# White Goldens So Sick of Reading about It



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

I read something here on the forum that really bothered me about how breeders are bringing in European dogs into their American lines to make them stronger because of all the health issues in the American lines. And that really bothered me so I went looking for information on if that was true. Because from reading threads from our members in the UK and the Canada they have lost their goldens from cancer like us here in the United States. And some of the claims are because the AKC doesnt allow the cream color to be shown and that is part of the problem. And the English (European lines) have a larger base to pull from. 

Before I even got into too much reading the biggest thing I found it was all about structure of the broader head, stocker body and the biggest thing cream colored. And then more and more sites started saying WHITE is coming from the European lines. WHITE not cream. A couple of the sites did talk about the health of american lines but the majority talked about color. 

And the sites are not breeders. They are sites talking about golden retrievers as pets and training. 

I hate that "breeders" are using cancer as a selling tool to people to sell their dogs. People that have lost a dog to cancer, see the website and feel they are getting a dog that is less likely to get cancer because the "breeder" is helping the breed, when they are doing nothing but playing on the person's grief. Their is one breeder and I dont remember which one that claims between their lines and using the nutri-cal their dogs are almost guaranteed not to get cancer. :yuck: They make me puke. 

This site is an example of the White Golden and not breeders:
http://thegoldenretrieverinformation.com/the-white-golden-retriever.html

I wont list the breeder but she claims 61.8% of american goldens was from cancer according to the GRCA study compared to 38.8% of UK goldens according to the British Kennel Club. The information on her website is not a complete posting of the studies and the links to the studies are no longer valid so it makes the new puppy buyer go WOW I better go with this type of dog so I have a better chance of her/him living longer. 

This is another reason why it is important to be a member of the Golden Retriever Club of America http://www.grca.org/pdf/health/hemangio.pdf and participate in the cancer studies sending in blood samples of all your dogs so they can compare to track the cancer. It is not just about breeding to be a responsible breeder but helping to stop cancer, elbow,hips, eyes and heart issues by doing all the clearances. And if they are required yearly DO them. 

I know I am going all over the place but I am so sick of these people using the word WHITE to sell dogs as GOLDENS. Our dogs are called Golden Retrieviers, not White Retrievers. If you breed you need to do it right, the dogs are not your money makers, they are living, breathing, god's creatures and it is our duty to make sure the people are doing it right. If the breeders come here we need to educate them on what is required to be a responsible breeder and what is wrong. 

I am done with my rant for the day


----------



## MissinOurDaley (Aug 3, 2010)

Very well written!


----------



## LincolnsMom (Sep 28, 2010)

I liked your rant an amazing amount of good sources. I just have a question. Do you believe the breeding of the English creams is wrong then? Or are you just against the irresponsible breeding and selling terms that are coined by the breeders who try to sell them as a 'healthier breed?'


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Carol, that's a great articulation of the issues. I went on a similar rant a few months ago about the totally falsity of comparing those cancer rates in such a misleading way.

Certainly, there's a huge population of badly bred Goldens in the US pulling down the health statistics overall, but a well-bred Golden is at very low risk for the common breed problems (hips, elbows, eyes, hearts, etc.). And when it comes to cancer, every real scientific study that's done tells us we cannot predict it reliably because we do not understand its causes well enough. And all that legitimate scientific work tells us we cannot trace statistically higher rates to any particular group of Goldens.

Thanks for keeping the attention on this issue.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

This forum has a definite prejudice against very light Goldens. Yes, Chance's coat is white in large areas, so this hits straight to my heart. You may hide behind the reasons of "false advertising" but, c'mon, let's get real here. You simply don't feel that these dogs, my Chance included, should be classified as belonging in the Golden Retriever breed.

Well, that's fine...have your prejudices. I am so sick of coming on here and having to frequently see these threads. If your going to feel that way about the whites, creams or whatever you want to call them, then you should also make a point that the really RED dogs aren't GOLDEN either. Because they're NOT, they're RED.

