# Blending field and conformation lines



## Alaska7133

I was curious what everyone's thoughts were on blending field and conformation lines? 
How would you go about it? 
What would you look for in both lines to determine that they should be bred to each other?
Why would you blend the lines?

I bring this up regarding an article in GR News not long ago about needing for field and conformation lines to be blended. It was in either the first or second issue this year. 

I have a conformation girl that likes birds. The hunt test last weekend included her mother and 1/2 sister (same sire). Those girls did well, but I do think the line could be improved with additional drive and determination. So if you were looking at a field sire, what would you think would be important, not just in the pedigree?


----------



## Megora

> I have a conformation girl that likes birds. The hunt test last weekend included her mother and 1/2 sister (same sire). Those girls did well, but I do think the line could be improved with additional drive and determination. So if you were looking at a field sire, what would you think would be important, not just in the pedigree?


 Stacey - wouldn't you be looking for a dog that has strengths where your girl lacks? Particularly if you want to produce puppies who can go into the conformation ring? 

I have a boy dog so probably not the same perspective, but I think the type of people who would be looking to breed to him are looking for coat, bone, pigment, and temperament. Which he has all those good qualities there. 

If I were looking to get a puppy from him (not saying I will) - but I would probably be hoping for a girlie who has the obedience drive and obedience background that he lacks, and hope he throws all those good qualities that he has. 

My thought is if you breed your girlie to a more field type golden - it may strengthen up where she lacks for field qualities, but it may also weaken what she has by way of conformation qualities.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Since it would be an outcross breeding, I would be looking for 2 dogs who bring similar strengths to the table but complement each others' weaknesses. It's the only way you can really assure that you don't end up with puppies that are all over the place in terms of looks, structure, talent, and trainability.
Assuming the bitch is the field lines, I'd want a field bitch with a great structure. Nicely built, decent bone and coat. I would not want a field bitch who lacks substance, or has a weedy head, no matter how nice her pedigree is. She should have a CCA.
Assuming the boy is from show lines, I'd want a show dog who isn't overdone in terms of coat, bone, etc. I would want a dog who is proven to be trainable by having titled in various venues, and I don't mean baby level titles. (No offense to anyone, I think it's awesome when people do ANYTHING with their dogs, but from a breeding point of view CD, JH, NX, etc. don't mean squat). Of course, I would want at least a SH on him, higher would be nice but since the bitch is bringing the high level field titles to the table, it's not imperative. Best of all would be if he is actively hunted.
Since both dogs will then be bringing nice structure, trainability, and field desire to the table, you should get a great litter of puppies.
Of course, you could reverse the bitch/dog requirements, I just used that for an example.


----------



## rhondas

Barb, I'd like to add to your view which I agree with completely the following.
Folks need to see how the dogs achieved their titles. If it takes a CH or GCH over 20 tries to get their JH (let's say they high level titles in other venues) the owner can not say with a serious face that their dog is birdy or has natural abilities. JH is basically a test of natural ability IMHO and a dog with natural ability should easily pass with minimal training in even 4 straight tests and probably in 5. 

Also, some dogs can get a CD and CDX with extremely low scores which doesn't tell me much about trainability either.


----------



## lhowemt

Our original breeder does this regularly. Hunters Trace Kennel although they no longer have a website as Ron and Marsha Beck split up. Marsha was the breeder and Ron was the trainer. They are both still active although Marsha is now in the Phoenix area. She is very knowledgeable and I recommend talking with her about it. Check out the K9 data on my siggy, Hazel and Lila are from them.


----------



## Alaska7133

Thank you for all your thoughts. I'm looking at that long elusive DC (dual champion) title puppy. Combining a field trial championship and a show dog championship. I'm not sure how long ago it was, but it has been awhile since we have had one.

Maybe I should work it backwards. What does a field breeding require? If you are looking to create a pup that could be trained to FC-AFC field trial champion, what would it take to find that right breeding?

Then do the same for creating a show dog champion.

So going back to what Barb said, we need to look at the structure of both dogs to see how they compliment. Barb also wanted to add in additional titles to the show dog, UD, UDX, SH, etc. I think that's on the right track, the show dog has to show the ability for trainability. The field dog I agree has to pass a CCA. Last year my club had a CCA, and we had a wonderful field girl come in still wet from a field trial and passed the CCA with ease. So that's what I'd be looking for too.

So what do you all think, is it possible to still have a DC dog/bitch golden retriever? Is anyone really trying to go in that direction? Just curious.


----------



## Megora

rhondas said:


> JH is basically a test of natural ability IMHO and a dog with natural ability should easily pass with minimal training in even 4 straight tests and probably in 5.
> 
> Also, some dogs can get a CD and CDX with extremely low scores which doesn't tell me much about trainability either.


To be fair though.... what about dogs trained by people who are new to both sports or who lack the experience and time that others have? 

You have some very experienced and dedicated trainers out there who could make anything out of mashed potato (meaning nothing out of the ordinary) dogs if they wanted to. 

And you can have some very talented dogs in the wrong hands who struggle to get anywhere because the owner lacks the strengths that would compliment those dogs. 

My Jacks got all scores in the 190's for his CD.... higher than that for his BN, but his best performances (where we were lined up to get 198-199 scores) were blown by stays at the end. 

In a more experienced handler's hands - I firmly believe Jacks would have definitely gotten his OTCH by now with a lot of 200 finishes. He's that type of dog and the areas where a lot of other dogs are very weak (heeling and fronts) - that's where his strengths were. 

If I were looking to breed Bertie to any dog out there to hopefully get a pup with Bertie's looks and shore up where he lacks or is weak - I'd talk to people whose dogs are more lined up with what I love in Jacks. And you can't see that looking at scores or even titles! You have to know the dogs themselves or watch them work. 

I can think of a couple dogs out there who are top goldens and go to NOC every year or whatever.... and while they are very reliable and solid dogs, they are very boring to watch in the ring. The dogs look bored or sleepy while they do every asked of them with as little effort as possible and when they're done they go back to their crates and that's it. These dogs have obedience loaded pedigrees and they themselves are very high scoring - but I wouldn't want puppies from them! LOL. You watch some other goldens out there and you can just hear the "I've got the joy-joy-joy in my heart" song while watching them. That's what I'd be looking for - and you can't find these dogs just by looking for scores and titles.


----------



## Swampcollie

Creating a DC isn't going to happen in just a litter or two. It will be a long term process with a lot of progeny that may be nice, but not competative in either venue. (You're going to have to weather a lot of dissappointment before you're going to start seeing some success.) 

Still, the thought has crossed my mind a few times over the years. I'm watching a couple of conformation youngsters from a freezer breeding (pre charlie). If they turn out pretty good I may give one of those a try.


----------



## TheZ's

It would be nice if there were some easy way other than titles to assess a dog's strengths. Like Megora said a very talented dog without a knowledgeable and dedicated owner isn't going to go very far and won't have a lot of advanced titles. I'm thinking of my Gracie. She's from a blended pedigree and I think has tremendous raw talent but because of my limited experience, time available, etc., I'm not sure what kind of titles she'll end up with.

I know it's a view held by lots of people but I can't help but be a little put off by the comment: "No offense to anyone, I think it's awesome when people do ANYTHING with their dogs, but from a breeding point of view CD, JH, NX, etc. don't mean squat_." _If you look at Gracie's 5 generation pedigree _Five generation pedigree: Sunfire's Amazing Grace_ you'll see a couple of dual champions and a triple champion, neither of Push's maternal grandparents had any title, Yogi's mother didn't have a title, and Apollo's mother had _only_ a CD, JH, WC, CGC (and, oh yeah, OD).


----------



## Swampcollie

> neither of Push's maternal grandparents had any title, Yogi's mother didn't have a title, and Apollo's mother had _only_ a CD, JH, WC, CGC (and, oh yeah, OD).


When it comes to Field, most females are not campaigned due to their heat cycle. It disrupts their training and competition schedule to such a degree that most owners won't pursue advanced titles. You'll see hunt test titles and QAA status but that's about all. A golden bitch with an FC or AFC is an extremely rare individual.


----------



## Selli-Belle

The thing that occurs to me is that getting an dual champion (bench CH and field CH) is that even with an exceptional dog, it would be incredibly expensive. For someone who don't have an extra $50,000 sitting around so they can campaign a dog constantly it would be impossible. Plus, unless you are both a professional handler and a FC level field trainer, you would not get to spend much time with your dog since they would be out campaigning all the time.


----------



## Alaska7133

Money is an excellent point. Time is also a good thought. It takes a lot of time tromp around doing dog shows and field trials.

Push's parents both had titles.

Swampcollie,
I do agree it would take a lot of planning and serious planning with other breeders to pull it all together. But it's hard not to consider the idea that it could be done again. With many breeds it's quite common to have a DC. Chessies for example. But labs, springers, cockers, and many other hunting breeds are in the same boat as us.

Anyone have an idea what the average FC championship would cost both in training (assuming a pro) and trial fees? 

I know the minimum for a Ch in conformation with a pro is about $3,000 (what my dog's sister cost to finish).


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> When it comes to Field, most females are not campaigned due to their heat cycle. It disrupts their training and competition schedule to such a degree that most owners won't pursue advanced titles. You'll see hunt test titles and QAA status but that's about all. A golden bitch with an FC or AFC is an extremely rare individual.


I have been quite amazed to see how many lab females are titled and compete only few months after they had a litter.


----------



## Alaska7133

Just for yucks I looked at the puppies Push had on k9data. Only one was a Ch, it was a Canadian Ch. He's a great looking dog: Pedigree: HRCH Can CH Goldcker 1Drdogs Next Pushover SH WCX Can MH WCX TD AGX AGIJ AGNS AGNJS RN VCX
His name is Edge. I can only find that he's had one litter on k9data. So should we be looking for these dogs and breeding our bitches to them? What do you all think? Push didn't produce dogs with Ch, but that doesn't mean the pups weren't capable of getting a Ch, they just didn't show up in his pedigree. So was Push an anomaly?


----------



## Selli-Belle

Remember that a Canadian breed CH are easier to get than an American breed Ch and the same thing for a Canadian OTCH. 

What breed did your sister get a CH on? I have heard that for Goldens in the US you need to budget a minimum of $1000 and that figure is a couple of years old.


----------



## Swampcollie

Alaska7133 said:


> Anyone have an idea what the average FC championship would cost both in training (assuming a pro) and trial fees?
> 
> I know the minimum for a Ch in conformation with a pro is about $3,000 (what my dog's sister cost to finish).


You're probably in the range of $200,000 to complete an FC. 

If a pro is doing the training and handling, a MH runs between $40,000 and $50,000.


----------



## Alaska7133

WOW!!

I had always heard it hurt, but that's way out of my league. No wonder so many people train their own dogs if they can.

How many FC's are given out every year (all breeds)?


----------



## Alaska7133

My pup's sister got her Ch this last winter. She was shown by a pro at every show. Costs of pro, show fees, grooming, points etc. was about $3,000. It's the pro that drove the cost up. She did finish fast. I've shown Lucy almost as many times and have zero points, but I'm also not a pro. $1,000 is probably about what I have in it right now between show fees, tools and equipment.

A Canadian Ch is 10 points I think and American is 15 points. I have heard they are a bit easier to get. I've never tried a Canadian show. I guess it's all about which dogs are at the show that day.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I got called out on this statement privately, too, and I really need to clarify it. I was really referring to the "show dog" part of the equation when I said that. To me, putting a CD, JH etc. on a "show dog" doesn't prove that he/she has working ability, especially as Rhondas said, that dog may have trained 4 years and taken 15 tries to get a CD. That to me doesn't scream "performance ability". If your goal is to try to bring the breed back together, as the OP said, you need to be absolutely certain that your "show dog" part of the equation is not diluting the working ability of the "field dog" part of the equation. By the same token, it's why I'd want a CCA on the "field dog" part of the equation, to be sure you are not veering away from the structural necessities when bringing the breed back together.




TheZ's said:


> It would be nice if there were some easy way other than titles to assess a dog's strengths. Like Megora said a very talented dog without a knowledgeable and dedicated owner isn't going to go very far and won't have a lot of advanced titles. I'm thinking of my Gracie. She's from a blended pedigree and I think has tremendous raw talent but because of my limited experience, time available, etc., I'm not sure what kind of titles she'll end up with.
> 
> I know it's a view held by lots of people but I can't help but be a little put off by the comment: "No offense to anyone, I think it's awesome when people do ANYTHING with their dogs, but from a breeding point of view CD, JH, NX, etc. don't mean squat_." _If you look at Gracie's 5 generation pedigree _Five generation pedigree: Sunfire's Amazing Grace_ you'll see a couple of dual champions and a triple champion, neither of Push's maternal grandparents had any title, Yogi's mother didn't have a title, and Apollo's mother had _only_ a CD, JH, WC, CGC (and, oh yeah, OD).


----------



## hotel4dogs

A Canadian CH doesn't even resemble an AKC CH. It's not just the points, it's how they earn them.
Also, a Canadian OTCH is just our UD. Not to belittle the UD, or the Canadian OTCH, but you're not comparing apples to apples.




Alaska7133 said:


> My pup's sister got her Ch this last winter. She was shown by a pro at every show. Costs of pro, show fees, grooming, points etc. was about $3,000. It's the pro that drove the cost up. She did finish fast. I've shown Lucy almost as many times and have zero points, but I'm also not a pro. $1,000 is probably about what I have in it right now between show fees, tools and equipment.
> 
> A Canadian Ch is 10 points I think and American is 15 points. I have heard they are a bit easier to get. I've never tried a Canadian show. I guess it's all about which dogs are at the show that day.


----------



## Alaska7133

Yes I agree you can take 10 passes to get a JH. But there are factors to consider. Did the owner run the dog too young? Did the owner send the dog off to a trainer and when the dog came back the owner had no clue how to run the dog and it took 10 passes to get the JH because the owner needed training too?

I think what we are trying to quantify is nature vs nurture. The age old discussion. Can you take a show dog and train it to an FC if it is raised and trained the right environment? Can you take a show prospect up at 8 weeks old and send it off to a great field trial pro and get an FC? How much nature is in a show dog vs a field dog?


----------



## FTGoldens

Wow, there's a lot of stuff in this thread and it's only on the third page!

As you can tell by my signature, I only have experience in field trials, so you can rightfully say that my comments suffer from tunnel vision...that's fair and irrefutable. But that won't stop me from commenting.  

It seems to me that in light of sheer numbers, to get a dual champion (speaking here of FC and Ch.), someone is going to have to start with a strong field background on both sides of the pedigree. Statistics show that, on average, each year only 1 -2 Goldens earn their FC title; it is a very, very tough title to earn, though not impossible. The dogs must have the right "stuff" to get that title; you cannot train that "stuff" in the dog, they must be born with it (among other things, it's good eyes, physicality, courage, biddability, and lots of other "stuff" that has been discussed on other threads). I don't have the annual number earning a Ch., but I know that it's a good deal above that. So, it seems to me, that the Dual Ch. breeder will need to start with an emphasis on the field genes and try to not overly dilute those genes when infusing the Ch. genes. That is a tall order, but doable!

As for the cost to make an FC, it depends. If things go well and the dog titles by the age of 6 -7 years, even if trained by a professional, adding up the handling fees, entry fees and monthly training fees, I would put the cost just under $100,000. Of course, that excludes the price of the puppy and vet bills, but still it can be done for a hun'do. And being spread out over 6 years ... what a bargain! [Just kidding on that!]

Now there have been some FC-AFCs which were trained and handled by amateurs. Of course, it takes a great deal more time and non-monetary resources (available land and water, a training group, access to a few birds every now and then, training equipment, etc.), but it is certainly possible. The amateur must still have funds and time (vacation time if they have a job) to travel to trials, pay the entry fees, etc., but training one's dog reduces the cost by a great deal.

FTGoldens


----------



## Swampcollie

Alaska7133 said:


> I think what we are trying to quantify is nature vs nurture. The age old discussion. Can you take a show dog and train it to an FC if it is raised and trained the right environment?


With today's conformation breeding? No

There are many traits and qualities a dog must possess in ample amounts to be a contender for an FC. The raw materials have to be present in the dog for a skilled trainer/handler to work with. The Conformation dogs today lack sufficient amounts of the qualities needed to be competitive. 

It is a question of breeding, not training. 

Keep in mind that in the Open, you are competing against all Retriever breeds not just Goldens.


----------



## Alaska7133

FTGoldens,
You've pretty much dedicated your free time for many years training goldens to the FC and AFC titles. Along the way I'm sure you've seen some wonderful field dogs that should be bred to show dogs that have reputable titles in field. If you had your choice of combinations, which studs or dams would you look hard at if you wanted that combination of DC? How many generations do you think it would take to get there?


----------



## rhondas

deleted. not relevant to thread direction


----------



## lhowemt

Megora said:


> You watch some other goldens out there and you can just hear the "I've got the joy-joy-joy in my heart" song while watching them.


Love it! That should be in the breed standard 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## K9-Design

I think it can happen. I don't think there are many, if any, people who really truly believe that and are truly breeding and competing for that goal.


----------



## gdgli

I would like to put my two cents in. My personal feeling is that show champions have many characteristics that are counterproductive to excelling in the field. And by excelling I mean coming out on top in competition. This is not testing to a standard, this is competition. 

Of course I have my prejudices. However, if you are interested in seeing trial dogs you should go to a field trial. Take note of the physical characteristics of the Goldens and then ask "Why do they look this way?". I have seen these dogs first hand.

Just one example. At a recent trial I saw a water series that consisted of a triple:water-land-water-land-water, then two marks down the shore. The time it took per dog was approximately 30 minutes if my memory serves me correctly. This was done after the dogs had done two water blinds in the previous series, one of which the handlers went to the line with binoculars. I ask, what physical traits in a Golden would be best for this kind of work? What physical traits would be detrimental?

After you look at a trial you will realize why blending the two types is a difficult thing.


----------



## Loisiana

I've never considered a pure field or a pure show breeding, every litter I've ever looked at have been a mix of the two, some with more emphasis on field than others. But I have no interest in showing in either conformation or field trials.

I do think it's possible that someone who has put in the effort, sacrifice, and years can come up with a DC of present. I think it very highly unlikely that a random show bred puppy would ever become a FC, no matter who it was training it.


----------



## Megora

I already mentioned the major league big teams that I know of and I don't necessarily want a puppy from because their dogs are bored robots out there in the ring.... 

But there's the other side as well.... 

I know of novice A people who get their CD's in 3 tries with all first placements.... without their dogs sitting ONCE while heeling. The scores might all be in the 170's, but they still will go around telling everyone their dog finished quickly and they have all the blue ribbons to show for it. 

I'd probably listen to somebody bragging on that dog and be nice, but I would not want a puppy from them! 

And there's a friend out there that I know who got scores in the 180's with her golden. I think she only got 1 score in the 190's. But went from CD to CDX in 6 trials. 

This girlie DOES get recognition for what she did though and it was out of the ordinary.... She was 9 years old when she got her CD and 10 when she got her CDX. She's also a breed champion with grand champion points as a veteran. Canadian breed champion. MACH. Got her rally excellent including showing at a very tough big benched show and getting a 100 score there.

My friend always told me (like every class) - that her dog hated obedience. She would glow and shine in the conformation ring because she loved showing off and being looked at. In the obedience ring and working, I think it was a different mood there and she did not have as much fun. 

Obviously there again - you see titles and scores. I probably would not judge a 10 year old for getting scores in the 180's. One of Bertie's breeders took a 10 year old breed champion of hers who was bored and put a CD and CDX title on her. And my comment and she absolutely agreed - if a dog is still jumping her height and working her butt off in the obedience ring when she's up in age, that is a big deal. 

But if a dog gets "bored" being trained or quits if you train too much or shows no joy in working in the obedience ring - that's not what I'd be looking for in a puppy. 

I'd really be looking for dogs who will drop everything they are doing if they think they'll get to heel and retrieve - even if they just did that 10 minutes ago. And instead of getting bored with repetition, they get more and more energized and hyped up. It takes a lot of time really building an effortless heel that loses no points. It takes a lot of repetitions building fronts that are perfectly straight and finishes which are perfect. It takes a lot of repetition and focused work getting dogs so they will not mouth or juggle dumbbells and gloves. It takes a lot of repetition building articles (holy heck especially if you do around-the-clock!). 

It is half the battle if you can keep a dog energized and engaged all through a training session. 

^ All that is why I don't think you can look at titles and scores alone. 



^^^^^ I was NOT the person PM'ing Barb! :curtain:


----------



## gdgli

I don't know, Megora, I was sure it was you.


----------



## Alaska7133

George,
You are so right on physical characteristics. Conformation has changed the breed over the decades. Looking at goldens from 50 or 75 years ago they were much closer to a field golden is today. Why have we shifted the breed so far? Last year at golden national, we got a few of the conformation judges to come watch the field trials. I thought that should be a requirement to be a golden conformation judge!

Last month at a dog show I met a couple of women with a van load of dachshunds. They had driven all the way from Florida. They told me they had been doing dog shows and field trials all along the way! Wow I told them, that was great that they still did that with dachshunds. The women looked at me puzzled, they thought all breeds should not only show, but be able to do that they were bred for. Off they went to groom their herd of dachshunds. Isn't that they way it should be for us? 

So if you could change show goldens, what would you change to make them better in the field conformation wise? Would you shorten their coats? Would you narrow their hips and shoulders? Would you shorten their body length? Would you narrow their heads? What is necessary to change to make a great field golden physically? Then still be attractive enough to compete in the show ring?


----------



## gdgli

Stacey, doing CCA was a very interesting experience. Each judge made comments which went something like this..."She has _________ which is missing from so many show Goldens today". I was very surprised at this comment.

I can remember shopping for my third Golden. By this time I knew what characteristics I wanted. I didn't know that there were two types. When contacting breeders I said that I wanted a dog within the breed standard, smaller rather than larger, I didn't care about the color, and not so much hair. 

