning stages were within the blueprint than the final stages of building must be outside the blueprints! That would be ridiculous! The first stages were within the blueprints, but they were just the beginning stages not the final product. It's a process! Years ago we were still solidifying certain traits that are now abundant in the breed ring, but at the time were much harder to obtain. It takes years to solidify traits and often you can't work on more than a trait or two at a time. That meant sometimes they had to look past a lot of things that weren't what they were envisioning in order to get closer to that ideal in one area. Then you move forward from there and solidify other things. It's a process. Dogs were still championed/shown to reward the progress (after all, you can't champion/reward a dog you haven't created yet, you can only champion what you have.) but that doesn't mean they were perfect specimens.
> 
> 
> ETA: What I am not saying is that current specimens in the ring are "perfect" examples of the breed standard either. But I do believe many of them are closer...


So thoughtful- I couldnt agree with this more.


----------



## cubbysan

TheZ's said:


> I don't know about the "back breeding" suggested in that article. Does any responsible Golden breeder do that these days?


I have never seen that while looking at K9data. A lot of the stuff in the article is pretty scary, but it makes one realize all the planning and thought needed to go forward, and how one generation can be a disaster. I have seen bitches bred to grandfathers and great grand fathers.


----------



## tippykayak

Eowyn said:


> That may help (assuming labs actually had less cancer) but the problem is cancer is fixed in golden retrievers. That means that even if you out cross them with another breed, and then start breeding for golden traits you will end up right back where you started.


I'm not sure we know this for sure as of right now. It's certainly a possibility that there is some genetic combination that increases the risk for cancer that is tied inextricably to another key aspect of the Golden Retriever, but I don't believe there's enough evidence out there to say it for sure.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> This is the dog almost all field goldens can be traced back to.


Confused - why is Bart being posted here? Any significance?


----------



## Loisiana

Claudia M said:


> Confused - why is Bart being posted here? Any significance?


It's a picture of Barty, and I posted it because he's in a stack, which would allow people who like to look at structure to evaluate him. Plus I thought it was cool to see a stacked picture of him, I wanted to share, and it seemed like it would fit best with this thread. And no one can deny he had significant influence on the breed.


----------



## Eowyn

tippykayak said:


> I'm not sure we know this for sure as of right now. It's certainly a possibility that there is some genetic combination that increases the risk for cancer that is tied inextricably to another key aspect of the Golden Retriever, but I don't believe there's enough evidence out there to say it for sure.


I am 99% sure I can come up with a study showing cancer is fixed in the breed. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I can ask Rhonda, I am sure she has a study. She was originally the one who told me cancer was fixed in the breed, and that means we are likely specifically selecting dogs for a trait linked to cancer.


----------



## tippykayak

Eowyn said:


> I am 99% sure I can come up with a study showing cancer is fixed in the breed. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I can ask Rhonda, I am sure she has a study. She was originally the one who told me cancer was fixed in the breed, and that means we are likely specifically selecting dogs for a trait linked to cancer.


I know that Rhonda has theorized that there's a good chance that the traits are linked, but I wasn't aware of hard evidence yet. In fact, the first time I saw that concept explored really well was her "Understanding Cancer in Golden Retrievers" article, which I thought was very thoughtful and accessible.

Here's how she phrases the concept in that article: "Could some part of 'what it means to be a Golden' be linked with the risk of cancer? Unfortunately, this is a very real possibility." That's why I think of it as more speculative than confirmed. Perhaps more information has come out, though.


----------