Whatever...have fun with your bash fest, I'm done...


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

LincolnsMom said:


> I liked your rant an amazing amount of good sources. I just have a question. Do you believe the breeding of the English creams is wrong then? Or are you just against the irresponsible breeding and selling terms that are coined by the breeders who try to sell them as a 'healthier breed?'


I dont have a problem with breeding of dogs from European, English Lines or Canadian line at all. In fact I love all colors, but my heart is with the red pups. But I dont like any breeder using the word cream, creme, or white in their websites. Not being a smart alec or anything but breeders of the dark goldens dont normally market their dogs as mahogany or red on the web. In fact if you google mahogany golden retrievers no breeders pop up. Not that way with white golden retrievers. I dont even have to use the word breeder in there. To me that shows the word white is a gimmick. Same with the word creme or cream. So to me a good legimate breeder should just advertise golden retrievers of European or English descent. JMO


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

kwit it is nothing against the dogs, it is against the* breeders* themselves. I get that you like the lighter color. I like the darker color. I dont like the advertising and false stuff they use to draw people in. Did you even read the links that I posted? The stuff was about people using white as a new breed not as a golden.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

LincolnsMom said:


> I liked your rant an amazing amount of good sources. I just have a question. Do you believe the breeding of the English creams is wrong then? Or are you just against the irresponsible breeding and selling terms that are coined by the breeders who try to sell them as a 'healthier breed?'


The problem is that there is no such thing as an "English cream". So yes, generally people using these catch-phrases are trying to market. The dogs are *Golden retrievers*. Ask someone in England, or Scotland what kind of dog they have they will tell you "A Golden retriever."

A Golden is and should be a Golden, not some "unique" substrate. I have partially English bloodlines (and my dogs look "English" despite having American show and field dogs in the pedigrees); they are not "English creams" and it burns my shorts when people try to label Goldens to pigeonhole them as if they are something different or special. English, Scottish, European, etc, Goldens get cancer, epilepsy, SAS, PRA, and cataracts just like ones from American bloodlines, and field bloodlines. 

*They are a Golden retriever.*


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

kwhit said:


> This forum has a definite prejudice against very light Goldens. Yes, Chance's coat is white in large areas, so this hits straight to my heart. You may hide behind the reasons of "false advertising" but, c'mon, let's get real here. You simply don't feel that these dogs, my Chance included, should be classified as belonging in the Golden Retriever breed.
> 
> Well, that's fine...have your prejudices. I am so sick of coming on here and having to frequently see these threads. If your going to feel that way about the whites, creams or whatever you want to call them, then you should also make a point that the really RED dogs aren't GOLDEN either. Because they're NOT, they're RED.
> 
> Whatever...have fun with your bash fest, I'm done...


The one time a puppy mill advertised "American Reds" and was found and posted on GRF, the reaction was the same. It's just not as common. If the dog is truly red, he's outside of standard just as much as a truly white dog would be. Lots of the "red" dogs are really a dark red-Gold, and thus within standard.

If your dog came from two Golden Retrievers, he's a Golden Retriever, and nobody wants to kick him out of the club.

My dog has white mismarks, but I don't feel insulted, since what BeauShel was ranting about was _marketing_, not individual dogs. The forum is equally vigilant about "red," "black," "comfort-sized," "blue-eyed," or any other serious variation from standard being used as an advertising gimmick.