A friend of mine went to Georgia to show her Chessie and she helped me locate two litters. I called someone who had seen one of the litters. She was a Lab person who told me that I was going to get a nice puppy. I ended up with a dog that developed into a 65 lb. male, short wavy coat, a little long in the leg and birdy as hell. I still didn't know that there were two types but soon found out.

Why did I ask for smaller and not much hair? I did a lot of upland hunting, grouse and pheasant, and the smaller size allowed the dog to get into the grouse cover I hunted and the typical pheasant cover that is found on abandoned farms in NY. And all you need to do at the end of the day is spend a lot of time getting burdock out of the hair and you will find out what the problem with the longer coat is.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I would also like to *remind* everyone that there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the Golden standard nor the Golden history that says they should be field trial dogs.
I'm not saying some shouldn't be able to run field trials, but I'm saying that that is not where we need to be heading as a breed, any more than we need to be heading in the direction of a show dog with cotton between the ears. Both sides of the coin are equally guilty. 
The Golden standard says, "Primarily a hunting dog". It does not say "primarily a field trial dog". The difference between the skill set, physical and mental abilities required to run a field trial versus hunting is huge. 
I think some people tend to forget that, while it's okay to breed to win in (fill in the blank), that doesn't mean it's the direction the entire breed needs to head. Just because a particular venue is what one likes to participate in, it doesn't mean that all Goldens should be able to compete in that venue at a high level. They do all, however, need to be bred to the Golden standard, which is not just a physical description.


----------



## TrailDogs

hotel4dogs said:


> I would also like to *remind* everyone that there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the Golden standard nor the Golden history that says they should be field trial dogs.


Barb, you are correct. However, some of those same qualities are what make a great hunting dog. You know this because you do hunt work with your boy. I have had my girl chase winged pheasant several hundred yards, out if sight, through woods and sorghum and come back with the bird as I'm sure your boy has done. 
A dog that doesn't have the drive and focus to do that will lose birds. So, in many ways, the breeding of competitive field trial dogs keeps those traits alive in the golden.
When the breed began to diverge into two separate entities the hunt test game did not exist. If field trials were not around we would have lost a very essential part of the golden retriever.
While the golden does not have to be a field trial dog, that game has kept a very important part of the golden gene pool alive and well.


----------



## gdgli

hotel4dogs

You are absolutely right, nothing in the standard says that they should be field trial dogs. I suggested looking at a field trial so that people could get an idea on which traits are desirable for excelling in the field. I myself never shopped for a puppy saying that I wanted to trial the dog. I have always made it clear that I would be hunting the dog. The problem for me is to find the qualities that I want in that particular hunting dog. 

From my perspective, owning a dog from a field breeding (not necessarily field trial breeding) allows the hunter to get a dog that will probably present fewer difficulties in training that dog. Birdiness is not a question. Water work is not a question. Perseverance is not a question. Grooming is not a question. And so on.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I for sure agree with your basic premise. But I think the requirements for running field trials are vastly different from the requirements for being a successful hunting dog. My only point was that, in order to be a great hunting dog, the dog doesn't need to be able to run field trials. Our breed standard calls for dogs that are "primarily a hunting dog". There are a lot of wonderful hunting dogs (I have one) that would not tolerate the pressure of training for, or running, field trials. Let's face it, if a dog could run field trials just by virtue of being a great hunting dog, we'd have a lot more field trial dogs! 
There is a huge difference in the ability to run 400+ yard marks versus the ability to go out in the field and intelligently use the wind, the cover, etc. to find and flush birds. I've gone out on a limb on this one before, because it's just a personal opinion, but I think some of it has to do with the desire for a retrieve versus the desire for a bird. But yes, for sure, persistence, courage, intelligence are all required in a hunting dog. I think dogs who go out and actually hunt, versus dogs who run field trials, are more important in keeping alive a vital part of the gene pool. Again, JMO. I know of more than one MH dog who will not pick up a live bird. I mean seriously? This proves what from a breeding point of view?
Now if someone wants to run field trials, they of course should seek out a Golden from a pedigree that was bred to do that, and I think there's nothing wrong with that. Again, just that it doesn't mean the entire breed needs to be bred with the ability to run field trials.
I also think that the attributes which make a Golden a great hunting dog are what also make them a great family pet. 



TrailDogs said:


> Barb, you are correct. However, some of those same qualities are what make a great hunting dog. You know this because you do hunt work with your boy. I have had my girl chase winged pheasant several hundred yards, out if sight, through woods and sorghum and come back with the bird as I'm sure your boy has done.
> A dog that doesn't have the drive and focus to do that will lose birds. So, in many ways, the breeding of competitive field trial dogs keeps those traits alive in the golden.
> When the breed began to diverge into two separate entities the hunt test game did not exist. If field trials were not around we would have lost a very essential part of the golden retriever.
> While the golden does not have to be a field trial dog, that game has kept a very important part of the golden gene pool alive and well.


----------



## hotel4dogs

The sad thing, gdgli, is that owning ANY golden 30 years ago probably would have allowed the hunter to get a dog that would present few difficulties in training that dog (to hunt).



gdgli said:


> hotel4dogs
> 
> You are absolutely right, nothing in the standard says that they should be field trial dogs. I suggested looking at a field trial so that people could get an idea on which traits are desirable for excelling in the field. I myself never shopped for a puppy saying that I wanted to trial the dog. I have always made it clear that I would be hunting the dog. The problem for me is to find the qualities that I want in that particular hunting dog.
> 
> From my perspective, owning a dog from a field breeding (not necessarily field trial breeding) allows the hunter to get a dog that will probably present fewer difficulties in training that dog. Birdiness is not a question. Water work is not a question. Perseverance is not a question. Grooming is not a question. And so on.


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is OT, but I also want to say how much I enjoy this forum. We are able to discuss things like the differences between show/field lines, how to blend them, etc., without people getting snarky and name calling, unlike some other forums which shall remain nameless  .


----------



## Eowyn

hotel4dogs said:


> I also think that the attributes which make a Golden a great hunting dog are what also make them a great family pet.


Right and unfortunately (and I am not cutting on field trial goldens) most field trial goldens would not necessarily make a great family pet. Most families could never in a million years hope to keep up with a field trial golden in the home.

I do think that those field and hunt titles are vital to keeping the breed what it is supposed to be. I would like to see more people aware of why they are important though.


----------



## boomers_dawn

I found this googling canine weedy head
Golden retriever type | Canis lupus hominis

It's someone's personal opinion, his name appears as Scottie Westfall, since it's a blog I take it with a grain of salt, but he suggests golden appearance changed over time by selectivity for "cuteness" by the fluffiest fattest puppies being most "teddybearish" in appearance - that makes sense for the big coats and bony builds - not fat, big boned.

In case anyone else was wondering what weedy means: An insufficient amount of bone; light boned


----------



## gdgli

hotel4dogs said:


> The sad thing, gdgli, is that owning ANY golden 30 years ago probably would have allowed the hunter to get a dog that would present few difficulties in training that dog (to hunt).


I believe that you are quite right. I didn't mention it before but the Lab lady had told me that I might be able to show that field golden. She was showing her labs at the time.


----------



## FTGoldens

hotel4dogs said:


> I would also like to *remind* everyone that there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the Golden standard nor the Golden history that says they should be field trial dogs.
> I'm not saying some shouldn't be able to run field trials, but I'm saying that that is not where we need to be heading as a breed, any more than we need to be heading in the direction of a show dog with cotton between the ears. Both sides of the coin are equally guilty.
> The Golden standard says, "Primarily a hunting dog". It does not say "primarily a field trial dog". The difference between the skill set, physical and mental abilities required to run a field trial versus hunting is huge.
> I think some people tend to forget that, while it's okay to breed to win in (fill in the blank), that doesn't mean it's the direction the entire breed needs to head. Just because a particular venue is what one likes to participate in, it doesn't mean that all Goldens should be able to compete in that venue at a high level. They do all, however, need to be bred to the Golden standard, which is not just a physical description.


I do not disagree with the primary point of the above post, however this thread is/was about dogs achieving Dual Ch. status, FC and Ch. And recognizing that our national club has long recognized the Dual Ch. status, which necessarily includes an FC, we must acknowledge that it also includes the obligation that the Dual Ch. run field trials ... not just run field trials, but WIN an Open. 

We must also remember that to become a FC, we must BEAT not only Goldens but ALL OF THE LABRADORS as well. That being the case, to be competitive in Opens, certain field-favorable characteristics must be continually enhanced to keep up with the development of those characteristics in the Labs.

FTGoldens


----------



## hotel4dogs

True on all counts!




FTGoldens said:


> I do not disagree with the primary point of the above post, however this thread is/was about dogs achieving Dual Ch. status, FC and Ch. And recognizing that our national club has long recognized the Dual Ch. status, which necessarily includes an FC, we must acknowledge that it also includes the obligation that the Dual Ch. run field trials ... not just run field trials, but WIN an Open.
> 
> We must also remember that to become a FC, we must BEAT not only Goldens but ALL OF THE LABRADORS as well. That being the case, to be competitive in Opens, certain field-favorable characteristics must be continually enhanced to keep up with the development of those characteristics in the Labs.
> 
> FTGoldens


----------



## gdgli

FTGoldens said:


> I do not disagree with the primary point of the above post, however this thread is/was about dogs achieving Dual Ch. status, FC and Ch. And recognizing that our national club has long recognized the Dual Ch. status, which necessarily includes an FC, we must acknowledge that it also includes the obligation that the Dual Ch. run field trials ... not just run field trials, but WIN an Open.
> 
> We must also remember that to become a FC, we must BEAT not only Goldens but ALL OF THE LABRADORS as well. That being the case, to be competitive in Opens, certain field-favorable characteristics must be continually enhanced to keep up with the development of those characteristics in the Labs.
> 
> FTGoldens



Funny how we stray. You are right. To get the FC you do need the canine athlete.


----------



## FTGoldens

Eowyn said:


> Right and unfortunately (and I am not cutting on field trial goldens) most field trial goldens would not necessarily make a great family pet. Most families could never in a million years hope to keep up with a field trial golden in the home.


I don't disagree with many posts on this forum, but this is one that is, in my opinion and experience, is simply the perpetuation of a myth. Each of my pet Goldens, all of which stay in the house, just happens to be a field trial trial dog. They have an "off switch," which is engaged when they cross the threshold. Now if one considers an occasional nose-nudge of my hand soliciting a scratch behind the ears to be rambunctious, then they are ....

I dunno, maybe the field Goldens you've owned have been interior terrorists, so the foregoing is hereby acknowledged to be my opinion.

FTGoldens


----------



## gdgli

FTGoldens said:


> I don't disagree with many posts on this forum, but this is one that is, in my opinion and experience, is simply the perpetuation of a myth. Each of my pet Goldens, all of which stay in the house, just happens to be a field trial trial dog. They have an "off switch," which is engaged when they cross the threshold. Now if one considers an occasional nose-nudge of my hand soliciting a scratch behind the ears to be rambunctious, then they are ....
> 
> I dunno, maybe the field Goldens you've owned have been interior terrorists, so the foregoing is hereby acknowledged to be my opinion.
> 
> FTGoldens


I am actually surprised at how calm my own dog is in the house. Complete opposite of what she is in the field. Of course she needs exercise, she needs to run but so do all Goldens. This is something that many dog owners forget.


----------



## FTGoldens

Alaska7133 said:


> FTGoldens,
> You've pretty much dedicated your free time for many years training goldens to the FC and AFC titles. Along the way I'm sure you've seen some wonderful field dogs that should be bred to show dogs that have reputable titles in field. If you had your choice of combinations, which studs or dams would you look hard at if you wanted that combination of DC? How many generations do you think it would take to get there?


Alaska,
That's WAY OVER MY HEAD. I'm not smart enough to figure that out. I know that Topbrass has done a number of beauty & brains breedings, but I've not followed those puppies to see how they turned out.
In my opinion, there's just no way to significantly increase the odds of creating that elusive DC. As mentioned in an earlier post, the biggest problem is that there's no guarantee that an FC x FC breeding will = FC puppies, even when perfectly placed. 
I believe that there's going to have to be a certain amount of luck involved, IN ADDITION TO a great deal of study, to make the next Golden DC. It may be an interesting project to go back in the history books to see what it was about the few DCs in the breed that made them what they are.
FTGoldens


----------



## Eowyn

FTGoldens said:


> I don't disagree with many posts on this forum, but this is one that is, in my opinion and experience, is simply the perpetuation of a myth. Each of my pet Goldens, all of which stay in the house, just happens to be a field trial trial dog. They have an "off switch," which is engaged when they cross the threshold. Now if one considers an occasional nose-nudge of my hand soliciting a scratch behind the ears to be rambunctious, then they are ....
> 
> I dunno, maybe the field Goldens you've owned have been interior terrorists, so the foregoing is hereby acknowledged to be my opinion.
> 
> FTGoldens


I have known a lot of field goldens that do not have off switches, and their owners openly admit this. Every single one of my friends with field goldens will tell you to not even think about getting a field golden unless you are 110% sure you can get them 2+ hours of intense exercise virtually every day of that dogs life. The vast majority of family homes could never provide that kind of exercise. :wavey:


----------



## Alaska7133

So it sounds like a DC would be extremely tough to achieve. Interesting to speak of Topbrass. Jackie did start out as a breeder of show dogs, now she breeds field trial and hunt test dogs. It would be interesting to hear Jackie's opinion. She has been breeding for a very long time. She has imported dogs from abroad and introduced a variety of dogs around the US into her breeding program.

Going back to Push, I did look at his pedigree again. He does have some show dogs in his pedigree, but they are his great-great grandparents. This in itself is unusual that he was shown to a championship. It is difficult to get a Ch on any dog, Canadian or not, especially with a lack of a show pedigree. So any DC possibility would have to be strong show pedigree on both sides, not just one.

I do think that a field trial dog is very different today than one that ran field trials 40 years ago. The requirements of doing well at a field trial have increased substantially over the years. I would love an opinion of this from FTGoldens since he has been running field trials for quite awhile. How much have field trials changed?

Maybe GRCA will come up with another special title for a dog that has both a MH and a Ch. That would be a nice designation. What do you all think?

Thanks for all your thoughts!


----------



## TrailDogs

Eowyn said:


> Right and unfortunately (and I am not cutting on field trial goldens) most field trial goldens would not necessarily make a great family pet. Most families could never in a million years hope to keep up with a field trial golden in the home.


I could not disagree more. My field bred goldens are wonderful house dogs. I work full time so they are not out training all day. 
They have a great work ethic and desire to please which makes them good all around competition dogs for any venue. It also makes them easy to manage in the house.
Keep in mind that this is a HUNTING breed, not a pet breed. Being a good family dog is a nice side effect of the qualities needed in a working dog. 
A well bred golden should have the energy to hunt all day when needed, it should require a relatively active life style. This breed was never meant to be a pretty yard ornament.


----------



## Megora

> It is difficult to get a Ch on any dog, Canadian or not, especially with a lack of a show pedigree. So any DC possibility would have to be strong show pedigree on both sides, not just one.


 At the very least, from what I understand.... it's not just getting a really big loaded pedigree. It's the dogs themselves and knowing what you are breeding to improve on. if you have a middle of the road conformation dog (meaning the dog has some weak areas or more correctly, areas you want to improve on so you can have more in a conformation puppy that you keep) - you do not want to breed to a lesser dog. Unless your goals as far as what you want to produce - are different. 

There are nice dogs out there with MH's or more performance heavy pedigrees.... who have what you might need for your girl.... probably not going to get you a field champion for sure, but might get you more drive and possibly even improve on her weak areas as far as conformation? 

I think Swampy (I think he said it) was right in that you might be looking at more than one breeding before you get what you are truly looking for. 


^ And all dogs have weak areas.


----------



## gdgli

Trail Dogs

Did you run your dog at Pinelands last year?


----------



## Alaska7133

It would be interesting to look at the goldens every year that attain a FC. Any idea where there would be a listing of FC titles attained by goldens by year? For field trial people on here, do you ever think about doing a CCA on your dog? I know that proper physical characteristics as a function of the sport of field trials is far more important than anything we do with conformation dogs. I did watch a video of a show dog person going over a show golden talking about the various physical aspects of a golden and how that transfers into hunting functions. It was an interesting video. I will try to see if I can upload it to YouTube to share here.


----------



## TrailDogs

gdgli said:


> Trail Dogs
> 
> Did you run your dog at Pinelands last year?


Yes, in 2013.


----------



## Loisiana

Alaska7133 said:


> Maybe GRCA will come up with another special title for a dog that has both a MH and a Ch. That would be a nice designation. What do you all think?
> 
> Thanks for all your thoughts!


They already have this. Anney's Fisher is one.


----------



## FTGoldens

Alaska7133 said:


> It would be interesting to look at the goldens every year that attain a FC. Any idea where there would be a listing of FC titles attained by goldens by year? For field trial people on here, do you ever think about doing a CCA on your dog? I know that proper physical characteristics as a function of the sport of field trials is far more important than anything we do with conformation dogs.


A list by year would be great, but I don't know of any place it exists. Maybe the GRCA FEC can work on that!

I recall hearing about a few field trialers who have done the CCA. Unfortunately, the CCAs are not offered at the typical all-breed field trials, so for field trialers the opportunity is generally only available at the Specialty. Frankly, I'd love to do the CCA.

FTGoldens


----------



## gdgli

TrailDogs said:


> Yes, in 2013.


I had an eye on your dog. You have a very nice dog. I was planting blinds. When I was looking for a puppy I was in touch with Lee Herskowitz who directed me to Tellous Calhoun. I spent a lot of time on the phone with both. The breedings looked very nice. I opted for a different breeding because I had a chance to see the dam work, see the puppies and I had input from a FT Judge who had judged several dogs in the pedigree. 
I like doing things this way. 

(PS Those blinds were tough, I got to see the factors up close.)


----------



## TheZ's

A quick Google turned up a list of AFC/FC's on the Topbrass website FC/AFC titled Golden Retrievers since 1965

Since I'm not a field person I've been trying to limit my comments but wanted to say a couple of things. Our first Golden who was sired by Topbrass Super Trooper and came from a pedigree with multiple AFC's or FC's was a real challenge for inexperienced owners for the first 3 years but was a wonderful and much loved family pet. Known to many as "the best dog ever." So I think a field Golden can also be a wonderful family dog.

Over the past few weeks I've been taking Gracie to open conservation land for off leash exercise. We've encountered many other Goldens there. Most seem to be from show type breedings. The contrast is quite noticeable . . . the bigger heavier bodies, the long heavy coats, the lack of interest in much physical activity, the inability to run with much speed. It makes me think that the show breeders really have strayed too far.


----------



## Alaska7133

Loisiana,
I wasn't aware there was an official title that combined the MH and Ch? What is it?

FTGoldens,
We had a field trial girl pass the CCA up here last year. She was still wet from running a trial that day. Here's her name: Ridgeline's Northern Dancer SH WC ** CCA. Very nice looking girl. All field, she's a Stanley Steamer pup. I took her photos for the event.


----------



## Loisiana

Dual Dog Hall of Fame, DDHF


----------



## nolefan

I suspect there are just as many conformation bred dogs who are too much dog for the average family as there are field dogs. (I bet Anney would confirm this) I've met some. 

I honestly think it has to result from breeders who place too much emphasis on selecting for physical characteristics in the conformation ring or on drive in the field and forgetting that 'trainability' or 'focus' or 'biddability' are important as well. A big part of what makes a dog a nightmare as a family dog is that they have the attention span of a gnat and no amount of exercise can fix that. Managing them is too much work, they may be smart but they're bouncing around like a ping pong.

If a DC ever happens again I think it will be an anomaly, it doesn't seem like enough people care. I think the DDHF is the best we can hope for. I am extremely grateful for the people who put the effort in for that, I think it's the best long term hope for the breed.


----------



## nolefan

Anney's Fisher is an amazing dog and what a fantastic temperament. I have to brag on another pretty special dog, Sophie. Like Fisher, she is completely owner trained and handled. I'm proud of my Ellie being from a Fisher/Sophie breeding. CH Unicoi's Sail Away Angel CDX TD MH ** WCX CCA VCX OD DDHF Pedigree: CH Unicoi's Sail Away Angel CDX TD MH ** WCX CCA VCX OD DDHF


----------



## Alaska7133

Loisiana,
I didn't know about the DDHF. Good to have that kind of title. I think several dogs have it now. Thanks for posting that information. Here are the qualifications to be that dog: 
DDHF is a GRCA certificate
DUAL DOG HALL OF FAME
Golden Retrievers who earn any one of the following combinations of requirements will be entered into the GRCA Dual Dog Hall of Fame:

•Bench Champion and Master Hunter on the same dog (bench champion means conformation champion)

•Major conformation points and Qualified All-Age (***) on the same dog

•Major conformation points and ** (placement in a licensed field trial) on the same dog


Nolefan,
I think the CCA clears up the temperament issue, it is required for the dog to pass a temperament test to acquire a CCA.

FTGoldens,
Unfortunately at US golden national this year, the CCA is scheduled the same time as the field trials. I bet a lot of field goldens would have no problem passing a CCA.

In my local training group I've tried really hard to get show people interested in fieldwork, I think gdgli does the same in his area. I have found many show dogs that have no interest in birds. I have also found field bred dogs with the same problem. So it's not only show dogs with that issue. It could be more of a nurture issue with puppies, than a breeding problem.


----------



## Alaska7133

Nolefan,
Not only did I see Sophie at the field trial at national, but I watched her strut her stuff in the gundog sweeps at national! She is a very special girl, and you are very lucky to have her puppy!


----------



## hollyk

FT
You can check with your local Golden club for a CCA. My club usually hosts one at least ever other year. It is usually a stand alone event but last year it was combined with an Optigen Clinic.


----------



## Alaska7133

Holly,
That's the Evergreen GR Club right? Our club did one for the first time last year.