In particular, the claim about cancer rates is cruel and irresponsible, and I think that was what set off this thread.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

*I want people on the forum to understand that this is not a slam against any of you or your dogs. This is a rant against the BREEDERS using the terms cream, creme or white and statistics of cancer against our american lines when their is no proof there is anything better or worse in the English, Irish, Scottish, Canadian, European or any other country breeding goldens. Again this is against the breeders.  I LOVE ALL GOLDENS OF ALL COLORS. My heart is with the red pups because my heart dog Beau was a red head. *


----------



## KellyH (Sep 5, 2010)

Yep. I've said it here before, too. Bridget was a 100% ENGLISH Golden. And she was light gold in colour, but bred from two English dogs nonetheless. She died at 13 and a half - from CANCER. So being a pure bred English dog didn't stop her getting cancer any more than an American dog. My next puppy is also going to be an English Golden and TG my breeder never mentioned anything about "cream" - she just uses the world "English," which is one of the reasons I chose to go with her. And the only reason I chose an English dog again is because that's what Bridget was and that's what I'm used to and I like the look and structure because that's what I had for almost 14 years. I don't care what colour my puppy is. I know she will be on the "lighter" side and that's fine with me. I also know she comes from an excellent breeder with dogs with great pedigrees and good clearances. And that's all that should matter. It's okay to have a preference for a particular colour, but as others have said - health clearances, pedigree etc. should always come first. Oh, and regarding temperament- I have friends with American Goldens and honestly couldn't see the difference between the temperaments of their Goldens and mine.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

ME TO , YES, i have said that before, when i see a new thread asking about them,i try not to read, because it upsets me.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

LincolnsMom said:


> I liked your rant an amazing amount of good sources. I just have a question. Do you believe the breeding of the English creams is wrong then? Or are you just against the irresponsible breeding and selling terms that are coined by the breeders who try to sell them as a 'healthier breed?'


I know you were asking Carol, but I want to answer this too.

I think it's irresponsible to breed GRs for color. It's important to keep the _Golden_ Retriever within its color standard, but to advertise "white," "light," "blond," or "cream" (or, for that matter, "red," "mahogany," or even colors—like "champagne"—within the standard) as your kennel's main purpose means that you're choosing dogs based on their color, not their health, ability, structure, and temperament.

Breeding dogs to the English standard and ending up with some that are "cream" colored is wonderful. More power to those English-type fanciers. However, as any English-type breeder will tell you, the English standard allows the full range of golden colors, just as the American one does. The only color difference is that the English standard allows a slightly larger range of color.

So when a breeder chooses the English type, that doesn't automatically make all the dogs cream colored unless light coloring is a high priority in making matches, and that's where the problem starts.

On top of that, marketing them by color perpetuates the problem of breeding them for color instead of for what's much more important.

And on top of that, the claims about health are specious, misleading, manipulative, and outright cruel.

So nobody on the forum is against the idea of a white dog. We're against the idea of breeding outside of standard and of breeding dogs for color instead of for health, longevity, working ability, and temperament.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

That is exactly it, Brian. You say it so much better then me. LOL


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

BeauShel said:


> That is exactly it, Brian. You say it so much better then me. LOL


Glad to be of service. :rockon:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kwhit said:


> *then you should also make a point that the really RED dogs aren't GOLDEN either. Because they're NOT, they're RED.*
> ...


What makes you think that owners of reds haven't heard the same? Or experienced MUCH WORSE prejudice from blondie owners? Or that the "really red" goldens are allowed in the AKC under the standard?


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> ...So nobody on the forum is against the idea of a white dog_ (or red)_. We're against the idea of breeding outside of standard and of breeding dogs for color instead of for health, longevity, working ability, and temperament.



Exactly. Well put Brian.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

kwhit said:


> This forum has a definite prejudice against very light Goldens. Yes, Chance's coat is white in large areas, so this hits straight to my heart. You may hide behind the reasons of "false advertising" but, c'mon, let's get real here. You simply don't feel that these dogs, my Chance included, should be classified as belonging in the Golden Retriever breed.
> 
> Well, that's fine...have your prejudices. I am so sick of coming on here and having to frequently see these threads. If your going to feel that way about the whites, creams or whatever you want to call them, then you should also make a point that the really RED dogs aren't GOLDEN either. Because they're NOT, they're RED.
> 
> Whatever...have fun with your bash fest, I'm done...