----------



## flatcoated

I am quite surprised to realize that there are separate Halls of Fame for Goldens in each discipline and find it curious that the GRCA has not gone more out of its way to recognize and reward evidence of versatility. Isn't this likely to encourage and perpetuate divisions of type within the breed? There is only one Flatcoat hall of fame, and it is impossible for a dog to qualify without earning titles in multiple areas (including mandatory entry-level titles in both conformation and field). The newest requirements stipulate that a dog must earn both a bench championship and a JH or WCX before becoming eligible to apply at all, and those two requirements cover only the first 30-40 points out of 175 required for admittance (an agility star, for example, wouldn't qualify with less than a CH MACH JH, assuming no additional titles in other disciplines). Now I'm well aware that it's a lot easier to put a bench championship on a Flatcoat than on a Golden, and the FCR standard places explicit emphasis on versatility where the GR standard does not. But it still seems to me that Goldens who excel in many venues should receive special commendation from the national organization.


----------



## hollyk

Yes, EGRC.
But I ended up going up to B.C. a few months later and entered Winter in the CCA there.
For those interested Pacific Rim, Portland Oregon area, is having a CCA in Sept.
Club Events


----------



## FTGoldens

Alaska7133 said:


> I do think that a field trial dog is very different today than one that ran field trials 40 years ago. The requirements of doing well at a field trial have increased substantially over the years. I would love an opinion of this from FTGoldens since he has been running field trials for quite awhile. How much have field trials changed?


Okay, I'll answer ... even though I haven't been running trials for 40 years! (It has been a long time though, I started running field trials before I was out of school.) 
Since I began running field trials, I have seen the greatest change in the Qualifying stakes. Years back, the dog had to count to three and handle modestly well ... no retired guns, no blind over 150 yards, never a blind in conjunction with the marks, most water blinds were designed to simply see if the dog would stay in the water. But these days, to win a Qual, the dog must be capable of doing work at the Amateur level.
The Derby stake is still "just" marks, but maybe a little longer and a little tighter. Some judges set up tests which test trained abilities, but for the most part, it's still the natural ability of marking that prevails.
Amateur and Open stakes ... longer and tighter marks than before. New concepts, such as a mom & pop, have caught on; the blinds are longer, possibly due, in part, to the creation of whistles such as the Green Monster, which is audible to dogs for an additional hundred or more yards than the Roy Gonia (orange whistle) which used to be predominate on the circuit.
It's fun to see just how much these dogs can learn and figure out.
FTGoldens


----------



## Alaska7133

SDHF - show dog hall of fame title, only requires show title and points as a specialty, nothing else. My girl Lucy has lots of ancestors with that title and nothing else in any other venue. Which hasn't hurt her birdiness.

GRCA has VC and VCX. - versatile companion dog. Multiple venues to get this title. GRCA explains it all on their website. http://grca.org/thegrca/vcvcx.htm

AKC also has the VCD1, 2 titles. My girl's dad and grandpa had VCD2 titles. It's the tracking title that people have trouble getting. https://www.apps.akc.org/classic/events/vcd_titles/requirements.cfm

Yes I agree that versatility should be celebrated.


----------



## flatcoated

Yes, agree, I reread my post and certainly don't want to suggest that versatility isn't rewarded in Goldens. But I do think that a special HOF designation (beyond the Dual Champion category) for the true all-arounders would be a good thing.


----------



## Alaska7133

P.S.
I don't think it's any easier to put a Ch on a FCR than a GR! A Ch on any breed is a serious thing to undertake.


----------



## Prism Goldens

For those of you interested in the CCA, the calendar is kept up to date on GRCA-CCA UPCOMING EVENTS and I maintain a yahoogroups list that has only posts of upcoming events and new evaluators- you can subscribe here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GRCABulletinBoardCCA/info
and that group is a very low traffic list as only myself and Barb can post on it. At the National, if a dog's entry is drawn,we will work with whatever else he's entered in if at all possible!


----------



## Alaska7133

Does that mean that you submit your entry for the CCA at national, but you may not be picked to be in the CCA evaluation? Is that due to the amount of entries?


----------



## Loisiana

I'm not really following. The DDHF recognizes dogs that have excelled in both conformation and field. If you want something that includes companion events, that is what the VC/VCX program is for. A dog has to be really titled to qualify for VCX. AKC has a special title (VCCH) for those performing at top levels in all three companion events.



flatcoated said:


> I am quite surprised to realize that there are separate Halls of Fame for Goldens in each discipline and find it curious that the GRCA has not gone more out of its way to recognize and reward evidence of versatility. Isn't this likely to encourage and perpetuate divisions of type within the breed? There is only one Flatcoat hall of fame, and it is impossible for a dog to qualify without earning titles in multiple areas (including mandatory entry-level titles in both conformation and field). The newest requirements stipulate that a dog must earn both a bench championship and a JH or WCX before becoming eligible to apply at all, and those two requirements cover only the first 30-40 points out of 175 required for admittance (an agility star, for example, wouldn't qualify with less than a CH MACH JH, assuming no additional titles in other disciplines). Now I'm well aware that it's a lot easier to put a bench championship on a Flatcoat than on a Golden, and the FCR standard places explicit emphasis on versatility where the GR standard does not. But it still seems to me that Goldens who excel in many venues should receive special commendation from the national organization.


----------



## K9-Design

Alaska7133 said:


> Maybe GRCA will come up with another special title for a dog that has both a MH and a Ch. That would be a nice designation. What do you all think?


They already do : Dual Dog Hall of Fame 
that's DDHF:


----------



## K9-Design

flatcoated said:


> it's a lot easier to put a bench championship on a Flatcoat than on a Golden


One major reason why.....



> But it still seems to me that Goldens who excel in many venues should receive special commendation from the national organization.


The GRCA does have the Versatility Certificate and Versatility Certificate Excellent titles, just not a separate hall of fame for it.


----------



## K9-Design

Alaska7133 said:


> P.S.
> I don't think it's any easier to put a Ch on a FCR than a GR! A Ch on any breed is a serious thing to undertake.



Ummmm OK --- not


----------



## Prism Goldens

Alaska7133 said:


> Does that mean that you submit your entry for the CCA at national, but you may not be picked to be in the CCA evaluation? Is that due to the amount of entries?


 Yes- we will do a draw for entry from the entries recieved.
Typically there are several hundred entries, and 42 spots for evaluation.


----------



## Ljilly28

I grew up with goldens who were kids, grandkids, and great grandkids of Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS FDHF and loved them so.
I am curious on both sides how what Quar needed to do to acheive his Dual CH title was different from now? I imagine lots. Could Quar acheive a GCH in 2014? Could Quar acheive an AFC or FC in 2014?


----------



## hollyk

Prism Goldens said:


> Yes- we will do a draw for entry from the entries recieved.
> Typically there are several hundred entries, and 42 spots for evaluation.


Just wondering, is a blind draw or it is prioritized in some way?
For example, no prior CCA or someone going for a Triathlon Award.


----------



## Alaska7133

Jill,
I think you know the answer. You spend a lot of time at dog shows. You know that the coat, bone, head, etc. of a show dog today are completely different from a show dog back then. In less than 30 years we have totally changed how a show dog looks. I think that's where the problem lays, not the field type side. Yes field dogs are maybe lighter than they were 30 years ago, but not nearly as much drift as conformation dogs.

So as we continue to push show dogs in the direction they are currently going, I think we will have 2 breeds. I'm not sure if we can stop it. Last weekend Sandpiper's Let Freedom Ring was here winning BIS all 3 days. He's a pretty dog. But I just can't imagine doing even a basic JH title with him. His physical characteristics don't lend themselves well to fieldwork.

The only way to have a dual champion dog, is saving the conformation dogs from what they have become today. Then making sure they are bred back to field dogs. This will keep the drift from growing. But I don't think anyone on the conformation side is really willing to do that, do you?


----------



## TrailDogs

Stacey, I had this discussion a few months ago on this forum and was told that the breed was 'improved' and that is why they no longer look like the the dual dogs of the past. 
I think it would serve people well to read the article reprint by Dr. Lardy in a recent GRCA news, submitted by Glenda Brown, that was written when the show side of the breed started to move away from the field side.


----------



## Alaska7133

Traildogs,
Funny you should mention Glenda. I was emailing with her over the weekend over this issue. She's had a AFC from show X field lines back in the 1980's. Here's his pedigree: Pedigree: AFC Glenhaven Devil's Advocate UDT MH WCX OS FDHF You can see his mom is show and his dad is definitely field. Here's his grandma with a Ch: Pedigree: Am/Can CH. Chafa Honeybun of Jungold CDX TD WC OD Here's his grandpa with a Ch: Pedigree: Am./Can. CH. Laurell's Especial Jason Am./Can. UDT WC OS SDHF
I have not seen either of these types of show dogs in the show rings I've been in. I do not think either could get a Ch today. Not enough coat, heads to narrow, and legs too thin. Let's face it, conformation dogs have definitely have changed. For the better I don't know. But the drift is getting more substantial as time goes on. Look at GSd's


----------



## gold4paws

Alaska7133 said:


> Jill,
> 
> So as we continue to push show dogs in the direction they are currently going, I think we will have 2 breeds.
> 
> The only way to have a dual champion dog, is saving the conformation dogs from what they have become today. Then making sure they are bred back to field dogs. This will keep the drift from growing. But I don't think anyone on the conformation side is really willing to do that, do you?


I have had this conversation with several show breeder friends. None of them would breed to a field line. Some of their dogs have minimal hunting talent, other no interest at all in field, yet there is a belief that the next litter may have more field ability.

Another argument I hear about field dogs is that they are aggressive and out of control. Not my experience at all.

I do see some conformation dogs with a ton of drive. BUT, some lack focus and trainability is not a strong point. This is also part of the "drift", that doesn't seem to matter. Drive alone does not make a hunting dog.


----------



## Alaska7133

At most shows, once I'm doing showing I go ahead and ring steward for the rest of the day. It's a great way to really see the variety of breeds. Friday I watched the GSD's. One woman actually had a working GSD in the ring. What a great looking dog! He was totally put together and ready to herd sheep or cattle. The show GSD's just looked so very different. Needless to say the working GSD was in last place. I hated to see that. But good for the owner to get her dog out in the show ring!

When I first started showing Lucy, I heard from a pro that Lucy's mom was an old fashioned golden and would have trouble finishing. Lucy was told to not show until her mom finished. Here's a link to Lucy's mom: Pedigree: HIT CH Pebwin Go Getter CD TD I don't think you'll see many more dogs like Lucy's mom in the show rings of the future. Instead you will see more dogs like Willis: Pedigree: BIS,BISS Am GCH Rush Hill's Drama'geddon JH, WC SDHF I have nothing against Willis, he's a very pretty dog. He was bred to Lucy's 1/2 sister last year. One of those pups that was born in October already has 2 BOB's.


----------



## gdgli

gold4paws said:


> I have had this conversation with several show breeder friends. None of them would breed to a field line. Some of their dogs have minimal hunting talent, other no interest at all in field, yet there is a belief that the next litter may have more field ability.
> 
> Another argument I hear about field dogs is that they are aggressive and out of control. Not my experience at all.
> 
> I do see some conformation dogs with a ton of drive. BUT, some lack focus and trainability is not a strong point. This is also part of the "drift", that doesn't seem to matter. Drive alone does not make a hunting dog.


Funny you say this. I worked with a conformation dog last week, great drive, terrific marker. I also judged him at a picnic trial and he looked great. An 85 lb. beast with "correct show coat". He has trouble with water and I suspect it is related to the waterlog effect which I feel contributes to a golden's dislike for entering water.


----------



## gdgli

Ljilly28 said:


> I grew up with goldens who were kids, grandkids, and great grandkids of Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS FDHF and loved them so.
> I am curious on both sides how what Quar needed to do to acheive his Dual CH title was different from now? I imagine lots. Could Quar acheive a GCH in 2014? Could Quar acheive an AFC or FC in 2014?


 Used to read a lot about Quar years ago.


----------



## gdgli

TrailDogs said:


> Stacey, I had this discussion a few months ago on this forum and was told that the breed was 'improved' and that is why they no longer look like the the dual dogs of the past.
> I think it would serve people well to read the article reprint by Dr. Lardy in a recent GRCA news, submitted by Glenda Brown, that was written when the show side of the breed started to move away from the field side.


I did like that article.


----------



## gdgli

Alaska7133 said:


> Traildogs,
> Funny you should mention Glenda. I was emailing with her over the weekend over this issue. She's had a AFC from show X field lines back in the 1980's. Here's his pedigree: Pedigree: AFC Glenhaven Devil's Advocate UDT MH WCX OS FDHF You can see his mom is show and his dad is definitely field. Here's his grandma with a Ch: Pedigree: Am/Can CH. Chafa Honeybun of Jungold CDX TD WC OD Here's his grandpa with a Ch: Pedigree: Am./Can. CH. Laurell's Especial Jason Am./Can. UDT WC OS SDHF
> I have not seen either of these types of show dogs in the show rings I've been in. I do not think either could get a Ch today. Not enough coat, heads to narrow, and legs too thin. Let's face it, conformation dogs have definitely have changed. For the better I don't know. But the drift is getting more substantial as time goes on. Look at GSd's


I have said it before. NYPD K9 will not buy from an American breeder according to the NYPD Officer who spoke at my club.


----------



## Alaska7133

I've attached an article that Glenda Brown pointed me to. It is written by Judy Rasmussen who has owned many FC-AFC dogs (golden and lab). She talks about why there will never be another DC golden. It was written for GR News in 2011.


----------



## TrailDogs

gdgli said:


> Funny you say this. I worked with a conformation dog last week, great drive, terrific marker. I also judged him at a picnic trial and he looked great. An 85 lb. beast with "correct show coat". He has trouble with water and I suspect it is related to the waterlog effect which I feel contributes to a golden's dislike for entering water.


The problem is that you have no idea if you have a team player at the lower levels. A good working dog will become apparent as you move up the ranks and start asking for a lot more control. 
JH level doesn't tell the whole story. 
A dog that has water issues fails as a hunting companion. Correct coat is important but excessive coat is detrimental to the dogs ability to do a days work.


----------



## TrailDogs

Alaska7133 said:


> Traildogs,
> Funny you should mention Glenda. I was emailing with her over the weekend over this issue. She's had a AFC from show X field lines back in the 1980's. Here's his pedigree: Pedigree: AFC Glenhaven Devil's Advocate UDT MH WCX OS FDHF You can see his mom is show and his dad is definitely field. Here's his grandma with a Ch: Pedigree: Am/Can CH. Chafa Honeybun of Jungold CDX TD WC OD Here's his grandpa with a Ch: Pedigree: Am./Can. CH. Laurell's Especial Jason Am./Can. UDT WC OS SDHF
> I have not seen either of these types of show dogs in the show rings I've been in. I do not think either could get a Ch today. Not enough coat, heads to narrow, and legs too thin. Let's face it, conformation dogs have definitely have changed. For the better I don't know. But the drift is getting more substantial as time goes on. Look at GSd's


They would not be competitive today. And the dogs which are conformation bred that have proven field ability are not heavily used. I am not sure why. I would think they would be the 'go to' stud dogs for conformation breeders. If that was my game that is where I would be looking.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Took my "show dog" to some AKC Spaniel tests this weekend (Master Hunter Upland) and changed a few peoples' opinions about what a show Golden can do out in the field  .
Nope, it's not a field trial, but it's a true hunting scenario. 
Goldens are hunting dogs.


----------



## lhowemt

hotel4dogs said:


> Took my "show dog" to some AKC Spaniel tests this weekend (Master Hunter Upland) and changed a few peoples' opinions about what a show Golden can do out in the field  .
> Nope, it's not a field trial, but it's a true hunting scenario.
> Goldens are hunting dogs.


Super Tito-monster! 
:dblthumb2


----------



## Claudia M

Alaska7133 said:


> I've attached an article that Glenda Brown pointed me to. It is written by Judy Rasmussen who has owned many FC-AFC dogs (golden and lab). She talks about why there will never be another DC golden. It was written for GR News in 2011.


I seriously doubt you will ever see a Ronaker's Novato Cain or a Glenhaven Devil's Advocate in the show ring today.


----------



## Ljilly28

Alaska7133 said:


> Jill,
> I think that's where the problem lays, not the field type side. Last weekend Sandpiper's Let Freedom Ring was here winning BIS all 3 days. He's a pretty dog. But I just can't imagine doing even a basic JH title with him. His physical characteristics don't lend themselves well to fieldwork.
> But I don't think anyone on the conformation side is really willing to do that, do you?


 I don't think calling Freedom out by name on this thread or the other one is fair his owner or breeder unless they are invited to respond. His half-sister Sydney has field titles (BIS MBISS GCH CH Shadowland's Paws For Applause At Tristar CD RE SH WCX VCX SDHF CGC TDI ). Who is to say he couldnt do field work if he had someone devoted to working with him in that venue?


----------



## Alaska7133

I'm sorry I did not mean to call Freedom out. He's a very beautiful show dog. I was only using him as an example of a very current show dog in the US show ring. He is a very nice dog and very polite. He has many 1/2 siblings like Sydney and Willis. He also has a 1/2 sibling here in Anchorage with a JH. They are all nice wonderful temperament dogs. Sydney I believe got her SH last fall and Willis got his JH and WC last year. Tonya has bred many beautiful dogs over the decades and most of her show dogs do have hunt test and working certificate titles. I commend her for that.


----------



## Kmullen

IMO, you can not just breed a CH bitch/dog to a field trial bitch/dog and expect to get everything you want. One really needs to study long and hard about each pedigree and structure. If you are breeding a CH bitch, I would at least expect a JH and knowing the bitch has a lot to offer in the field as far as drive and she is biddable. You can't just select a Field Trial dog based on a title. One needs to look at what they might bring to your bitch. (Structure wise). I am not certain one would make a Dual Champion in the 1st generation. It would be hard.


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> IMO, you can not just breed a CH bitch/dog to a field trial bitch/dog and expect to get everything you want. One really needs to study long and hard about each pedigree and structure. If you are breeding a CH bitch, I would at least expect a JH and knowing the bitch has a lot to offer in the field as far as drive and she is biddable. You can't just select a Field Trial dog based on a title. One needs to look at what they might bring to your bitch. (Structure wise). I am not certain one would make a Dual Champion in the 1st generation. It would be hard.


unfortunately the breed has been split so much since the 80s, I honestly do not think you can bring it back. 
Especially with the golden retrievers there has been, what it looks like to me, a consorted effort to dismiss the "primarily hunting dog" out of the equation as if it somehow mean just an appearance thing and not an ability which is what the dog was bred for. 
Reason why you see many trainers and hunting people resort to labs and stay away from the goldens. The majority of trainers that I have been watching have what in their videos and on their websites.... labs. Do they train goldens? Yes, but proportionally they rather train labs nowadays. Why? IMHO it is because the instincts of the American Labs have not been yet diluted with .............(FILL IN THE BLANKS TO YOUR IMAGINATION) what we see in the goldens. 
I have read on another thread in this forum about people going to other breeds after they lose a golden. IMHO it is not just the hurt of losing a golden it is mostly that they cannot find what they had before. A TRUE HUNTING COMPANION.


----------



## Selli-Belle

gold4paws said:


> I have had this conversation with several show breeder friends. None of them would breed to a field line. Some of their dogs have minimal hunting talent, other no interest at all in field, yet there is a belief that the next litter may have more field ability.
> 
> Another argument I hear about field dogs is that they are aggressive and out of control. Not my experience at all.
> 
> I do see some conformation dogs with a ton of drive. BUT, some lack focus and trainability is not a strong point. This is also part of the "drift", that doesn't seem to matter. Drive alone does not make a hunting dog.


Please don't paint all show Goldens with the same paint. Plus how do you know these breed dogs do lack focus and trainability? Maybe they did not have training that would build their focus. We just discussed the monetary and time issues that prevent people from competing in both breed and field trials. We have evidence that people who chose to get hunt test titles on their show bred Goldens can do really well. Plus plenty of show champions get upper level obedience and agility titles which is evidence that they are trainable.


----------



## hotel4dogs

From what I hear, there are still a lot of Goldens out there who can hunt. There aren't nearly as many people out there who still hunt.


----------



## Ljilly28

hotel4dogs said:


> From what I hear, there are still a lot of Goldens out there who can hunt. There aren't nearly as many people out there who still hunt.


Love this! The crux of the matter. . .

Truly, sweeping grand pronouncements on the state of the breed are well and good, but Barb has one of the linchpins right here.

I am one of those who thinks goldens who meet the standard are thriving, and much of this is human nature that romanticizes the past ala back in the day. I have had goldens every day of my life, and transitioned with them through the decades. Loved them then, love them now. For every comment saying show dogs should be bred to field dogs, the same logic says field dogs need to be bred to dogs of correct and sturdy conformation who meet the standard. The grammar of the standard is balanced- The dog should be SHOWN against its peers before being bred in hard working condition bc it is primarily a hunting dog. Using only "Primarily a hunting dog" is no better or worse than someone snipping out the phrase "He should be SHOWN". 

The mainstay quotation that the golden must be a hunting dog first in foremost is taken out of context. Just take a step back in time, and remember diagraming sentences on a green chalkboard or, if younger, learning the main idea of the sentence v dependent clauses. The main idea of the oft-quoted sentence is that the golden should be SHOWN in hard working condition. "Primarily a hunting dog" is an appositive/subordinate phrase with the purpose of explaining the main idea ( that the dog should be shown to the judge in fit physical condition). The whole shebang is under the heading "General APPEARANCE". It wouldnt fly as reading back in Mrs. Dickson's 6th grade English class to carve out a dependent clause and present it as the main idea of the sentence so we shouldn't do that either. 



> General Appearance -
> Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. /QUOTE]
> 
> There is wisdom in the grammar, and neither side is let off the hook: the dog is a hunting dog AND the dog is a show dog to be compared and contrasted conformationally to its peers before being considered as a breeding prospect.


----------



## TrailDogs

Selli-Belle said:


> Please don't paint all show Goldens with the same paint. Plus how do you know these breed dogs do lack focus and trainability? Maybe they did not have training that would build their focus. We just discussed the monetary and time issues that prevent people from competing in both breed and field trials. We have evidence that people who chose to get hunt test titles on their show bred Goldens can do really well. Plus plenty of show champions get upper level obedience and agility titles which is evidence that they are trainable.


Sure, and my field dog, in fact most field dogs, could win in the breed ring if I had the time, money, inclination and a good handler. She just needs a little grooming. 
We all know that is not true. Just as we all know that you can't take any dog and make it a working field dog just because it is a golden. 
You get what you breed for.


----------



## FTGoldens

Quick question:
How many American Dual Ch. Goldens have we had in the history of the breed? (I don't know the number, but I bet it's not very many. The standards for both elements of the champion difficult to attain, as they should be.) 
FTGoldens


----------



## Alaska7133

Traildogs, 
You are right, we get what we breed for, sometimes. Like breeding for a DC. It would take many generations to get one and even then their is no guarantee. But it isn't just the breeding I believe, sometimes it's nurture not just nature. 

I've enjoyed all my goldens no matter the breeding. My show dog is doing better in fieldwork than the show ring (15 shows and no wins). I love seeing pretty dogs in the field retrieving birds. Goldens are all pretty dogs, no matter the breeding!


----------



## gold4paws

Selli-Belle said:


> Please don't paint all show Goldens with the same paint.


I* did not* paint *all* show Goldens with the same paint. I said *SOME.* Go back a read my post again.



Selli-Belle said:


> Plus how do you know these breed dogs do lack focus and trainability? Maybe they did not have training that would build their focus.


From my personal experience. 

Just FYI - I have been asked by more than one "show breeder" to take a young dog with a ton of drive. The common traits were high drive, lack of focus, independent agents and difficult to train simple skills in a short time. 

If I was interested in a performance dog, I would expect a puppy to show some level of focus at 7 weeks. The pup should have a natural retrieve, show interest in birds...........I would look for raw talent.

One should not have to "build" focus. Enhance focus, YES. Just my opinion.



Selli-Belle said:


> We have evidence that people who chose to get hunt test titles on their show bred Goldens can do really well. Plus plenty of show champions get upper level obedience and agility titles which is evidence that they are trainable.


 Not sure what your point is. I'm well aware there are show bred Goldens with field, obedience and agility titles. Not just aware, but asked a few "show breeder" friends why they do not use those dogs. 

The point of this thread was about blending field and show lines to enhance field ability. 

Alaska asked what to look for if blending the lines. The intent of my post was to mention adding "drive" to a line, does not always enhance trainability and focus. 

Each of us have different experiences with the breed, regardless of show, field or blended. So what I say is based on my personal experience with the breed and my intent is to share what I have learned over the years.

I'm not debating show vs. field. 

I do question your use of WE in your post. Who exactly is WE?


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> From what I hear, there are still a lot of Goldens out there who can hunt. There aren't nearly as many people out there who still hunt.


Completely incorrect! There are very many people that still hunt, the difference is they do not hunt with goldens, they choose labs instead. 

Lardy moved to train labs, your trainer shows labs on his website and not one golden retriever. 

"Primarily a hunting dog" is not some sort of grammar metaphor it was the purpose of the breed. 

Seli-Belle - obedience in the ring vs obedience in the field are two entire completely different things.


----------



## Alaska7133

Like FT said, a DC title is extremely difficult to achieve under any circumstance. We have a breed that we all love that is capable of so much more than just being a hunting dog, show dog, or a service dog. Which is probably why there has been a split in the breed, they are good for so many things than just hunting. So we have been able to specialize their breeding and focus them on one specific area such as service dogs. Can we imagine any child needing a service dog having anything other than a golden? I know I can't. Goldens are in my eyes the most versatile breed out there.

So let's celebrate the achievements of our golden retriever breeders past and present! Let's thank them for their hard work in breeding wonderful dogs that are so loved around the world. Their work has made golden retrievers what they are today.


----------



## TrailDogs

Alaska7133 said:


> Like FT said, a DC title is extremely difficult to achieve under any circumstance. We have a breed that we all love that is capable of so much more than just being a hunting dog, show dog, or a service dog. Which is probably why there has been a split in the breed, they are good for so many things than just hunting. So we have been able to specialize their breeding and focus them on one specific area such as service dogs. Can we imagine any child needing a service dog having anything other than a golden? I know I can't. Goldens are in my eyes the most versatile breed out there.
> 
> So let's celebrate the achievements of our golden retriever breeders past and present! Let's thank them for their hard work in breeding wonderful dogs that are so loved around the world. Their work has made golden retrievers what they are today.


That is correct, it is a versatile breed. Just keep in mind that when you take the original purpose of the breed out of the equation, you lose the qualities that make the golden what it is today.


----------



## hollyk

Claudia M said:


> Completely incorrect! There are very many people that still hunt, the difference is they do not hunt with goldens, they choose labs instead.
> 
> Lardy moved to train labs, your trainer shows labs on his website and not one golden retriever.
> 
> "Primarily a hunting dog" is not some sort of grammar metaphor it was the purpose of the breed.
> 
> Seli-Belle - obedience in the ring vs obedience in the field are two entire completely different things.


Completely incorrect? Really? 
Maybe it is a regional thing because I know quite a few people who hunt over their Goldens and I haven't been "in dogs" all that long. Much to my surprise I hunted over my own Golden last year. 
Dual Champion heck who knows it is a tough road. Are there any Lab or FCR Dual Champions? 
I do think this is a great time to be looking for a good looking MH/UD dog.


----------



## Claudia M

hollyk said:


> Completely incorrect? Really?
> Maybe it is a regional thing because I know quite a few people who hunt over their Goldens and I haven't been "in dogs" all that long. Much to my surprise I hunted over my own Golden last year. .....


I doubt it is a regional thing. The notion that not that many people hunt and therefore there is no more need for goldens who can hunt is completely false. 

I give kudos to the ones that still preserve the purpose of the golden and still hunt with them, but they are a minority compared to the ones that would rather take a lab hunting than a golden. 

Furthermore, if you look at EE, the MH levels are predominantly labs and in proportions to the entries more goldens fail than labs. And yes I am talking MH and not the lower levels of JH and SH.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> There aren't nearly as many people out there who still hunt.


Actually this statement is incorrect. 

In total numbers there are MORE people who hunt today than did 20 years ago. Where the confusion comes from is that as a percentage of the population, the percentage of people who hunt is smaller. This is due to the population shifting to urban areas. In rural and suburban areas, hunting and outdoor activities are actually growing in popularity. They're just not growing as fast as the population at large is.


----------



## TrailDogs

hotel4dogs said:


> From what I hear, there are still a lot of Goldens out there who can hunt. There aren't nearly as many people out there who still hunt.


943,583 hunting licenses sold in PA for the 2012-13 season. That is just one state. A lot of people do hunt.


----------



## TheZ's

Some of the factual questions raised above (like how many Golden dual champions there've been, and what about labs) are answered in the article written by Judy Rasmuson and linked to above. I found the article very informative. 

Quoting from the article:
_ Nine Goldens have won AKC Dual Championships. The first one to do so was Dual CH Stilrovin Nitro Express in the mid 1940s. The last Golden Dual Champion was Dual CH-AFC Tigathoe’s Funky Farquar who earned his Dual in 1979. . .__As a side note, since AKC hunt tests were begun in the early ’90s, there have been 28 CH-MH Goldens.

In Labradors there have been 37 Dual Champions including two that have won National Retriever Championships as well. The last Labrador Dual Champion was in 1984. This was Dual CH-AFC Hiwood Shadow. I’m not aware of any Champion Labrador that has had Open All-Age points since then, or, conversely, of any FC Labrador that has had bench points. However there have been 51 CH-MH Labradors.

On the other hand, the Chesapeake Bay Retriever regularly produces Dual Champions. The first Chessie Dual that I had the privilege of watching was Fireweed’s Jasmine at the 1984 National Amateur Retriever Championship. Jasmine was a Finalist and finished her Dual Championship in 1985. Since that time I competed against Jasmine’s daughter, Dual CH-AFC J J’s Jessie, and Jessie’s daughter Dual CH-AFC J J’s Chitown Blizzard MH. There have been five or six more Chessie Duals since Lizzie with the latest in the mid 2000s; Linda Harger’s Dual CH-AFC Genny’s Yakity Yak Don’t Talk Back. In all, there have been 18 Chesapeake Dual Champions since the first one in 1937, Dual CH Sodak’s Gypsy Prince. _


----------



## Swampcollie

Ljilly28 said:


> I am curious on both sides how what Quar needed to do to acheive his Dual CH title was different from now? I imagine lots. Could Quar acheive a GCH in 2014? Could Quar acheive an AFC or FC in 2014?


I suspect that Quar would still do well in the field and an FC/AFC would still be within his reach. 

The CH on the other hand would be very unlikely. The "appearance" rewarded in the conformation ring has shifted to such a degree that he would no longer be competitive.

Simply put, NONE of the Breeds Dual Champions nor the majority of pre 1970 conformation champions would be competitive in the conformation ring today.


----------



## Loisiana

Hunting is HUGE down here. Louisiana's state nickname is Sportsman's Paradise for all our hunting and fishing. I can drive into any neighborhood and find multiple homes with black labs in kennels, waiting for their weekend hunting trip. I don't know of anyone who hunts with goldens here. When I mention I train my goldens to be able to hunt, I often hear they didn't know golden retrievers could be trained for that.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> Hunting is HUGE down here. Louisiana's state nickname is Sportsman's Paradise for all our hunting and fishing. I can drive into any neighborhood and find multiple homes with black labs in kennels, waiting for their weekend hunting trip. I don't know of anyone who hunts with goldens here. *When I mention I train my goldens to be able to hunt, I often hear they didn't know golden retrievers could be trained for that.*


And that statement in itself is what saddens me the most!


----------



## hollyk

Claudia M said:


> I doubt it is a regional thing. The notion that not that many people hunt and therefore there is no more need for goldens who can hunt is completely false.
> 
> 
> I give kudos to the ones that still preserve the purpose of the golden and still hunt with them, but they are a minority compared to the ones that would rather take a lab hunting than a golden.
> 
> Furthermore, if you look at EE, the MH levels are predominantly labs and in proportions to the entries more goldens fail than labs. And yes I am talking MH and not the lower levels of JH and SH.


I don't know I was recently at a hunt test in Canada that 13 of the 17 MH dogs were Goldens. I'm pretty sure they are all hunted over. So Goldens rule in that region. LOL

I agree Labs are in the majority when it comes to hunting dogs and at the MH level. But there are some very good Goldens out there and if you want to hunt or play the HT game it can be done and still have a nice looking dog. All is not lost!


----------



## Alaska7133

I find a tremendous amount of people here in Alaska talk about hunting and buy the gear and the licenses. But they don't do much more than that. Hunting is work. Buying gear is easy! Talk is cheap. Just go to REI and look at all the hiking boots that will never see a trail.


----------



## TrailDogs

hollyk said:


> But there are some very good Goldens out there and if you want to hunt or play the HT game it can be done and still have a nice looking dog. All is not lost!


Yes, those field goldens are good looking dogs.


----------



## Alaska7133

Here were the breeds at our last AKC hunt test represented:

Event summary:
Total dogs 87
individual dog count: 48
males: 35
females: 52
labs: 41
goldens: 31
chessies: 11
flat coats: 2 
tollers: 2


Less than 1/2 the dogs that entered were labs! How's that for variety! On the second MH run 3 dogs passed, one lab, one chessie and one golden. Nice mix. Not sure why we have a nice mix in Alaska and I'm not sure if we've always had it. But we do now! I think every club needs to be proactive in getting out there soliciting people to get involved in training together.


----------



## FTGoldens

Swampcollie said:


> Simply put, NONE of the Breeds Dual Champions nor the majority of pre 1970 conformation champions would be competitive in the conformation ring today.


That's an interesting observation, especially in re: the pre-1970 conformation champions.
FTGoldens


----------



## Swampcollie

Alaska7133 said:


> Here were the breeds at our last AKC hunt test represented:
> 
> Event summary:
> Total dogs 87
> individual dog count: 48
> males: 35
> females: 52
> labs: 41
> goldens: 31
> chessies: 11
> flat coats: 2
> tollers: 2
> 
> 
> Less than 1/2 the dogs that entered were labs! How's that for variety! On the second MH run 3 dogs passed, one lab, one chessie and one golden. Nice mix. Not sure why we have a nice mix in Alaska and I'm not sure if we've always had it. But we do now! I think every club needs to be proactive in getting out there soliciting people to get involved in training together.



What you will find is that Goldens are more often seen competing in the north. The further south you go the fewer goldens you will see.


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> What you will find is that Goldens are more often seen competing in the north. The further south you go the fewer goldens you will see.


Is there a difference in the judging in the north as opposed to the south? Would that be a reason you do not see that many competing in the south?


----------



## Swampcollie

It's *hot* in the south. 
Lab's are better at working in hot weather. Goldens were designed to work in the highlands of Scotland. They don't see a lot of 90+ degree weather in Scotland.


----------



## Claudia M

Swampcollie said:


> It's *hot* in the south.
> Lab's are better at working in hot weather. Goldens were designed to work in the highlands of Scotland. They don't see a lot of 90+ degree weather in Scotland.


The labs were also developed for the northern cold sea. The Newfoundland Island while it has a quite unpredictable weather doubt that it ever reaches 90+ F. The shorter coats actually helped them swim in the frozen waters instead of the longer coats which would freeze and drag the dogs down.


----------



## Alaska7133

For goldens and chessies, I know there are several people in my area in both breeds that actively get people into fieldwork. This push by people in those breeds has really helped get more goldens and chessies to field events. Without these 2 particular women, we would probably not see the entry levels where they are this year. We need to keep it up! If the reason is temperature, I think all dogs are happier when the weather is about 50 degrees like it was at our last hunt test. The reason we consistently see tollers at events is they are used at our ski areas and actively bred up here. Flat coats I have no idea why, but we do have a breeder up here.


----------



## hotel4dogs

That's because the retriever tests are pretty much a simulated duck hunt, not an upland hunt!! The labs will dominate the duck hunting scenarios every time.
Get them out in the upland field, and you will see the Goldens shine.
Which is not a surprise, considering the original purpose of each breed.




Claudia M said:


> I doubt it is a regional thing. The notion that not that many people hunt and therefore there is no more need for goldens who can hunt is completely false.
> 
> I give kudos to the ones that still preserve the purpose of the golden and still hunt with them, but they are a minority compared to the ones that would rather take a lab hunting than a golden.
> 
> Furthermore, if you look at EE, the MH levels are predominantly labs and in proportions to the entries more goldens fail than labs. And yes I am talking MH and not the lower levels of JH and SH.


----------



## hotel4dogs

No personal experience, but I've been told by more people than I can count on both hands that if you want to get a MH on your dog, go enter the southern circuit, especially FL. They say the hardest judges tend to be in MN and TX.
I have NO IDEA if that's valid. Just passing along hearsay.



Claudia M said:


> Is there a difference in the judging in the north as opposed to the south? Would that be a reason you do not see that many competing in the south?


----------



## hollyk

hotel4dogs said:


> That's because the retriever tests are pretty much a simulated duck hunt, not an upland hunt!! The labs will dominate the duck hunting scenarios every time.
> Get them out in the upland field, and you will see the Goldens shine.
> Which is not a surprise, considering the original purpose of each breed.


 In my limited exposure to the upland portion of the of the CKC MH tests, the Goldens appeared to have better flow when quartering. I never really had to teach Winter to quarter she just did it. In fact we only practiced quartering three times, once two years ago, once this spring and once two days before the test. Of coarse in CKC they don't use live birds so that would be different from hunting. 
The one thing I do want to teach is a better transition to the quart section so she knows immediately what we are doing. I'm thinking I should have her facing me in a remote sit then telling her to "Hunt'em Up". That way she can turn and start quartering.


----------



## hotel4dogs

A common thing they do in the Spaniel tests is they have the dog facing them in a sit (like a front in obedience, but about 2-3 feet away), and then take the hand on the side that you want her to head, and put it all the way in front of your body, crossed over, and move it across your body and make the cast. Think of it like pulling a string across your body from one side to the other, ending up pointing in the direction you want the dog to head. That keeps the dog from busting out and heading straight down the field. 
It's really hard to explain verbally, sorry.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Ok, I'm curious...how can you do a flushing test without live birds????



hollyk said:


> In my limited exposure to the upland portion of the of the CKC MH tests, the Goldens appeared to have better flow when quartering. I never really had to teach Winter to quarter she just did it. In fact we only practiced quartering three times, once two years ago, once this spring and once two days before the test. Of coarse in CKC they don't use live birds so that would be different from hunting.
> The one thing I do want to teach is a better transition to the quart section so she knows immediately what we are doing. I'm thinking I should have her facing me in a remote sit then telling her to "Hunt'em Up". That way she can turn and start quartering.


----------



## Alaska7133

Barb,
you are my hero on upland hunting! I'm so glad I got a chance to try it out with 2 of my goldens. They loved it. I hope you get that MHU at the end of the summer!


----------



## hotel4dogs

And once you tried it, you were addicted too  .
We need 1 more pass for our MHU. Thanks for the good thoughts!




Alaska7133 said:


> Barb,
> you are my hero on upland hunting! I'm so glad I got a chance to try it out with 2 of my goldens. They loved it. I hope you get that MHU at the end of the summer!


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> That's because the retriever tests are pretty much a simulated duck hunt, not an upland hunt!! The labs will dominate the duck hunting scenarios every time.
> Get them out in the upland field, and you will see the Goldens shine.
> *Which is not a surprise, considering the original purpose of each breed*.


Sorry Barb, can you please advise of the original purpose of each breed? 

To my poor understanding the Lab was originally bred for the purpose of helping the fishermen in Canada fetch lost nets and fish. 

The Golden was actually bred with the purpose to hunt waterfowl ie ducks and upland game birds.


----------



## hotel4dogs

The Golden was developed primarily as an upland dog on the estates of Scotland, among the Scottish hills. While it was also used for waterfowl, the upland hunting made up the lion's share of the hunting in that area.

"...The golden retriever is a relatively young breed. It originated in Scotland during the late 1800s where it was developed by a British aristocrat, Lord Tweedmouth. Since hunting provided both sport and sustenance on Scottish estates, Tweedmouth and other British lords sought to develop effective hunting dogs for upland game. However, because the original breeders were gentlemen, they demanded more than just practicality in their dogs. They also sought to create handsome animals who were a pleasure to watch work. The result was the golden retriever, a breed with both hunting skill and beauty....." (Gaylan's Golden Retrievers: beautiful, working golden retrievers for home and sport) .
Note also that the Golden has Spaniel and Setter in its DNA mix, both upland dogs. 

The labrador retriever was developed to assist fishermen in Newfoundland among the rocks and ice cold water, and quickly developed into a fantastic waterfowl dog.


----------



## Alaska7133

Barb,
Now that we can get an MHU/Ch combo on our dogs, shall we ask for a new title that shows the combination? I think it's great that you are doing this.


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> The Golden was developed primarily as an upland dog on the estates of Scotland, among the Scottish hills. While it was also used for waterfowl, the upland hunting made up the lion's share of the hunting in that area.
> 
> .......


Sorry - but I believe duck hunting is QUITE predominant in Scotland. After all the main purpose of the coat is to repel water and be a both upland and water dog.


----------



## hollyk

hotel4dogs said:


> Ok, I'm curious...how can you do a flushing test without live birds????


 It is more quartering and sit to shot. 
You quarter up to a winger and they have to sit on a single whistle or voice command as the bird goes up with a shot and wait for release. Actually, I don't _think_ they even have to sit, they just can't advance until released. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, we were flying by the seat of our pants on that part of the test. Too bad Shelley isn't on here any longer she could clear it up. Also the bird could be alive that would then fly away, you can't shoot birds in CKC tests, and your dog needs to not chase. 
The trick lies in that the judges could have you quarter, sit to flush then move right into a land blind. So dogs has the control quartering but then they have to give it back to you on the blind. The hardest transition we did was Q, sit to flush followed by a water blind.


----------



## Selli-Belle

gold4paws said:


> I have had this conversation with several show breeder friends. None of them would breed to a field line. Some of their dogs have minimal hunting talent, other no interest at all in field, yet there is a belief that the next litter may have more field ability.
> 
> Another argument I hear about field dogs is that they are aggressive and out of control. Not my experience at all.
> 
> I do see some conformation dogs with a ton of drive. BUT, some lack focus and trainability is not a strong point. This is also part of the "drift", that doesn't seem to matter. Drive alone does not make a hunting dog.


You make the claim that hear that field dogs are aggressive and out of control, but that is not your experience, suggesting that you believe types of dogs should not be stereotyped or all painted with the same brush.

Then you do the same thing to show dogs. You say "some lack focus" but the "trainability is not a strong point" seem to refer to the whole arena of show dogs who have "tons of drive." The statement that it is part of the "drift" again refers to the drift of show line Goldens from the ability to hunt due to the two factors you mentioned, lack of focus and trainability. 



gold4paws said:


> I* did not* paint *all* show Goldens with the same paint. I said *SOME.* Go back a read my post again.
> 
> Not sure what your point is. I'm well aware there are show bred Goldens with field, obedience and agility titles. Not just aware, but asked a few "show breeder" friends why they do not use those dogs.
> 
> The point of this thread was about blending field and show lines to enhance field ability.
> 
> Alaska asked what to look for if blending the lines. The intent of my post was to mention adding "drive" to a line, does not always enhance trainability and focus.
> 
> Each of us have different experiences with the breed, regardless of show, field or blended. So what I say is based on my personal experience with the breed and my intent is to share what I have learned over the years.
> 
> I'm not debating show vs. field.
> 
> I do question your use of WE in your post. Who exactly is WE?


Although part of your post was about adding show dogs having drive, you also brought up negative stereotypes "people" have about field dogs and made the point that this was not your experience so my post was just to argue that we should be careful about making any blanket (even fleece thow sized ones) about the other side. And I did specifically use the term "we" to refer to the people reading and posting in this thread. How else would I be using "we?"