This is completely and unequivocally UNTRUE. It absolutely IS about the fraudulent marketing of WHITE and CREME and AMERICAN RED etc etc, as there IS NO SUCH THING. They are NOT cancer free, healthier/smarter/calmer/better, etc etc etc. 
And about taking the standard into consideration, which is far more important than anyone realizes -a GOLDEN Retriever must not be "excessively pale or excessively dark." only a few white hairs are allowable. A truly WHITE dog _is _not a Golden Retriever. Nor is a truly red dog. Either would be considered lacking breed type. The name is, after all, GOLDEN Retriever. As has been stated over and over and over again, NO one "hates" these dogs. NO one is "bashing" these dogs. The issue is the breeding and marketing of dogs as something that they are not,usually with no clearances, and charging exhorbitant prices for them.
The standard MEANS something, it does... Losing the very trait that the breed is named for - those "_lustrous_ _shades of gold" _does NOT bode well for the breed, because when breeding SPECIFICALLY for those (non) colors - white, platinum, red, mahogony - other important attributes of the breed standard are also overlooked - TYPE - that which makes a dog what it is supposed to be, as well as the genetic soundness we are striving for when doing clearances and breeding the best to the best, and we lose the breed altogether.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

I want to hear more from Kwit on this. I'm not saying that Beaushel meant to offend anyone but I am interested in Kwit's experience of having a lighter colored golden and how forum topics here have influenced her perception of how we feel about her and her dog.

Maybe we have something to learn


----------



## coppers-mom (Jan 9, 2009)

I've had four goldens since 2002.
They were all rescues and of unknown heritage and they were all red.
That was not my choice - it just happened to be who I found at the time.

Now I wonder if there are more red goldens in shelters because they are deemed less desirable? Bred more often by BYB and harder to sell?

since I neither breed nor show it has never mattered to me and I'll take a mix too.
I think it is horrible if breeders are misrepresenting the health of a certain type of dog to prey on people's fears and gain from those fears. I havent' done my research so I can't vouch for the truth of any statements.


----------



## Everything's Golden (Nov 1, 2010)

Cooper's mom, 
I wonder the same thing: why do red goldens seem to be less desirable? Is it because they are outside the standard? But then why are white goldens so popular and desired? They are also outside the standard.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I WANT A RED GOLDEN, i love all colors, but the red really catches my eye.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

I'm scared of reds. I fear they have more energy than I can muster :


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Everything's Golden said:


> Cooper's mom,
> I wonder the same thing: why do red goldens seem to be less desirable? Is it because they are outside the standard? But then why are white goldens so popular and desired? They are also outside the standard.


I can think of two reasons....  

1. Redheads can be a little edgy in temperament. Or that's their general reputation. I can see why, since our two reds did have their grumbly moments. They were both still easily trained and they were true golden angels and family dogs. I could probably show pics of our reds with my baby sister who was only 2 or 3 when we got the first guy and scarcely older than that when we got the second one. Sam (I showed his pic on other threads) was her sleeping buddy when she was little. But some people don't always get through that 'shark' phase with them or get through the perception they are poorly bred. 

2. People are more attracted to lighter dogs. It's like the total opposite of the black dog thingy. Where black dogs are either not seen at shelters or they are seen as scary. <- Isn't always the case, though. In my mom's family, white dogs were tied in with death. Like if you saw a white dog appearing all around your home, you or somebody close to you were going to die. <-- Didn't stop my grandma from getting two white dogs though.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I had a red before, she was quite, easy to train, and quirkey, and sweet.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

I have nothing against the white (or very light goldens), I think they are beautiful. I do hate that breeders misrepresent them, just like I hate how doodle breeders misrepresent their puppies. It's about unethical breeders, not the dogs.