----------



## K9-Design

hotel4dogs said:


> No personal experience, but I've been told by more people than I can count on both hands that if you want to get a MH on your dog, go enter the southern circuit, especially FL. They say the hardest judges tend to be in MN and TX.
> I have NO IDEA if that's valid. Just passing along hearsay.


Um excuse me? Sorry but in my experience everyone thinks their region is the hardest and everywhere else is the easiest. Oh yes, go run master tests in southern Georgia and Florida where every pro winters and they hire the next years master national judges, that's bound to be a cakewalk. I've run master tests in FL GA TN OH MO NY NJ MD and there were some easy ones and some ballbusters in each place. Thats not heresay or speculation thats experience...somewhat of a rarity in this thread. I've sat on my hands a lot reading this. We have a great contingent of upper level hunt test golden trainers in my state and THREE very soon to be FOUR DDHF dogs in the past five years.


----------



## gdgli

I would like to make a few comments based upon my 35 years of hunting on Long Island and upstate NY, a couple of years as an assistant duck hunting guide, time spent working my dog as a pickup dog, and membership in the South Shore Waterfowlers Association.

1. The average duckhunter wants a Lab.
2. The average upland hunter wants one of the versatile breeds.
3. If the average hunter wants a retriever he wants a Lab.
4. I have been asked if my Golden can swim.
5. The average hunter does not want a Golden dripping water in his duckboat. We typically hunt out of a decked over boat.

So the question becomes, Why is the average hunter avoiding Goldens? And I think it is due to the image that the average Golden has---its coat and its unwillingness to swim as well as the average lab.


----------



## Kmullen

Ok, I am sorry but why must we always compare Goldens to Labs?? I just do not get it! Yes, they are both in the sporting group, but they are different breeds!!

Let me ask you guys this. Does it say anywhere in the standard that a golden should be a MH or Field Trail dog to be a "primarily hunting dog?"

What does the term mean by "primarily a hunting dog?" I might have a dog that is my hunting partner and is great in real live duck hunts, but does not do well for SH/MH/FC?

Does that make my dog not in standard? 

(I am just thinking out loud here). BTW I do NOT devalue titles... Just a thought.

How far do we need to go to make sure our dog is a "hunting dog?"


----------



## hollyk

gdgli said:


> 1. The average duckhunter wants a Lab.
> 2. The average upland hunter wants one of the versatile breeds.
> 3. If the average hunter wants a retriever he wants a Lab.
> 4. I have been asked if my Golden can swim.
> 5. The average hunter does not want a Golden dripping water in his duckboat. We typically hunt out of a decked over boat.


I have always suspected I was above average.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I know, I was really careful to be sure to say that I have no idea whether there's a scrap of truth to it...that it was hearsay....people say the same about showing in the breed ring. Everywhere else is much easier to finish a dog. It's also much easier to get an OTCH everywhere else. 

Edit to add...the place that's easier must always be so far away that one could not logistically get there to prove that their dog could pass/finish/OTCH there!



K9-Design said:


> Um excuse me? Sorry but in my experience everyone thinks their region is the hardest and everywhere else is the easiest. Oh yes, go run master tests in southern Georgia and Florida where every pro winters and they hire the next years master national judges, that's bound to be a cakewalk. I've run master tests in FL GA TN OH MO NY NJ MD and there were some easy ones and some ballbusters in each place. Thats not heresay or speculation thats experience...somewhat of a rarity in this thread. I've sat on my hands a lot reading this. We have a great contingent of upper level hunt test golden trainers in my state and THREE very soon to be FOUR DDHF dogs in the past five years.


----------



## gdgli

kfayard said:


> Ok, I am sorry but why must we always compare Goldens to Labs?? I just do not get it! Yes, they are both in the sporting group, but they are different breeds!!
> 
> Let me ask you guys this. Does it say anywhere in the standard that a golden should be a MH or Field Trail dog to be a "primarily hunting dog?"
> 
> What does the term mean by "primarily a hunting dog?" I might have a dog that is my hunting partner and is great in real live duck hunts, but does not do well for SH/MH/FC?
> 
> Does that make my dog not in standard?
> 
> (I am just thinking out loud here). BTW I do NOT devalue titles... Just a thought.
> 
> How far do we need to go to make sure our dog is a "hunting dog?"


Goldens must be compared to Labs. The HUNTER is making the comparison when he is shopping for a hunting dog.

I just have to add, the typical Lab has a cheaper price in my neck of the woods.


----------



## hotel4dogs

you get what you pay for :



gdgli said:


> Goldens must be compared to Labs. The HUNTER is making the comparison when he is shopping for a hunting dog.
> 
> I just have to add, the typical Lab has a cheaper price in my neck of the woods.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Not just that, but to take it a step farther, I personally know two MH dogs who will NOT pick up a live/crippled bird!! Yet the dogs were able to earn a MH title! The people have gone places that they know that live birds can't be used, or the dogs have failed those tests in which the flier was a cripple but passed if the flier was dead. 
Quite obviously I don't devalue titles either. Just commenting that you can have a fine hunting dog with NO titles, and a dog with beaucoup titles that can't or won't hunt.



kfayard said:


> Ok, I am sorry but why must we always compare Goldens to Labs?? I just do not get it! Yes, they are both in the sporting group, but they are different breeds!!
> 
> Let me ask you guys this. Does it say anywhere in the standard that a golden should be a MH or Field Trail dog to be a "primarily hunting dog?"
> 
> What does the term mean by "primarily a hunting dog?" I might have a dog that is my hunting partner and is great in real live duck hunts, but does not do well for SH/MH/FC?
> 
> Does that make my dog not in standard?
> 
> (I am just thinking out loud here). BTW I do NOT devalue titles... Just a thought.
> 
> How far do we need to go to make sure our dog is a "hunting dog?"


----------



## TrailDogs

kfayard said:


> Let me ask you guys this. Does it say anywhere in the standard that a golden should be a MH or Field Trail dog to be a "primarily hunting dog?"
> 
> What does the term mean by "primarily a hunting dog?" I might have a dog that is my hunting partner and is great in real live duck hunts, but does not do well for SH/MH/FC?
> 
> Does that make my dog not in standard?
> 
> (I am just thinking out loud here). BTW I do NOT devalue titles... Just a thought.
> 
> How far do we need to go to make sure our dog is a "hunting dog?"


It depends. If the dog is your hunting companion then that should be good enough for you. 
If you are promoting breeding stock then you need some evidence that your dog can actually do what you say it can. Just as the conformation breeder wants the CH title to prove that what they have can be competitive and do the job it was bred to do - win in the show ring.
I look at both titles and pedigrees when I buy a dog and I feel pretty certain the dog will do the job I need it to do based on those two things.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Where's the "like" button???



TrailDogs said:


> It depends. If the dog is your hunting companion then that should be good enough for you.
> *If you are promoting breeding stock then you need some evidence that your dog can actually do what you say it can. Just as the conformation breeder wants the CH title to prove that what they have can be competitive and do the job it was bred to do - win in the show ring.*
> I look at both titles and pedigrees when I buy a dog and I feel pretty certain the dog will do the job I need it to do based on those two things.


----------



## Kmullen

hotel4dogs said:


> Not just that, but to take it a step farther, I personally know two MH dogs who will NOT pick up a live/crippled bird!! Yet the dogs were able to earn a MH title! The people have gone places that they know that live birds can't be used, or the dogs have failed those tests in which the flier was a cripple but passed if the flier was dead.
> Quite obviously I don't devalue titles either. Just commenting that you can have a fine hunting dog with NO titles, and a dog with beaucoup titles that can't or won't hunt.



This is exactly my point. Why do we always have to feel the need to say Golden's lack focus and desire bc they aren't as good with Field trails or not as many MH Goldens? 

Do they really need those high titles to be a "good" retriever? I don't understand all the negativity.

I could really careless if people choose to use labs for hunting, that is their prerogative. I know what my dogs can do and I am just as happy. 

Goldens are a very versatile breed. IMO many families look for a golden for a family dog. Most do not train the dog for hunting (especially show lines). So, how do we know most show lines lack focus or desire? 

I have seen some horrible running "show" Goldens, I have seen some horrible running "field" Goldens, I have seen some horrible running Labs. I think a lot of it is the training, of course pedigree too.

I have been to hunt test and seen labs run, and that is just not what I want. Golden or Lab? They still are different breeds. I still believe that Goldens will never be labs. And why should they? I certainly do not want that!!

Most trainers know how Goldens are (as far as training goes). Trainers would rather labs over any Goldens (Most). 

In my experience with labs (yes I have owned them and do like the breed), they are more hard headed and will do whatever and a Golden thinks about it more and my opinion (humble!) are smarter


----------



## Kmullen

TrailDogs said:


> It depends. If the dog is your hunting companion then that should be good enough for you.
> If you are promoting breeding stock then you need some evidence that your dog can actually do what you say it can. Just as the conformation breeder wants the CH title to prove that what they have can be competitive and do the job it was bred to do - win in the show ring.
> I look at both titles and pedigrees when I buy a dog and I feel pretty certain the dog will do the job I need it to do based on those two things.


I agree with this. But, I will not turn away from a stud dog that is not titled if it has everything else I am looking for... Especially Health. Of course, we all love titles.

I honestly do wish more breeders did both, but I know that will not happen. 

I wish that we could all work together instead of always defending the field vs show golden. And the whole my "type" is better than yours attitude.

That was a general statement to everyone


----------



## hotel4dogs

The whole thing kinda makes my head spin.
Titles aren't the be-all and end-all, for a variety of reasons we've already mentioned. You can have a fine hunting dog with no titles. You can have a high level titled dog that took for-EVER to get the titles, and each one was with carefully picked judges (in whatever venue) in carefully picked locations so that the dog might have at least some chance of success. 
But titles are really all we have, other than the word of the stud/bitch owner as to the dog's talents, aren't they? 
Seriously, if someone wants to breed to a stud dog and they are concerned about hunting talent, they probably need to arrange to go watch the dog out in the field, not in the false situation of a hunt test. The two bear little resemblance to each other. But how practical is that? 
And I totally agree that finger pointing, field versus show, gets us no where.


----------



## Titan1

I love this thread... Nothing important or profound to add but I do want to comment on last years National CCA. I had one judge tell me that Mighty was not what they were looking for in the breed ring..(duh) and that goldens were not bred to hunt all day long also said he was a bit leggy, the very next judge.. very well respected proceeded to tell me about how she loved that he was in hard working condition and could go out and hunt all day. Said he was very balanced, just as strong in the front as in the back and not too much leg.. So if two judges at the same event within minutes can not agree it is no wonder this debate goes on.. everyone has their perfect balance of what they desire in their dog. I love goldens and all their diversity! 
Side note...I would however like to know where the easy OTCH's are found...I have a feeling I might need that with Mighty...lol!


----------



## hotel4dogs

The easy OTCH's are found everywhere but here, in places where it's too far for me to travel ::



Titan1 said:


> Side note...I would however like to know where the easy OTCH's are found...I have a feeling I might need that with Mighty...lol!


----------



## Claudia M

kfayard said:


> Ok, I am sorry but why must we always compare Goldens to Labs?? I just do not get it! Yes, they are both in the sporting group, but they are different breeds!!
> 
> Let me ask you guys this. Does it say anywhere in the standard that a golden should be a MH or Field Trail dog to be a "primarily hunting dog?"
> 
> What does the term mean by "primarily a hunting dog?" I might have a dog that is my hunting partner and is great in real live duck hunts, but does not do well for SH/MH/FC?
> 
> Does that make my dog not in standard?
> 
> (I am just thinking out loud here). BTW I do NOT devalue titles... Just a thought.
> 
> How far do we need to go to make sure our dog is a "hunting dog?"


In my view titles are nice but not a necessity in order to hunt with your dogs. My husband never went to hunt tests but he trained himself and hunted with his golden. When he went hunting with some friends Belle put the other titled and pro trained dogs to shame. He lost a couple "friends" who could not accept that a byb golden could be better. 

What I do see though is that the golden is under-performing in those tests and I attribute that to the deviation from the "primarily a hunting dog". Are labs not therapy dogs, good family companions, search and rescue? Yes but I believe more lab breeders try to keep the hunt abilities in their dogs than golden breeders. 

Sorry you take that as negativity. I do not, I want the breed to succeed. As much as I see the fire and the ability of the labs in the field I still love the goldens and flatcoats. Nothing gives me more pleasure than see both Rose and Darcy happy to go to training, whining as we get closer to the places and then stampede thru those fields or dive thru the waters and get those ducks. 

Back in March when Kevin first met Rose and watched her do a long double he asked me what kind of lab mix she was. I wish I had a picture of his face when I told him she was a golden retriever. 

If you lose the birdiness, the marking abilities and the endurance ability in the field, you lost a hunting partner. 

We started the JH test at 11am in 87 degrees and we did not finish until after 5 in the afternoon. I could tell that the stress, the heat and the commotion traveling between the places got to Rose. If she had more coat on her I really doubt she would have made it thru both tests. Each holding blind had a canopy over because it got way too hot. 

Maybe I was more worried myself because once they got home they both started playing and running in the backyard.


----------



## Claudia M

gdgli said:


> Goldens must be compared to Labs. The HUNTER is making the comparison when he is shopping for a hunting dog.
> 
> I just have to add, the typical Lab has a cheaper price in my neck of the woods.


The prices for a lab are slightly lower than the ones for the golden. I often wondered why! The lab breeders I have met do all the clearances, the genetic testings etc. They incur the same yelping expenses. 
Since the breeders I have met also train, they not only breed the dogs but they also help the puppy buyers with training both the dogs and the owners in the field. I have seen the puppy owners come from 3 hours away to train. 
When I asked him how much does he charge to train at his place he said ...........nothing, we are all here to help each other, throw for each other and help the dogs. The more people and dogs in the field the better the training.
He shot the first flier for Rose, it was his duck, I had no idea he was going to do that especially considering that he did not have many to start with.


----------



## TrailDogs

kfayard said:


> This is exactly my point. Why do we always have to feel the need to say Golden's lack focus and desire bc they aren't as good with Field trails or not as many MH Goldens?
> 
> Do they really need those high titles to be a "good" retriever? I don't understand all the negativity.


I don't see the negativity here. What I am saying is that you get what you breed for. You can't assume you have focus, trainaility, and hunting ability if you don't select for those traits. 
As I said in an earlier post, I could sit here and tell you that my dog could be a conformation dog, I just don't have the time, money etc. That doesn't make it true. 
I will freely admit that she is not a show dog, nor will I ever breed conformation dogs. That is not my interest. What she does have is focus, drive, trainability, and good bird sense. And she does meet the standard.
Others can breed what they choose or what they feel is the ideal golden. 
What gets tiresome, not directed at you, but in general, is the constant talk on here that dogs that are bred for generations with no proven working ability will certainly be able to put in a good days hunt if just given the chance.
I have a lot of respect for people who take ownership of what they are producing. There is no harm in saying I want to breed show dogs and don't care about the rest of it. Just own it and don't try to convince people that you are producing multi purpose dogs.


----------



## Alaska7133

A couple of weeks ago at my last hunt test, 2 of the Ch labs wouldn't get in the water to retrieve their birds. They just refused. You know the kind of show dogs, the sausages with legs?

After,the last hunt tests I watched the lab working certificate. What a joke! It is nowhere near as tough as our WC! They have to do 1 retrieve on land, 2 on water. All singles, and nothing over 25 yards, most were far less. I did not keep track of how many failed. It was quite embarrassing. We stood around talking about the various WC tests for different breeds. The FCR, toller, and golden tests are so much more of a test! Our 3 breeds stood around joking about the labs as we watched them and their silly little test. A baby puppy should be able to pass that test.

The golden working test in the UK doesn't require the use of birds, they can use bumpers, but they have to do a blind. Never seen how they run a UK blind. The next level up they use birds. I'll look for a link.


----------



## FTGoldens

kfayard said:


> 1. Ok, I am sorry but why must we always compare Goldens to Labs?? I just do not get it! Yes, they are both in the sporting group, but they are different breeds!!
> 
> 2. Does it say anywhere in the standard that a golden should be a MH or Field Trail dog to be a "primarily hunting dog?"
> 
> 3. What does the term mean by "primarily a hunting dog?" I might have a dog that is my hunting partner and is great in real live duck hunts, but does not do well for SH/MH/FC?
> 4. How far do we need to go to make sure our dog is a "hunting dog?"


This thread is about blending conformation and field talent, hence the conversation logically moved into a discussion of Dual Ch.
1. To become a Dual Ch., a Golden MUST beat the Labs in an Open, Restricted, Limited or Special. (Of course, the win in a Specialty Open does not count as the win which is required to attain the title of FC.)
2. Nope, the FC title is not in the breed standard (neither is Ch.); however the GRCA has recognized the value in the title for a few decades. Hence, some folks see the value in maintaining, even converging, looks and ability.
3. AGREED! The titles, whether Ch., FC, or any of the other plethora of prefix titles and suffix titles are meaningless as to whether or not a dog is a hunting dog. The titles are artificial designations, subject to the discretion of the judges. 
4. How far do we need to go is a great question. Are we striving for the Dual Ch. title or the breed standard? 

Pick a goal and go for it ... Ch., FC, AFC, ***, BIS, CD, UDX, TDX, etc., etc., etc.. Mine happens to be NFC ... it's been a while since we have had a Golden NFC (several decades). But what the heck, it had been a couple of decades since we'd had a FC AFC female and a Golden Girl got both of those titles a couple of years ago. Have fun with your Goldens and they will have fun with you!

FTGoldens


----------



## Kmullen

TrailDogs said:


> I don't see the negativity here. What I am saying is that you get what you breed for. You can't assume you have focus, trainaility, and hunting ability if you don't select for those traits.
> As I said in an earlier post, I could sit here and tell you that my dog could be a conformation dog, I just don't have the time, money etc. That doesn't make it true.
> I will freely admit that she is not a show dog, nor will I ever breed conformation dogs. That is not my interest. What she does have is focus, drive, trainability, and good bird sense. And she does meet the standard.
> Others can breed what they choose or what they feel is the ideal golden.
> What gets tiresome, not directed at you, but in general, is the constant talk on here that dogs that are bred for generations with no proven working ability will certainly be able to put in a good days hunt if just given the chance.
> I have a lot of respect for people who take ownership of what they are producing. There is no harm in saying I want to breed show dogs and don't care about the rest of it. Just own it and don't try to convince people that you are producing multi purpose dogs.



I very much agree with you. I will attest that my dogs will never be field trial dogs! But, I really hope that they pick ducks and doves up for me! I have big hunters in my family and if a puppy I have does not want to pick it up or retrieve.... They WILL NOT get bred! That is a goal for myself as a Breeder. I love a smart, biddable, and trainable dog just as much as the next person, but until breeders unite in some way to bring a little more hunting in the breed, this will never happen. 

I have a puppy from just strictly a show line (no hunting titles on sire side at all). I took a chance bc I really liked the health in the line and I knew my girl. I had no clue what I would be getting as far as drive and focus.
But, I am extremely happy with her thus far!

Everyone needs to be happy with their dogs and breeding choices, but we SHOULD all remain true of what we should be breeding for. We shouldn't be breeding just for that #1 show dog or field trial dog. 

All breeders are different in what they like and why they choose to breed. But, we should all have a common goal... To produce a golden to the standard.


----------



## gdgli

hotel4dogs said:


> you get what you pay for :


That is very funny and avoided saying it myself. 

Is it the same in your neck of the woods?


----------



## Alaska7133

FT,
I agree, the NFC golden girl would be very nice to have! Any chance we will see a golden girl go for an NFC in the next year or two?


----------



## FTGoldens

Alaska7133 said:


> FT,
> I agree, the NFC golden girl would be very nice to have! Any chance we will see a golden girl go for an NFC in the next year or two?


It's a big, HUGE deal just to get qualified for the National (Open) Retriever Championship, so before she can "go for it," the girl has to beat all the dogs in an Open (NOTE: an Open win at the Specialty DOES count as a win insofar as the win necessary to qualify for the National). 
That FC AFC girl that I mentioned earlier has been retired from field trialing ... or so I've been told. There are, however, a couple of really nice Golden girls running Opens, so maybe it'll happen. It should be noted, however, that the only female Golden to become an NFC was NFC Sheltercove Beauty FDHF ... I believe it was in the 1940's. So it may be a tall order, but it's possible!
FTGoldens


----------



## Claudia M

TrailDogs said:


> I don't see the negativity here. What I am saying is that you get what you breed for. You can't assume you have focus, trainaility, and hunting ability if you don't select for those traits.
> As I said in an earlier post, I could sit here and tell you that my dog could be a conformation dog, I just don't have the time, money etc. That doesn't make it true.
> I will freely admit that she is not a show dog, nor will I ever breed conformation dogs. That is not my interest. What she does have is focus, drive, trainability, and good bird sense. And she does meet the standard.
> Others can breed what they choose or what they feel is the ideal golden.
> What gets tiresome, not directed at you, but in general, is the constant talk on here that dogs that are bred for generations with no proven working ability will certainly be able to put in a good days hunt if just given the chance.
> I have a lot of respect for people who take ownership of what they are producing. There is no harm in saying I want to breed show dogs and don't care about the rest of it. Just own it and don't try to convince people that you are producing multi purpose dogs.


Looking for the AMEN button!


----------



## Claudia M

Alaska7133 said:


> A couple of weeks ago at my last hunt test, 2 of the Ch labs wouldn't get in the water to retrieve their birds. They just refused. You know the kind of show dogs, the sausages with legs?
> 
> After,the last hunt tests I watched the lab working certificate. What a joke! It is nowhere near as tough as our WC! They have to do 1 retrieve on land, 2 on water. All singles, and nothing over 25 yards, most were far less. I did not keep track of how many failed. It was quite embarrassing. We stood around talking about the various WC tests for different breeds. The FCR, toller, and golden tests are so much more of a test! Our 3 breeds stood around joking about the labs as we watched them and their silly little test. A baby puppy should be able to pass that test.
> 
> The golden working test in the UK doesn't require the use of birds, they can use bumpers, but they have to do a blind. Never seen how they run a UK blind. The next level up they use birds. I'll look for a link.


I would never make fun of any dog that refused to work at a test, no matter the breed. 
The dog could be just prior of going into heat, just after heat or have a false pregnancy. 

You could have a handler that has never worked with the dog before, you can have someone who just entered the test but never worked in field with said dog. Sort of just assumed that because it has a "retriever" after the name it should just go ahead and do it.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yes, very much so.



gdgli said:


> That is very funny and avoided saying it myself.
> 
> Is it the same in your neck of the woods?


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> you get what you pay for :


Considering what I have seen lab breeders do for their puppy buyers and without charging an arm and a leg or complaining about keeping in touch with the puppy owners no wonder the golden breeders get such a bad rep. 
I do not remember where I have seen it but the lab is the #1 retriever pet in the US, goldens are #5 based on AKC registrations. Wonder why the golden has fallen behind on that as well? 

If you want to take that as negativity, fine. I do hope that there are some golden breeders out there that take it constructively and revise their breeding practices if they indeed want to better the breed and/or get back to what the breed was actually bred for.


----------



## Kmullen

Yep, sorry I will always want to know where my puppies are and communication will always be there. #1 I want to know any issues or problems that arise (healthwise) to better my breeding program.

With no communication, what does that do? So, If the dog is diagnosed with something... What happens then if we do not communicate. I do not pester my puppy homes and more times than not they are messaging me on updates and pics... Which I love!

So, if that falls under hurting the breed... So be it.


----------



## Loisiana

I don't consider being high on the popularity list to be a positive for a breed


----------



## lhowemt

Loisiana said:


> I don't consider being high on the popularity list to be a positive for a breed


I was just thinking the same thing. Definitely a negative IMO, glad to see them dropping. A greeder in my neck of the woods is actually switching to spaniels because of all the greeder competition with goldens. It is her "business". 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Alaska7133

Claudia,
there is rarely a golden retriever at our city animal control. In fact I can count the ones that have been there this year on one hand. I have lost count of all the labs at animal control this month. I'm not sure what you are saying.

So as we talk about field trials and hunt tests, I was wondering if people could post whether they have attended one or both, not necessarily competed in one, but stopped and watched a test or a trial? I have been fortunate to do both. I think it might help for people to understand how these tests and trials are put together if they attend one or both. Please post your answers. Thanks


----------



## Megora

Claudia M said:


> Considering what I have seen lab breeders do for their puppy buyers and without charging an arm and a leg or complaining about keeping in touch with the puppy owners no wonder the golden breeders get such a bad rep.
> I do not remember where I have seen it but the lab is the #1 retriever pet in the US, goldens are #5 based on AKC registrations. Wonder why the golden has fallen behind on that as well?


I have a theory on that.... 

Labrador retrievers are a dime a dozen here where I live. A lot more people owning them, breeding them, and practically giving the puppies away for free. And because the owners of the puppies sort may be thinking about breeding their dogs.... they register the puppies. 

Registration for hobby owners like me means that you can compete and do stuff with your dogs. It isn't always related to being able to breed the dogs.

I don't want to dumb down what other people are thinking, but what I've seen is the only value in papers is being able to breed dogs and state in some way that your dogs are purebred as opposed to possibly mixed breed (which there are a lot of lab mixes out there). 

Talk to any guy - they generally prefer labs. It's a macho thing with a lot of guys.... I think their labs are huge part of the whole "guy identity" right along with guns and big trucks. : 

And - most people into recreational hunting.... are guys. 

People here talk about goldens and labs like there's nothing else out there in the sporting breed which was originally bred to be a gun dog hunting breed. 

There's a ton of other breeds in the sporting group which were bred to assist their owners in hunting. And they all may have splits which I think naturally form because people who are involved with one "hobby" may not have the money or time or ability or desire to multi-task with their dogs. 






^ Case in point. 

I have a friend with a show bred (meaning both parents were champions and she may yet get the dog into showing) cocker spaniel who goes hunting with her husband. Retrieves just fine for him. Keep in mind when you have people casually hunting on their own time, there's no need for expertise with these dogs. Meaning the dogs are cheating all over the place and the owners are clapping their hands and encouraging the dogs to come back to them. 

You don't have as many people in many of these breeds (including goldens) jumping into field tests or training for field trials.... because these sports are not just based on the dogs instinct. You have to work really hard and dedicate a lot of time to working with your dogs out there with hopefully somebody who knows more about the sport than you do. And most people don't even drive more than a 1/2 hour away from home to go to dog class with their dogs. No chance of them driving 1-4 hours away from home to get to a field trainer.... 

Sliding slightly off topic - in my neighborhood where you have pretty much every guy packs up the family dog and heads out hunting a few times a year.... the dog who has the most experience hunting and that's hunting everything from ducks to bears with his owners.... is a labradoodle.


----------



## gdgli

Alaska7133 said:


> Claudia,
> there is rarely a golden retriever at our city animal control. In fact I can count the ones that have been there this year on one hand. I have lost count of all the labs at animal control this month. I'm not sure what you are saying.
> 
> So as we talk about field trials and hunt tests, I was wondering if people could post whether they have attended one or both, not necessarily competed in one, but stopped and watched a test or a trial? I have been fortunate to do both. I think it might help for people to understand how these tests and trials are put together if they attend one or both. Please post your answers. Thanks


Can I suggest a different/new thread for this?


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> I don't consider being high on the popularity list to be a positive for a breed


yeah, who knows maybe that will destroy the lab just as it has destroyed the golden. And then the ones who still breed to hunt can make more money. :uhoh:

Stacey, I have only seen the training of both hunt tests and field trials. Since I cannot multitask and I feel like it will only confuse me and the dogs. Even in the training I have stopped reading the forums and websites, narrowed it two three people (one on the internet), a golden person, a lab person and a flatcoat person whom I trust and nothing more.


----------



## Claudia M

Kate, the "macho thing" with a guy is definitely not going hunting and have a dog that is gun shy, scared of a bird or scared to step foot on something or a dog who will be all over the place and spoil the hunt for all the other people. That "macho guy" will find himself dis-invited from quite a lot of hunts. And unless he has his own farm where he can hunt by himself and clap his hands all he wants he will not see much hunting.


----------



## Alaska7133

So going back to breeding that DC, assuming it would take 5 generations, what characteristics would you look for in the first breeding from the sire and dam? Would you go all the way to an FC X GCh and hope for the best of such a broad outcross? Or would you breed a FC X Ch/MH with a COI of more than 10%? Finding that right combination of dogs in a pool that aren't such an outcross that you have no idea what the dogs will be I think is the biggest problem. How important is the COI in this breeding if you are looking for something specific as a DC? 

Let me know if I'm getting to deep into breeding theory. Since I'm not a breeder, I'm not sure how it would be done.


----------



## Swampcollie

Alaska7133 said:


> So as we talk about field trials and hunt tests, I was wondering if people could post whether they have attended one or both, not necessarily competed in one, but stopped and watched a test or a trial? I have been fortunate to do both. I think it might help for people to understand how these tests and trials are put together if they attend one or both. Please post your answers. Thanks


I have been involved with the AKC hunt Test program since Event #2 in 1985. Back in 1985 I started out as a gunner. It was a different kind of challenge to not only shoot birds but have them land in a specific area designated by the judges. After a year or two of shooting I had to try the tests with my own dog. Now as we close in on thirty years later, I have run dogs in both Field Trials and Hunt Tests. I also Judge AKC Hunt Tests and still shoot when needed.


----------



## Swampcollie

Alaska7133 said:


> So going back to breeding that DC, assuming it would take 5 generations, what characteristics would you look for in the first breeding from the sire and dam? Would you go all the way to an FC X GCh and hope for the best of such a broad outcross? Or would you breed a FC X Ch/MH with a COI of more than 10%? Finding that right combination of dogs in a pool that aren't such an outcross that you have no idea what the dogs will be I think is the biggest problem. How important is the COI in this breeding if you are looking for something specific as a DC?
> 
> Let me know if I'm getting to deep into breeding theory. Since I'm not a breeder, I'm not sure how it would be done.


I would start with dogs with a strong field pedigree. Then I would look for competitive conformation dogs from rather unique pedigrees. The easiest way to find these is to watch the freezer breedings for something I like. 
There are some drawbacks that can crop up along the way. When you bring the past back into the present you can resurrect some problems that have been bred out of todays dogs. 

Essentially I would take a mulligan on some of the breeding that was done over the last thirty years. With the knowledge of past history combined with the newer technologies we have today we could make better choices and keep a complete dog.

From a couple of lines of "complete dogs" you have the foundation to begin working toward a DC again.


----------



## Mayve

I have been following this thread and am.finding it very interesting. I don't have anything specific to add. It is nice to see a mostly civil discussion when discussing anything about field and conformation lines. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Claudia M

Mayve said:


> I have been following this thread and am.finding it very interesting. I don't have anything specific to add. It is nice to see a mostly civil discussion when discussing anything about field and conformation lines.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Agreed. We all love the breed. Some of us want them to excel at what they were originally bred for. Everytime I was in that holding blind with Rose I told her to get the darn (I used a different d word) duck and show those labs what she can do. With Darcy it was a different story, I was begging her not to break my arm and sit quiet in the "d" holding blind until her turn. 

Personally I do not want to see a Conformation field breeding. I just want to see dogs like this and it's offpring (which is quite impressive) back in the conformation ring. Pedigree: FC AFC Glenhaven HTRS MN Baronet MH OS FDHF


----------



## gdgli

Mayve said:


> I have been following this thread and am.finding it very interesting. I don't have anything specific to add. It is nice to see a mostly civil discussion when discussing anything about field and conformation lines.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Hang out here a little more.


----------



## TrailDogs

Claudia M said:


> I just want to see dogs like this and it's offpring (which is quite impressive) back in the conformation ring. Pedigree: FC AFC Glenhaven HTRS MN Baronet MH OS FDHF


I love Bart. One of my favorite goldens, and yes it would be nice to see a dog like him be competitive in the breed ring.


----------



## K9-Design

Alaska7133 said:


> Or would you breed a FC X Ch/MH with a COI of *more than 10%*?


Show me an example of such a test breeding ---- you won't find it....


----------



## Alaska7133

Nope, I was just imagining...


----------



## Alaska7133

I have been emailing with Glenda Brown regarding this thread and her dogs, including Bart that you all mention above. He was a special boy! I'm working with her to put together a spreadsheet of FC-AFC champions by year and links to those dogs in k9data. I will post as a separate thread when I have it completed. It will be fun to see.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Glenda is one of the best people "in Goldens".


----------



## Alaska7133

It was suggested on here by one of our members to contact her. She has been very helpful to our goal and supplied the article by Judy Rasmussen that I posted earlier. She has some great stories of her early days in field trials. She sure knows a lot about goldens!


----------



## nolefan

I love hearing my impression confirmed. She has been very helpful and nice to me via email, I so wish I could meet her in person someday.



hotel4dogs said:


> Glenda is one of the best people "in Goldens".


----------



## Ljilly28

TrailDogs said:


> It depends. If the dog is your hunting companion then that should be good enough for you.
> If you are promoting breeding stock then you need some evidence that your dog can actually do what you say it can.


You should also need some evidence it conforms to the GOLDEN part of the Golden Retriever standard. The standards protect dogs from becoming just generic dogs. A dog that has field titles proves that retriever part of "golden retriever" as is so often said to keep the retriever in the golden retriever), so then it is a generic retriever unless attention is given to the rest of the standards. 

Yes, standards developed based on the original purpose of the dog, and that original purpose is crucial to the integrity of the breeds. Some dog were bred to hunt lions and some rats. Not all their responsible breeders still hunt lions, although now there is barn hunt and earth dog. 

I just worked today with a golden that lacks breed type and looks a whole lot like a yellow lab. Once you get your senior hunter title, by your own logic you must get your dog in the show ring with his or her peers for some evidence your dog is actually a golden of good breed type by the other 80 percent of the standard's details in order to have evidence your dog is a good golden retriever. I don't think it is useful to try and promote one venue over the other in its importance, though some of us have passion for one and not the other. The "primarily a hunting dog" phrase in the breed standard is discussing how the dog is to be shown in the show ring- aka not fat. To make the rest of the standard disappear in improtance for four words taken out of context isnt defensible. 

Generic Dog
Generic Retriever
GOLDEN Retriever

How is your golden doing here? 

Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65-75 pounds; bitches 55-65 pounds.

Size, Proportion, Substance -- Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21 1/2-22 1/2 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.

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 smoothly 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. Untrimmed natural ruff. No throatiness.

Back line -- strong and level from withers to slightly sloping croup, whether standing or moving. Sloping back line, 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. Slabsidedness, narrow chest, lack of depth in brisket, excessive tuck-up, flat or steep croup 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 co-ordinated 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 wavy. Untrimmed natural ruff; moderate feathering on back of forelegs and on under-body; heavier feathering on front of neck, back of thighs and underside of tail.

Coat on head, paws and front of legs is short and even. Excessive length, open coats and limp, soft coats are very undesirable. Feet may be trimmed and stray hairs neatened, but the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping.

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 co-ordinated, 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 actions should be penalized according to their significance.

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


----------



## Ljilly28

Alaska7133 said:


> So as we talk about field trials and hunt tests, I was wondering if people could post whether they have attended one or both, not necessarily competed in one, but stopped and watched a test or a trial? I have been fortunate to do both. I think it might help for people to understand how these tests and trials are put together if they attend one or both. Please post your answers. Thanks


I was fortunate enough to watch my dog Finn's father Rodin run two of his MH legs breeder owner handled. What a thrill. We got together and did an ad for him in the GR News when he finsished his title. I hve lots of respect for a wonderful hunting dog. I have been out to field training at West Thompson Dam and in Maine, and also went duck hunting with my grampa as a young kiddo. I have lots of respect for a splendid brave hunting dog, and think the hunt tests are exciting, (besides the little group protestors circling around bc of cruelty to birds, which makes me uncomfortable as heck).


----------



## Swampcollie

Most competetive goldens from a field pedigree DO conform to the breed standard. Most who undertake the CCA pass that too. 

The most common fault found today on the field side of the breeding gene pool is white markings. They are still as evident today as they were 75 years ago.


----------



## Tahnee GR

Originally Posted by Alaska7133 

"So as we talk about field trials and hunt tests, I was wondering if people could post whether they have attended one or both, not necessarily competed in one, but stopped and watched a test or a trial? I have been fortunate to do both. I think it might help for people to understand how these tests and trials are put together if they attend one or both. Please post your answers. Thanks "


I attended a fair amount of hunt tests when my ex tried his hand at running in them. Since he had no interest in duck hunting, neither he or the dogs did well in that part of the tests, but they did pretty well in the upland part  I loved watching the dogs run-it was a lot of fun. Of course, this was back in the late 80's or so, and I believe hunt tests have changed a lot since then.

I have never seen a field trial, although I did get to watch our pro train both his trial dogs and hunt test dogs, and used to help when my ex and another friend of mine would train the dogs.

Now, I think I am too afraid of ticks to do anything with hunting!


----------



## Alaska7133

Jill,
I agree and I think that's why a field dog should be able to pass a CCA before being bred. 

The other thing I think that has come up is feeling like show goldens no longer meet the breed standard themselves. For instance coats that would never be water repellent or feathering that falls to the floor. Many show dogs are "over done". Huge broad heads, paws the size of dinner plates, and super fuzzy feet. Looking back at old photos of goldens that have won Ch titles 30 years or so ago, could never compete against goldens today in the breed ring because of where the judges are placing those wins.

There has to be a balance with our breed.


----------



## Ljilly28

Swampcollie said:


> Most competetive goldens from a field pedigree DO conform to the breed standard. Most who undertake the CCA pass that too.
> 
> The most common fault found today on the field side of the breeding gene pool is white markings. They are still as evident today as they were 75 years ago.


I disagree( respectfully) with that. We just had two beautiful goldens with MH titles visit today. I love these dogs and have known them for years, but they are long in body and have long hocks, and very narrow heads without enough stop. They are long in leg, instead of in the correct ratio. They lack substance and enough bone. They are so red that a Star Puppy lady on the way out asked if one was an Irish Setter. That is a great hunting dog, but it lacks breed type. ( Great dog- adore him). 

I love both styles of goldens on their own terms. I have a field style dog with MH parents, so I am not one sided in my love. I do agree there is a split in the breed. I do agree dogs like Fisher, Tito, and Stoney have done something remarkable in succeeding in both venues. I do agree some show dogs are overdone to a point of harming their capacity to hunt, and I have owned two- one now and one in the past. I don't agree field titles are more important than conformation titles to the future of the breed. I dont agree it should be taken as a given a show dog cannot achieve in the field if given a chance. I do agree with Barb that mainstream people hunt much less than they used to in a bulk of the urban and suburban parts of the country. I do agree with Barb that field trials are not part of the standard, and to me a SH works just fine. To me a CCA is not a conformation title commensurate with a SH but a noncompeitive educational tool that most people pass. I do agree that breeding to a dog with field titles as well as conformation is an important consideration; if that dog has not only exceled in both, but then produced kids who have done both well- that would be high on my list for a stud dog on the "pros" side. The flipside of that is also true: if you have a MH bitch with yellow eyes and a narrow head, you should theoretically also look to that dog who excels in both so that you do not lose the precious breed type. If my bitch has two littermates with a MH and SH title, and she has a GCH title and a brother with a GCH title, for me that is fine proof the retriever is in there, though I fully understand and accept in the Hunt& field section here most do not accept that. An owner like me who has serious qualms about the training methods, about killing the birds myself, and all the other wimpy problems I have with hunt tests still cares about the original purpose of the breed. Presumably, someone with a MH bitch who has never earned one point in conformation still cares about the breed standard. All the people in the agility and obedience worlds love the breed too. The neverending fueds over the split are more of a problem than the split itself.


----------



## Megora

Swampcollie said:


> Most competetive goldens from a field pedigree DO conform to the breed standard. Most who undertake the CCA pass that too.


While I agree with Jill in her point that breeding for ability alone without paying any attention to what other traits you are reproducing or strengthening (or weakening).... is not good for the breed any more than the show breeders who breed oversized dogs who have way too much coat and are physically kept too heavy to be recognizable as a sporting breed.... 

So you can't judge a dog based on a picture of the dog sitting partially behind a bush or clump of field grass and say this dog should have been winning in the conformation ring on the merits of what he has accomplished alone. 

But the breed standard is not a visual standard which expressly describes only one style over another. So you have a lot of goldens who loosely fit under the breed standard based on what can be strictly interpreted and can get their CCA.... CCA's are not based on how a golden matches up against another golden (desired attributes vs faults). It's all about how the dogs have sufficient breed type based on the standard.


----------



## Alaska7133

Jill,
You are right about field dogs having too narrow of a head in many cases. We also have a west coast field dog that has thrown a lot of puppies with very light colored eyes. They are "strange" eyes and very unusual to see. Definitely not within the breed standard for color.

Megora,
I have seen dogs win in the breed ring that weigh 90# and are too tall. Missing the breed standard should not be allowed by the judges, but they not only award a ribbon to that dog, but they force us to breed to that new style in order to win in the breed ring. How do you change the opinions of the judges since when it comes down to it, they are determining which dogs meet the breed standard by awarding that winning ribbon?


----------



## Swampcollie

There is a huge difference in what conforms to the breed standard and what wins in the conformation ring. You really do need an assemblage of overstated component parts to compete in the ring today. But that overstatement is not necessary to comform to the breed standard as written.


----------



## Ljilly28

Alaska7133 said:


> Jill,
> I agree and I think that's why a field dog should be able to pass a CCA before being bred.
> 
> The other thing I think that has come up is feeling like show goldens no longer meet the breed standard themselves. For instance coats that would never be water repellent or feathering that falls to the floor. Many show dogs are "over done". Huge broad heads, paws the size of dinner plates, and super fuzzy feet. Looking back at old photos of goldens that have won Ch titles 30 years or so ago, could never compete against goldens today in the breed ring because of where the judges are placing those wins.
> 
> There has to be a balance with our breed.


I don't think a CCA is commensurate with a field title, even a WC or JH. Maybe all the single points but not the majors or something like that. 

Show golden just is a term that paints with too wide a brush. Within that are SO many styles of dog. It is very hard to make big conclusions in the abstract without having hands on all these dogs. I dont see that stereotype describing most dogs who are touchstones of the breed, even if they look different to you than pictures in a book from the past. I far more often see moderate dogs winning. My dog Mystic is 68lbs as an adult , though he was a big puppy. Stoney is 68lbs. Back when we had Dual CH Quar grandkids, they were 68lbsish. My field bred dog Finn is 66 lbs and my show bred dog Tally is 70 lbs. I do not really see with my own eyes such a horrible change to big monsters. On the other hand, I do own an overdone dog who is 80 lbs and has enough coat for 6 other goldens, so I get where the stereotype comes from. He won a little bit, but did more losing to more moderate dogs. He has dinner plate feet and a huge head- so I understand where the stereotype begins. Here in the NE it is very rare to see a huge big dinner plate dog win.


----------



## Megora

Swampcollie said:


> You really do need an assemblage of overstated component parts to compete in the ring today. But that overstatement is not necessary to comform to the breed standard as written.


More to the case.... I saw elsewhere somebody posted a picture of a field bred golden and she was trying to get an idea of what conformation people thought of the dog. 

Most held their opinions. But there were a few that came out and told her that her dog had zero bone as far as the legs and feet went. The dog had a straight topline... but lacked sufficient undercoat. The front was absolutely straight and the rear was over angulated. The dog had a beautiful neck and nice enough head, but the ears were too long and the tail was C shaped (had a little too much curve). 

That's all just looking at a dog standing. When moving, the judges are looking to see if the legs are flying way up or the dog is sidewinding. And when you free stack, they're looking to the feet to see if the dogs turning in or out. And from what I understand - all that tells the judge what he's already seen or felt in structural faults. 

All of those things would make that dog poor breeding stock if you wanted to get rid of all of those faults in a dog. So that leads to the point that this dog shouldn't be a conformation dog. 

They don't mean a dog doesn't sufficiently fit in the breed standard - which allows for faults like that, right? 

Some judges out there aren't looking for something that's "over the top", exaggerated, or "overstated". They want a good solid dog who is what they are looking for on that day. 

A good case in point was on Saturday when I was in the best of breed ring with Bertie and looking around at the other dogs. There was a golden there who is pretty much top winning and handled by a very good handler who is very well known. That golden is drop dead gorgeous and I know people who would be the first to criticize dogs for faults and quibble about judges picking the wrong end of the leash.... those people went over this dog and basically did not come up with any faults that they could think of. And the owner of this dog does do some field stuff with her dogs - or at the very least, they get out in the fields and get dirty. <- I saw that dog in the ring and I relaxed because I thought for sure that dog was winning breed for the day. 

But the judge walked past that dog and came up to the dog to my right, my dog, and the bitch to my left and was deliberating over those three the most. Probably if I were not going "blah not winning anyway" and worked hard to show my dog, I probably had a chance. But that judge wound up picking a 15 month old female (Bertie's 1/2 sister) to win the breed. 

That was that judge. The dog I was EXPECTING to win on Saturday wound up winning the breed on Sunday with Sunday's judge. And I can only assume the judge was singling out that dog because it was everything he was looking for. 

Or they are looking at the handlers if they don't have clue what they're looking for in a dog....


----------



## Ljilly28

hotel4dogs said:


> Not just that, but to take it a step farther, I personally know two MH dogs who will NOT pick up a live/crippled bird!! Yet the dogs were able to earn a MH title! Just commenting that you can have a fine hunting dog with NO titles, and a dog with beaucoup titles that can't or won't hunt.


This is educational. I had no idea that was possible.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yes, sad but true. There are some areas where they are prohibited from shooting live ammo, hence, no live birds. 
And you should hear the whining in the galleries sometimes, at the MH level, how this person or that person got a crippled bird rather than a dead one, and well "that's not FAIR...my dog won't pick up a cripple".
I cringe when I hear it. 




Ljilly28 said:


> This is educational. I had no idea that was possible.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

I'm reading this with earnest though I have nothing to add. I do want to comment on Barb's comment...that really ticks me off!!! I had to really work hard and get tough on Katniss to pick up a live flyer! It was NOT her thing and it was NOT easy. So to hear a dog got a MH by essentially flying under the radar is bs!


----------



## Swampcollie

Ljilly28 said:


> This is educational. I had no idea that was possible.


Oh Yeah!
There certainly is Judge and Club shopping in Hunt Tests. There are titled dogs that have never seen a live bird or had to deal with a cripple before. 
(My pet peeve by the way.) Every dog should see at least one flyer in a test, preferably two. Dogs treat freshly shot birds and or cripples very differently than one that has been dead for a while. You can uncover a variety of sins with a cripple.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Not sure if it was in this thread or another one, but someone asked who has actually gone and watched a field trial.
I'd like to put the thought out there, how many "field people" (not referring to this forum but to the field community in general) have gone and watched the dogs in the breed ring, and put their hands on the dogs to see what's underneath the grooming? They all say oh, the dogs are overdone, they're this, they're that, but how many have actually put their hands on some of the dogs? 
Go to a ring here in the Chicago area and actually FEEL the dogs. When Tito was showing, and the trend has continued, there would be 25 dogs in the open ring and every one of them was similar to Tito in body style. That is, moderate, nice bones but not overdone, not dripping in coat. If it wasn't for the handler, sometimes I couldn't pick Tito out in the crowd that's how similar they all looked. So he was not by any stretch the exception. Jill mentioned Stoney, who I have had the pleasure of meeting many times, and he, too, is a moderate dog. It's what was winning. It's what is still winning. 
A lot of people think Tito weighs 80-85 pounds when he's been swimming a lot and his hair is a bit poofy, but he's only 67 pounds and that was his show ring weight, too.
Absolutely everyone has seen these photos a beezillion times, but here's one again. It's what wins here in the midwest. NOT overdone, NOT heavy coated, NOT big boned.


----------



## hotel4dogs

In every sport, you will have people who fly under the radar, and it always annoys me. But I keep in mind that every title I've ever earned, I've EARNED, and they mean a lot to me. It would mean nothing to me any other way than honestly. If others can't earn their titles honestly, their titles are really meaningless. 





MillionsofPeaches said:


> I'm reading this with earnest though I have nothing to add. I do want to comment on Barb's comment...that really ticks me off!!! I had to really work hard and get tough on Katniss to pick up a live flyer! It was NOT her thing and it was NOT easy. So to hear a dog got a MH by essentially flying under the radar is bs!


----------



## hotel4dogs

I know it will never happen, but I would love to see them bring back the upland part of the MH test. With flushing a live bird as a requirement!




Swampcollie said:


> Oh Yeah!
> There certainly is Judge and Club shopping in Hunt Tests. There are titled dogs that have never seen a live bird or had to deal with a cripple before.
> (My pet peeve by the way.) Every dog should see at least one flyer in a test, preferably two. Dogs treat freshly shot birds and or cripples very differently than one that has been dead for a while. You can uncover a variety of sins with a cripple.


----------



## TrailDogs

hotel4dogs said:


> Yes, sad but true. There are some areas where they are prohibited from shooting live ammo, hence, no live birds.
> And you should hear the whining in the galleries sometimes, at the MH level, how this person or that person got a crippled bird rather than a dead one, and well "that's not FAIR...my dog won't pick up a cripple".
> I cringe when I hear it.


You won't see much of that on the east coast. We usually get two live birds in a Master test. Sometimes two ducks, sometimes a pheasant and a duck. I think people would complain more if they didn't get any live flyers.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I, too, love the live fliers. I often kid that I need a T-shirt that says, 
"I tip for crips" for the gunners to see. I offer the gunners $20 (in jest of course) to just wing tip my birds 



TrailDogs said:


> You won't see much of that on the east coast. We usually get two live birds in a Master test. Sometimes two ducks, sometimes a pheasant and a duck. I think people would complain more if they didn't get any live flyers.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> I know it will never happen, but I would love to see them bring back the upland part of the MH test. With flushing a live bird as a requirement!


With the numbers involved due to the master national, you simply couldn't do it. An upland series is time consuming and there just isn't enough daylight. 

However you could add it to the requirements for a senior hunter and make the SH Title a requirement before you can enter a master test. That way the dog would have to demonstrate upland ability along the way to a Master Title.

Keep something in mind here. There is nothing in the rules that prevent Judges from adding a upland series right now in Junior, Senior or Master. It's just a matter of test design and time management. Back in the late eighties when this program started, upland work was part of every level of every test. When interest in the program exploded and entry numbers skyrocketed, most judges and clubs opted to drop what they were doing to the minimum required elements to call it a legit test. 

There is nothing that says a Junior test can't have more than 4 marks, or a Senior with more than two series or a master with more than three series, or finding and flushing a bird. 

The first senor test I ran Kate in was run in four series. (Yup, the judges also judged field trials).


----------



## gold4paws

hotel4dogs said:


> Not sure if it was in this thread or another one, but someone asked who has actually gone and watched a field trial.
> I'd like to put the thought out there, how many "field people" (not referring to this forum but to the field community in general) have gone and watched the dogs in the breed ring, and put their hands on the dogs to see what's underneath the grooming? They all say oh, the dogs are overdone, they're this, they're that, but how many have actually put their hands on some of the dogs? .


This could be an informative discussion. 

Maybe a new thread would be appropriate. When the question about who had watched a field trial came up, a new thread was started since it had little to do with the discussion about blending field and conformation lines.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> Not sure if it was in this thread or another one, but someone asked who has actually gone and watched a field trial.
> I'd like to put the thought out there, how many "field people" (not referring to this forum but to the field community in general) have gone and watched the dogs in the breed ring, and put their hands on the dogs to see what's underneath the grooming?


Well, that depends. The typical gundog owner probably hasn't seen a conformation dog let alone attend a show. The Hunt Test community is a mix. Some know nothing, some are very well versed and some who are in between. The typical Field Trial competitor likely has seen shows and dogs up closely as they have a large financial commitment involved with their sport. They need to know everything they can about dogs so they can be competitive. Any little snipit of knowledge they can gain might give them the edge they need to come out on top in the last series.


Keep in mind that all that puff and fluff goes out the window when the dog gets in the pond. When the dog comes out of the pond you're going to see the dog and how its put together. You can't hide the structure of a dripping wet golden as it exits the water. You're going to see it.


----------



## Alaska7133

Swampcollie,
you are so right! The pond hides nothing.

Even though I've gotten nowhere in the breed ring with Lucy, I still have found it to be an interesting process to go through. Learning the breed standard, learning your dog's faults and learning other dog's faults. It does make for some interesting conversations at a hunt test. I've been asked many times by field dog owners about dog shows. So I show them the lead/collar we use and how to stack. I talk about Lucy's faults and benefits of her structure. Sometimes we talk about their own dog. It's a good conversation to have with people outside the breed ring, most field people don't know anything about the breed ring. My heart is in the field, but I feel I should finish Lucy because she represents great breeding and style. Now whether that ever happens or not I don't know. I may end up getting a CCA on her instead.

Barb,
Excellent photo of Tito by the way. Nothing overdone, but plenty of style!


----------



## FTGoldens

hotel4dogs said:


> I'd like to put the thought out there, how many "field people" (not referring to this forum but to the field community in general) have gone and watched the dogs in the breed ring, and put their hands on the dogs to see what's underneath the grooming? They all say oh, the dogs are overdone, they're this, they're that, but how many have actually put their hands on some of the dogs?


Admittedly it's been a while, however I have watched dogs in the show ring, even put my hands on such dogs; in fact, I even had one climb onto my lap on numerous occasions. Plus, I threw a whole bunch of bumpers and birds for her ... I believe that "Taz" was a Ch. ** girl ... she just didn't have quite enough umph to achieve another *!
Interestingly, speaking of blended dogs, one of her grand-sires was none other than: Am. Dual CH. AFC Squawkie Hill Dapper Dexter FDHF!
FTGoldens


----------



## Claudia M

Since I have been in the conformation ring I had the opportunity to meet and touch the show goldens. I admit my presence has been quite limited. So far I can honestly say that I have liked one of them. Needless to say he did not make it that day. I have not followed him since then. 
I would love to see a requirement in the show ring that every dog has to have at least a JH or WC title in order to achieve the CH. 
I doubt that will be done as it will lower the entry fees tremendously.


----------



## hotel4dogs

No, they will just dumb down the WC so that a three legged beagle with one eye could pass it.

]


Claudia M said:


> Since I have been in the conformation ring I had the opportunity to meet and touch the show goldens. I admit my presence has been quite limited. So far I can honestly say that I have liked one of them. Needless to say he did not make it that day. I have not followed him since then.
> I would love to see a requirement in the show ring that every dog has to have at least a JH or WC title in order to achieve the CH.
> I doubt that will be done as it will lower the entry fees tremendously.


----------



## marsh mop

> Keep in mind that all that puff and fluff goes out the window when the dog gets in the pond. When the dog comes out of the pond you're going to see the dog and how its put together. You can't hide the structure of a dripping wet golden as it exits the water. You're going to see it.


 If you can get them in the water. I have seen too many show breeding's that lack water courage. I'm not talking about a 250 yd water mark but 20'. It makes me ill when the owners talk about getting back to field work after the breeding that will take place the next week to the show dog that is on a roll.
I have seen and trained with awesome CH Goldens that do field work. These should be the dogs at the top of the breeding list. However we now breed to dogs with unproven field credentials. Some breeders thinks that OK.
We need to just accept the fact that there is a split and move on.
If you read the article shown earlier in this thread it shows the future of the breed.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> No, they will just dumb down the WC so that a three legged beagle with one eye could pass it.


Actually I think they're actually trying to do the opposit. They have recently upped the Judges elegibility requirements. Now you pretty much have to be SH judges or better to qualify. You never know, there might be blind retrieves required in the future similar to the Tollers.


----------



## Swampcollie

marsh mop said:


> If you can get them in the water.


Ohhhhh, I wasn't gonna go there :curtain:


----------



## TrailDogs

Here is a good link from the GRCA website about the purpose of the golden:
http://www.grca.org/pdf/education/FunctionPurpose.pdf


----------



## marsh mop

> Ohhhhh, I wasn't gonna go there


 Why? Do you think I made this stuff up?


----------



## Alaska7133

WCX judges have to be field trial judges. If you saw the WC for labs, that's the test for one eyed three legged beagles. The lab people call it an "instinct test". 

I have a personal fascination with teaching show dogs to pick up birds. I do train with some that are fabulous bird dogs. It's the show dogs or dogs of show only breeding that I want to see what is possible. It's like a switch that turns on in their heads that is so wonderful to see. If given the chance I think that many show dogs could be a field dog. Not as fast as a field trial dog, but still have potential to enjoy fieldwork.

The golden retriever working test in the UK requires a blind at the lowest level. I have no idea how they run a blind over there and if it's any different.


----------



## Swampcollie

marsh mop said:


> Why? Do you think I made this stuff up?


Not hardly!


----------



## Swampcollie

Alaska7133 said:


> WCX judges have to be field trial judges.


No they don't.


----------



## marsh mop

> WCX judges have to be field trial judges.


 That's not true. I have judged many WC/WCX and never a field trial.



> I have a personal fascination with teaching show dogs to pick up birds.


 I do also. I have seen many that are awesome and love the game. I have seen many that are useless in the field, but have that show something that makes them on everybody's next stud list.
I have never seen a field breed dog get anything above a cca.


----------



## TheZ's

marsh mop said:


> . . .We need to just accept the fact that there is a split and move on.
> If you read the article shown earlier in this thread it shows the future of the breed.


The more I read, the more I think this may be the sad truth. Sad because without the working attributes, athleticism, intelligence, biddability, of the field dogs, the dogs bred with just the physical attributes that now win in the breed ring won't possess the characteristics that have made Goldens such a great all around multipurpose dog.


----------



## hotel4dogs

The Hunting Style of the Golden Retriever, written by the GRCA for the judges of the Upland Flushing (Spaniel) tests, says,

" The Golden Retriever loves a water retrieve and will likely show an impressive entry. 
Willingness to enter water is a must and could vary from deliberate to bold..."

also this statement:

"...Tracking and retrieving of wounded game is an important part of the test and should be relished with sense and purpose."

It's the standard which is supposed to be used for judging them in the Upland tests.

https://images.akc.org/pdf/events/hunting_tests/spaniels/hunting_style/golden_retriever.pdf


----------



## marsh mop

> The more I read, the more I think this may be the sad truth. Sad because without the working attributes, athleticism, intelligence, biddability, of the field dogs, the dogs bred with just the physical attributes that now win in the breed ring won't possess the characteristics that have made Goldens such a great all around multipurpose dog.


 They will always be a great multipurpose dog. The dual champ thing is done. Don't feel sad, enjoy the style you like and get the most out of it. 
I saw after my quick read of this thread that some have issues with training to pick up birds. They were not bred to hunt broccoli or carrots.


----------



## Loisiana

<<You should also need some evidence it conforms to the GOLDEN part of the Golden Retriever standard. The standards protect dogs from becoming just generic dogs. A dog that has field titles proves that retriever part of "golden retriever" as is so often said to keep the retriever in the golden retriever), so then it is a generic retriever unless attention is given to the rest of the standards. >>

I completely agree with this, what I don't understand is why the CCA is not considered an appropriate way to determine this. Isn't a CCA doing exactly that - having 3 judges closely examine your dog to determine that they conform to the "golden part of the standard"? 

It was stated earlier that the CCA is only a noncompetitive tool that judges against a standard. Isn't that exactly what hunt test titles are doing too? The problem that I see with making both field trials and conformation shows what determines if you have the quality of a good golden is the very fact that it is competitive. What about the dogs who are lovely examples of the breed standard, or great hunting dogs, but there's just always a dog in the competition that is "better"? I certainly don't think a CCA should be the only guide someone uses on whether or not to breed a dog, but I don't see why people are so quick to dismiss it as being used as part of a whole equation. To me, a dog that shows great working qualities and has had multiple judges say that it is a good representation of the breed standard is what I would look for in a dog. (NOt the ONLY things I would look for, of course I would also look at health, clearances, temperament, personality, etc.)


----------



## hotel4dogs

While I don't think a CCA should automatically mean a dog should be bred, by the same token I think that a dog who cannot pass a CCA *probably* should not be bred. There are always exceptions. The other thought I have about a CCA is that, if someone who plans to breed the dog cares enough to enter a CCA, that speaks well of that person.
But I feel the same way about all the titles. Having a CH on a dog doesn't automatically mean that dog should be bred. Nor does a MH. And so on.


----------



## TrailDogs

Loisiana said:


> I completely agree with this, what I don't understand is why the CCA is not considered an appropriate way to determine this. Isn't a CCA doing exactly that - having 3 judges closely examine your dog to determine that they conform to the "golden part of the standard"?


I agree it does tell you that the dog conforms to the standard. These judges give their time and expertise to evaluate dogs. I am sure they do not feel it is a worthless endeavor or a trivial use of their time.
Conforming to the standard is not the same as conforming to the current show ring interpretation of the standard.


----------



## Claudia M

hotel4dogs said:


> The Hunting Style of the Golden Retriever, written by the GRCA for the judges of the Upland Flushing (Spaniel) tests, says,
> 
> " The Golden Retriever loves a water retrieve and will likely show an impressive entry.
> Willingness to enter water is a must and could vary from deliberate to bold..."
> 
> also this statement:
> 
> "...Tracking and retrieving of wounded game is an important part of the test and should be relished with sense and purpose."
> 
> It's the standard which is supposed to be used for judging them in the Upland tests.
> 
> https://images.akc.org/pdf/events/hunting_tests/spaniels/hunting_style/golden_retriever.pdf


There was recently a flushing seminar in our area. I did not attend but a very good friend did and was told that it is far easier than a SH or MH. Now I wish I would have gone to it instead of the training group. Well oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## Loisiana

TrailDogs said:


> Conforming to the standard is not the same as conforming to the current show ring interpretation of the standard.


So here's where I struggle to understand what people are getting at. You have a great working titled field dog. You enter it in the CCA and it does quite well, the judges have given you info on the dogs strengths and weaknesses as they align to the standard. High scores are earned. However, it is evident that this dog is not an example of what is winning in the breed ring currently. Do people believe that if the dog isn't the style of golden in the breed ring, that they aren't "golden" enough, even if they do still conform to the standard? 

My all time favorite dogs have something in common - they are very nice to look at (at least to me), have a CCA, but nobody looks at those dogs and thinks "breed dogs."


----------



## Kmullen

Jodie, I honestly, do not get it either. There are many CH show dogs that do not adhere to the standard.

So, where will it stop? I wish I knew the answer for both styles...


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> So here's where I struggle to understand what people are getting at. You have a great working titled field dog. You enter it in the CCA and it does quite well, the judges have given you info on the dogs strengths and weaknesses as they align to the standard. High scores are earned. However, it is evident that this dog is not an example of what is winning in the breed ring currently. *Do people believe that if the dog isn't the style of golden in the breed ring, that they aren't "golden" enough, even if they do still conform to the standard? *
> 
> My all time favorite dogs have something in common - they are very nice to look at (at least to me), have a CCA, but nobody looks at those dogs and thinks "breed dogs."


If they did they would still be in the breed ring. Unfortunately they are too red or too light or too muscular and not fluffy enough, too long in the leg and not short with a big paw....................


----------



## Kmullen

I think the problem with many show breeders these days is they breed FOR bone and coat. They want that luscious coat and those tree trunk legs...

I know there are field breeders that will breed for smaller more agile dogs. 

Both are not breeding to the standard. So, what can we do to change things? I really wish I knew the answer.


----------



## TrailDogs

Loisiana said:


> So here's where I struggle to understand what people are getting at. You have a great working titled field dog. You enter it in the CCA and it does quite well, the judges have given you info on the dogs strengths and weaknesses as they align to the standard. High scores are earned. However, it is evident that this dog is not an example of what is winning in the breed ring currently. Do people believe that if the dog isn't the style of golden in the breed ring, they shouldn't be bred, even if they do still conform to the standard?


Apparently people do believe that. 
Fortunately there are enough people that still value the versatility and working ability of the breed more, and will continue to produce nice, athletic goldens with a good work ethic.
To me the best looking golden is the dog coming back with a live rooster after tracking it 200 yards or more through the sorghum and woods. To someone else it may be the dog getting the last few wins for his OTCH or MACH. 
Any working golden with a CCA is a well rounded representative of the breed in my eyes.


----------



## hotel4dogs

What is the "it" that's "far easier than a SH or MH"? Master level flushing tests? Junior level flushing tests? Teaching a dog to flush?

I think I am uniquely qualified to comment on this, having run both. 

They test completely different sets of skills, it's comparing apples to oranges. In my opinion, and this is just my personal take, the flushing tests are far, far more valuable from a breeding point of view than the retriever tests are. They test a lot more instinct, a lot less training. (but then I am also of the opinion that, for breeding, a dog that's an outstanding hunting dog is more valuable than a dog with hunt test titles). So from that point of view, if you have a dog with a lot of instinct, they are "easier" tests. But if you have a dog who has to be taught to pick up birds, especially live or crippled birds, has to be encouraged to enter the water, and doesn't have a true LOVE of the game, the flushing tests are going to be impossible to pass, at least at the master level. 

I am speaking only of the master level flushing tests, as it's the only level we've run. The flushing portion of the test is designed to test a dog's ability to hunt intelligently, use the wind intelligently, cover the entire field without direction from the handler, to find the birds by using a good nose, and then to hard flush the bird so the gunners can get the shot off. Many of the master dogs trap the birds on the ground, or catch them right as they flush, and that's pretty hard for a dog who lacks prey drive or is hesitant with live birds. They are expected to find/flush any upland game bird, from tiny quail to rooster pheasants. Ripping around the field randomly looking for birds is not a Master level performance. Not fearing VERY heavy cover, not being uncertain of cover changes including running back and forth across bare mud, are expected. 
The dogs have to be rock steady to wing and shot. That's not easy for a dog who has a lot of prey drive. It's a whole lot harder than keeping a dog steady watching a dead bird fly out of a winger. And when the gunners don't make the shot, keeping that dog from going after the bird isn't easy. One of the hardest things is getting the dog to go back to hunting the field after the gunners don't make a shot, and the dog watches the bird go down a short distance away, but out of the running field. 
When the bird is shot and goes down, the dog is sent for it, pretty much regardless of where it goes. None of this "every bird falls in the same place, in pretty much light cover" stuff. Some of the retriever tests, by the time the last dogs run there's a groove in the ground to the marks! In the flushing tests, some of the birds go down in trees, bushes, in cover much taller than a human, in corn fields, across creeks, etc. and the dog is expected to go find the bird. The dogs are frequently out of the handler's sight for rather long periods of time when doing so. The dog is expected to stay with it until they come back with the bird. I've been very surprised at how difficult some of the retrieves are. (also at how casual the Spaniel people are about their dogs being out of sight in the woods for long periods of time, but that's another topic).
Then there's the "hunt dead", which appears to be a random, strange, easy blind. They're only about 65 yards, thru a couple of cover changes. Pretty darned easy by retriever standards. 
BUT...they're not testing whether or not the dog has been trained to run a straight line, or respond to whistles and casting. They're testing a dog's nose, and courage. 
Neither the dog NOR the handler know where the bird is, which makes it pretty hard to do it like a retriever blind. The handler knows "about" where it is, and sends the dog in the general area and then the dog is responsible for finding the bird. Sounds easy....except often times the bird is in a spot that's hard for the dog to get at. We had one that was under the trees and scrub about 4 feet, and the dogs had to belly crawl under the branches to get the bird. If you don't have a dog who REALLY wants that bird, you are going to have a hard time with this. 
The water blind and the water mark are really easy by retriever standards, and if you can run a SH retriever test, you can run the MH level Spaniel water portion....if you can get to it (it's always the last series). But again, frequently the judges will plant the blind in a place that the dog will have a very hard time finding it and will have to show a lot of perseverence to dig it out. In one test the dogs had to go either around or through some very difficult downed branches and trees to get to the bird. (Tito got stuck, that's how hard it was, and he's a big strong boy). 
So which is easier? Neither. It depends on your dog, and what you like to do. If you are an upland hunter, and can get your dog steady to wing and shot, the upland tests are probably much easier. If your dog lacks serious bird drive, they're probably harder.
To me, personally, the retriever SH was much, much easier because it just showed how well trained my dog is, and he's pretty well trained. Getting him out there in the field and trying to control his instincts in a flushing situation was much harder because of his prey drive. But he certainly likes the flushing tests more, so in that sense, they are easier. 
I am not in a position to comment on comparing the retriever MH, I'm not qualified. 






Claudia M said:


> There was recently a flushing seminar in our area. I did not attend but a very good friend did and was told that it is far easier than a SH or MH. Now I wish I would have gone to it instead of the training group. Well oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## Megora

Loisiana said:


> So here's where I struggle to understand what people are getting at. You have a great working titled field dog. You enter it in the CCA and it does quite well, the judges have given you info on the dogs strengths and weaknesses as they align to the standard. High scores are earned. However, it is evident that this dog is not an example of what is winning in the breed ring currently. Do people believe that if the dog isn't the style of golden in the breed ring, that they aren't "golden" enough, even if they do still conform to the standard?
> 
> My all time favorite dogs have something in common - they are very nice to look at (at least to me), have a CCA, but nobody looks at those dogs and thinks "breed dogs."


Jodie - I don't know if it's always based on what is "winning". There's a lot of breeders who have very personal preferences on what they want in their breeding programs. And or they have weak areas they are trying to fix or prevent from showing up in their lines. 

Like Bertie's breeders were laughing about back in the 90's when they had to deal with pigment issues with the dogs they bred and how they had to handle that in shows. And this was back in the 80's and 90's when - basically every dog from them that I met - I loved how they worked (more than a few obedience and field titles) and can't even remember much about the nose pigment. Probably a cheesy thing, but I was excited when I saw my Jacks went back to some of their dogs and of course that was a selling point with Bertie. But they had pigment problems with their dogs. Even though they still WON in the show ring with these dogs. 

So they selectively bred for good pigment, among whatever else they were fixing. Poor pigment is undesirable for the breed and it can be difficult to fix. 

Same thing with dogs who throw bad heads or gay tails or whatever else is some other breeder's big problem that they are trying to fix. 

Listening to people around me - they absolutely value the CCA program. It's a GRCA title and it's valuable education for people who want to really learn what they have with their dogs. I think only where people grunt and mumble is when it sold like a "championship" in somebody's breeding program. I think some people just get carried away.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Love this!




TrailDogs said:


> To me the best looking golden is the dog coming back with a live rooster after tracking it 200 yards or more through the sorghum and woods..


----------



## Loisiana

Kate, I was referring back to the comments where it was stated a field dog should be shown in the conformation ring in order to prove they keep the Golden Retriever type, and not just a CCA. Obviously a CH is not the same thing as a CCA, any more than a WC is the same as a FC, but I think having a CCA can be of as much value in making breeding decisions of field dogs as having lower level field titles can be of conformation dogs. I used the word winning because the only way you can get anywhere in the breed ring is by winning. If you never win then you never have any points or titles.


----------



## Claudia M

Loisiana said:


> Kate, I was referring back to the comments where it was stated a field dog should be shown in the conformation ring in order to prove they keep the Golden Retriever type, and not just a CCA. Obviously a CH is not the same thing as a CCA, any more than a WC is the same as a FC, but I think having a CCA can be of as much value in making breeding decisions of field dogs as having lower level field titles can be of conformation dogs. I used the word winning because the only way you can get anywhere in the breed ring is by winning. If you never win then you never have any points or titles.


Correct me if I am wrong but the CCA does not have the same politics as the CH. The dogs either conforms to standard by the consensus of three judges or not. Where in a CH is pretty much how much you have been in the circles and which pros are showing your dog. A pro in hunt, agility or obedience could not get away with stuff like a pro in conformation whose dog sits during the exam and he can't get it to stand and still gets points while the owner handler sits to the side and just scratches its head.


----------



## Loisiana

Two of the goldens that really stand out to me (in my personal preference) as a great examples of the breed. Both are MH CCA dogs (along with many, many other titles).

ETA: I slapped the two pictures together because my iPad won't let me upload more than one picture per post


----------



## Megora

Loisiana said:


> *but I think having a CCA can be of as much value in making breeding decisions of field dogs as having lower level field titles can be of conformation dogs.*


I know - and I absolutely agree. I think if people are at the very least getting the CCA's on their field or obedience dogs, it at least is a tilted hat towards the breed standard and or a statement that they are breeding dogs who "conform" to the standard. 

Similar to conformation people getting a WC on their breeding dogs as tilted hat towards the fact that these are gun dogs, bird dogs, and sporting breed dogs, etc.... 

Totally agree.

My comment was really trying to tie back to the original topic on this thread (what would somebody look for in a conformation/field cross breeding to produce a dual champion) and what people have been suggesting with the two sides becoming increasingly divergent. 

It's not always enough to get a statement that a dog possesses sufficient type. There's got to be a whole lot of what these breeders are looking for on the conformation side. It's not always about getting over the top stuff to make the dogs stand out in the ring. There's some very basic stuff that these breeders are trying to fix or build in their dogs or lines. 

And when you have people telling you that they have everything you want as far as agility, obedience, or field.... and telling you the dog has a CCA so that should qualify him for a Field/Conformation breeding and produce show-worthy offspring.... it's probably not enough without evaluating the specific dog himself and measuring him up to what the breeder wants or needs? 

It's definitely the same even with dogs who have championships..... I know of people who go "stud shopping" at very big shows (like the national) and turn down or avoid dogs who are absolutely not what they are looking for their programs.


ETA - I love the top right dog.


----------



## gdgli

Claudia M said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but the CCA does not have the same politics as the CH. The dogs either conforms to standard by the consensus of three judges or not. Where in a CH is pretty much how much you have been in the circles and which pros are showing your dog. A pro in hunt, agility or obedience could not get away with stuff like a pro in conformation whose dog sits during the exam and he can't get it to stand and still gets points while the owner handler sits to the side and just scratches its head.


Unfortunately there is some evidence of politics in CCA. "Who were the judges for your CCA?"


----------



## Claudia M

gdgli said:


> Unfortunately there is some evidence of politics in CCA. "Who were the judges for your CCA?"


I believe that judge "shopping" is in everything. The only thing is that in conformation you have the subjectivity and ability to still award points because of who you know. 

If a pro goes in with a dog that refuses to pick up the bird or munches the bird on return cannot get a pass while a pro that cannot keep the dog into a stand during the exam can still get a pass.


----------



## hollyk

Claudia M said:


> If a pro goes in with a dog that refuses to pick up the bird or munches the bird on return cannot get a pass while a pro that cannot keep the dog into a stand during the exam can still get a pass.


Can having your Pro run your dog in a HT an advantage? Absolutely! 
I know more than one dog who will give their owners the paw in HT's yet are perfect little lambs when the Pro runs them.


----------



## gdgli

hollyk said:


> Can having your Pro run your dog in a HT an advantage? Absolutely!
> I know more than one dog who will give their owners the paw in HT's yet are perfect little lambs when the Pro runs them.



Very true but if I were that owner I would ask "Why?"


----------



## Alaska7133

What about requiring a WC pass to get a CCA? Would that inspire proving the breed?


----------



## hollyk

gdgli said:


> Very true but if I were that owner I would ask "Why?"


Pro has better timing, more experience and CP (Command Presence. Can you tell I'm well schooled? Lol)


----------



## Claudia M

hollyk said:


> Can having your Pro run your dog in a HT an advantage? Absolutely!
> I know more than one dog who will give their owners the paw in HT's yet are perfect little lambs when the Pro runs them.


More than likely that dog was trained with the pro and not the owner. 

I personally have never let a pro handle my dogs. I like being around them and seeing what they do or tell me what to do but handling is done by only me.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I was going to say that Tito runs better for me than for Dan, but now that I think about it that's not really true. So never mind.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

I've been told that working for a pro would help my dog pass even if she didn't deserve it! As far as it being better to have the pro run a dog over the owner, in my experience my dog wouldn't run for my pro at. She was too scared of him. He would reach down just to put his hand at heel and she would dodge him like he was going to hit her. She is not like this with anyone else. So I absolutely have to run her over him running her. He basically only taught me to train her. So its like the blind leading the blind with my girl, but we love it anyway!


----------



## gdgli

MillionsofPeaches said:


> I've been told that working for a pro would help my dog pass even if she didn't deserve it! As far as it being better to have the pro run a dog over the owner, in my experience my dog wouldn't run for my pro at. She was too scared of him. He would reach down just to put his hand at heel and she would dodge him like he was going to hit her. She is not like this with anyone else. So I absolutely have to run her over him running her. He basically only taught me to train her. So its like the blind leading the blind with my girl, but we love it anyway!


Sounds like she was hand shy due to the pro. Do you think he hit her?


----------



## Claudia M

MillionsofPeaches said:


> I've been told that working for a pro would help my dog pass even if she didn't deserve it! As far as it being better to have the pro run a dog over the owner, in my experience my dog wouldn't run for my pro at. She was too scared of him. He would reach down just to put his hand at heel and she would dodge him like he was going to hit her. She is not like this with anyone else. So I absolutely have to run her over him running her. He basically only taught me to train her. So its like the blind leading the blind with my girl, but we love it anyway!


If the pro gets that reaction out of your dog than I believe you have to stay away from that said pro. Don't care how many trophies you have to show for that dog. After all the trophies are for people and not for the dog. And IMHO if the trophies are because the dog did it out of fear - than shame on both the owner and the pro.
I have seen a lab that got the MH but by the end of it he was so collar and correction fried that he was afraid to do anything anymore. The owner had no idea in what a bad shape the dogs was.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

No, she never stayed with him and I have been with her training her the whole time, I would have seen if he hit her, he was just very intimidating, he doesn't play around and baby the dogs and Katniss is super empathetic to other's feelings to include frustration and anger stemming from that frustration. Claudia yeah, he helped me tons on learning and really showed me the ropes as far as tests go and so forth. I owe him a lot. I just don't think that our training philosophies are the same, and there really isn't any way they could be. He has to crank out the dogs on a timeline while I have all the time in the world to be patient. He is working with a lot of dogs and I'm just working on two. He is actually one of the "gentler" trainers down here, I've seen some scary stuff! Its just a tough mentality in the deep south. I've learned that while there are some perks to being a pro, there are also perks to being on your own. I've seen him stress about dogs that might not progressing as fast as he originally thought and have to deal with the owner's frustration about that. I'm glad that I don't have to worry about that kind of stuff. Its stressful!


----------



## Alaska7133

MOP,
I think you summed it up well. I think you understand exactly what's going on with your pro and your dog.

I'm hoping this year again that the conformation judges will be out visiting the field trials or hunt tests/WC for golden national this year. It would be sure nice for them to participate in the action possibly too. Anyone hear if that's a possibility?


----------



## Alaska7133

On another note, anyone thinking of putting their dog in gundog sweeps at golden national? You can get conformation points if you win. Just a thought. There are many very nice dogs in gundog sweeps. The BOB at national has her SH and she was in sweeps. So think about showing off your field dog in sweeps, it will be fun.


----------



## gdgli

Alaska7133 said:


> MOP,
> I think you summed it up well. I think you understand exactly what's going on with your pro and your dog.
> 
> I'm hoping this year again that the conformation judges will be out visiting the field trials or hunt tests/WC for golden national this year. It would be sure nice for them to participate in the action possibly too. Anyone hear if that's a possibility?


Anybody ask Glenda Brown?


----------



## Loisiana

isn't the field stuff really far from everything else this year? Like hours away, not even in the same state.


----------



## Alaska7133

The judges could attend the field trials on the first day. Then drive the 3-1/2 hours to Fletcher for conformation classes the next day. It is possible. Not sure what preparations judges have to do before a dog show.


----------



## Alaska7133

Swampcollie said:


> No they don't.


Here's where I got the information about field trial judges required for WCX. This is copied from the WCX rules dated Jan 2014. 

The requirements for each set of judges for the WCX shall be an aggregate of three qualification points. One point may be earned for each of the following:
1. Any judging assignment at an AKC licensed field trial or AKC sanctioned Open or Amateur assignment. 2. Any judging assignment in the Senior or Master stake at an AKC hunting retriever test.
3. Any TWO judging assignments at a GRCA WC/WCX test. Only one point may come from this category.

Did I misinterpret the information?


----------



## hollyk

Alaska7133 said:


> Here's where I got the information about field trial judges required for WCX. This is copied from the WCX rules dated Jan 2014.
> 
> The requirements for each set of judges for the WCX shall be an aggregate of three qualification points. One point may be earned for each of the following:
> 1. Any judging assignment at an AKC licensed field trial or AKC sanctioned Open or Amateur assignment. 2. Any judging assignment in the Senior or Master stake at an AKC hunting retriever test.
> 3. Any TWO judging assignments at a GRCA WC/WCX test. Only one point may come from this category.
> 
> Did I misinterpret the information?


_The requirements for each set of judges for the WCX shall be an aggregate of three qualification points. _

A three point judge can carry someone with no points but who has experience in the test.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Holly would know. ;-)


----------



## TrailDogs

Loisiana said:


> isn't the field stuff really far from everything else this year? Like hours away, not even in the same state.


Yes and it starts the same day as the CCA so the field dogs are essentially excluded from that unless they want to miss the start of the field trial. It would be nice if they had a group of CCA judges that could attend the field trial and assess dogs in that location. In addition, it would be beneficial to the owners of the dogs that were being evaluated and an education for the judges involved.


----------



## Loisiana

I think that sounds like a fantastic idea. There should be a CCA held at the field trial headquarters. What better way to get a look at the structure of the field dogs of today


----------



## Eowyn

hotel4dogs said:


> Not sure if it was in this thread or another one, but someone asked who has actually gone and watched a field trial.
> I'd like to put the thought out there, how many "field people" (not referring to this forum but to the field community in general) have gone and watched the dogs in the breed ring, and put their hands on the dogs to see what's underneath the grooming? They all say oh, the dogs are overdone, they're this, they're that, but how many have actually put their hands on some of the dogs?
> Go to a ring here in the Chicago area and actually FEEL the dogs. When Tito was showing, and the trend has continued, there would be 25 dogs in the open ring and every one of them was similar to Tito in body style. That is, moderate, nice bones but not overdone, not dripping in coat. If it wasn't for the handler, sometimes I couldn't pick Tito out in the crowd that's how similar they all looked. So he was not by any stretch the exception. Jill mentioned Stoney, who I have had the pleasure of meeting many times, and he, too, is a moderate dog. It's what was winning. It's what is still winning.
> A lot of people think Tito weighs 80-85 pounds when he's been swimming a lot and his hair is a bit poofy, but he's only 67 pounds and that was his show ring weight, too.
> Absolutely everyone has seen these photos a beezillion times, but here's one again. It's what wins here in the midwest. NOT overdone, NOT heavy coated, NOT big boned.


Who is that picture of?


----------



## hollyk

Alaska7133 said:


> I was curious what everyone's thoughts were on blending field and conformation lines?
> How would you go about it?
> What would you look for in both lines to determine that they should be bred to each other?
> Why would you blend the lines?
> 
> I bring this up regarding an article in GR News not long ago about needing for field and conformation lines to be blended. It was in either the first or second issue this year.
> 
> I have a conformation girl that likes birds. The hunt test last weekend included her mother and 1/2 sister (same sire). Those girls did well, but I do think the line could be improved with additional drive and determination. So if you were looking at a field sire, what would you think would be important, not just in the pedigree?


Ok, backing up the bus a bit. 
The original question was about blending field and conformation lines.
Let's leave DC and DDHF out of it for a minute.
I look at this question not from a breeders POV but as a puppy buyers POV.
A blended breeding, some call it a versatile breeding or a tweener, is what I will be looking for next time out. 
Not to offend stud dog owners but my challenge is it find out just who has those girls. My starting place is looking for a strong bitch line.


----------



## Alaska7133

Holly,
Excellent points. 
So if you were looking for a strong bitch line, what are the strengths you are looking for?
Do they need to be proven in titles or are they more softer things that are observable during an interaction with that bitch, i.e. drive? 
What are you looking for in that bitch's pedigree?


----------



## hollyk

Alaska7133 said:


> Holly,
> Excellent points.
> So if you were looking for a strong bitch line, what are the strengths you are looking for?
> Do they need to be proven in titles or are they more softer things that are observable during an interaction with that bitch, i.e. drive?
> What are you looking for in that bitch's pedigree?


I have been trying to figure that out for over two years. 
It's a bunch of stuff but here is a one minute list of things I think about.

My main interest is field and I'm looking for a MH potential puppy.

Girls working at or toward the MH level.
Do they have strong water skills. 
The working level of the siblings in the litter.
What the dam has produced with what sires.
What grand dam's produced with what sires. 
How deep field is in the pedigree.
Was structure improved/maintained.

Again just a few things.

I'm not looking for a puppy yet but there are 4 girls I have my eye on.
2 easily are running at the MH level, 2 are running SH with an eye on MH. 
2 have lovely structure, the other 2 look like they have good structure and I would love to put my hands on them.


----------



## Alaska7133

So when a bitch has a MH, do you discount one that didn't reach that point until age 8 over a bitch that achieved it at say age 24 months? 
Do you take into consideration a bitch that was owner trained and thereby took a bit longer to get to the level that you are looking for?
Also do you discount a bitch that hasn't had any litters and hasn't proven yet they can produce nice litters? 
Sometimes bitches take time to mature physically and really aren't grown until age 3 to determine real structure, do you take that into account?
Just curious.


----------



## hollyk

Sure I would take it all into consideration as far as how she got her MH. 
No, I would have no problem taking a puppy from a first litter. I'm betting on that line of strong producers. All of the girls I'm watching are over three and at this point are maiden bitches.
Also I have watch 3 of the girls train or run. I have a pretty good idea of what's in there.


----------



## luvgld7

Alaska and gdgli,

I'm a member of the Dallas club that hosted the National last year and I organized the visit and took the conformation judges to the Field Trial. The offer to attend the Field Trial was also extended to all the judges attending the Judges workshop seminars at the National.

Planning began one year in advance of the National because airfares for the judges were booked long in advance. The invitation came from the Co-Chairs of the National personally to the Conformation Judges. I asked for Glenda Brown's help in finding mentors who would be with the judges at the FT and she found two great guys. She also offered to write the article about it that appeared in the GR News.

My hope was this would become a tradition at future Nationals. However, the host club of a National has so much on its plate with things that they are required to do, that it takes someone willing to step up and say " I will do that" and work with the committees to make it happen. Distance of the different events further complicates things. We were fortunate at last year's National that the FT and hunt test grounds were only 30 min from the main site.

The judges had a great time and were warmly welcomed by people running the FT. They appreciated that the judges came to watch their dogs work.


----------



## Alaska7133

Thanks, I think we talked about this earlier on another thread but forgot.


----------



## hotel4dogs

That's the Tito Monster!




Eowyn said:


> Who is that picture of?


----------



## hotel4dogs

They did that at the 2012 National in St. Louis, and a lot of field dogs participated, and passed.



Loisiana said:


> I think that sounds like a fantastic idea. There should be a CCA held at the field trial headquarters. What better way to get a look at the structure of the field dogs of today


----------