I have two reds, both easy to train and not the least bit aggressive. Both are rescues from shelters and previous to that BYBs. I wouldn't trade them for anything. But I don't condone the BYBs who bred them. They were greedy people who used and abused dogs to make money. When there's a thread here about BYBs and how horrible they are, I don't take offense, I totally agree. Because irresponsible breeders do a disservice to the breed.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I have two reds, both easy to train and not the least bit aggressive. Both are rescues from shelters and previous to that BYBs. I wouldn't trade them for anything. But I don't condone the BYBs who bred them. They were greedy people who used and abused dogs to make money. When there's a thread here about BYBs and how horrible they are, I don't take offense, I totally agree. Because irresponsible breeders do a disservice to the breed.


Not all reds come from BYB's though. I know this wasn't what you were trying to say, but thought it was important to point out. Our first golden was a BYB guy, but our second golden (Sam) wasn't. He was half-field lines and half show lines. 

And I've seen a lot of field bred goldens with the reddish coats who have perfect temperaments. And they definitely come from great breeders.


----------



## Kally76 (Jun 14, 2010)

I do have to chime in on the Reds. I have one of each (light and red). He was born to two lighter colored parents. I wasn't looking for a particular color just a Golden. After months of searching I found a breeder in another state. We drove for hours to get him. She already had a waiting list for her next litter but still no-one had chosen him, he wasn't breed standard. Their loss!!!! He was the most beautiful fluffy little thing I had ever seen. He has been sweet, gentle, loving, and loyal since the day we brought him home. There definately is a double stanard. The reds are picked over while the lighter ones are snatched up. In my own personal experience my lighter one was a lot more hard headed and harder to train. I love them both the same but people do always make a big fuss over how pretty she is and he is overlooked.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

I have to say Bama which is a lighter color is one of the most hyper dogs that I have ever owned. More hyper than Beau was at that age. So the hyper theory for the color is not alway true. Nor is not easy to train or easy to train. We have all read on some threads of breeders, members that have the lighter goldens that they were hard to train. Just as someone that has a golden of red color that is easy to train. So I think it has more of how much time you have to spend with the puppy each day, exercise the puppy gets each day and training the puppy gets as it grows up instead of the color. 

As far as the red dogs that end up in the shelters, it could do with how many of the breeders being BYB's. Most of the lighter colored goldens are coming from overseas and the average BYB's dont spend the money to import a dog from overseas. Maybe in 5 years once the average BYB's start getting the dogs we will see them in shelters. We are already seeing them in our rescue, in the last couple of years we took in a litter of 6 puppies and the father of that litter. I fostered one of the puppies (Darby) One of our members adopted one of those puppies. And last year we took in another litter of 8 puppies of lighter puppies, so they are starting to appear. Look thru the rescue section here on the forum and you will see more lighter color goldens appearing all the time. Not to long ago, I started a thread about a Greeder closing his kennel and he was selling all his puppies I think two or three litters of all ages and the parents of his dogs. They were all the lighter color. He was selling them to anyone and everyone with or without the AKC paperwork and with nothing about full or limited registrations, so there went dozens of dogs going out into the world to people to be bred if the people wanted. So in a couple of years I wont be surprised to see them or their pups come into our rescue.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Re: "Reds" - it has somehow become synonymous that "red dogs" are "field bred", and "field bred" is "hyper". It's all just as ridiculous as the "white" dog myths.

They are GOLDEN RETRIEVERS. GOLDEN Retrievers. Rich, Lustrous shades of GOLD." Without being excessively pale or excessively dark.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

The darker red goldens aren't consider field goldens? Why have I been under the impression that the blonde goldens are conformation goldens while the redder goldens are field goldens? I know I've picked that up on the golden retriever forums through the years that field goldens are high-energy. I don't mean hyper, I mean high-energy.


----------



## Oaklys Dad (Dec 28, 2005)

Since I have Oakly who has an English dad I stay away from the (White, Cream, Creme) threads. I have no preference on color. It is all about the gold on the inside that matters to me.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

I used the wrong word, I should have used high energy instead hyper. But to me they are not that much different. Bama could chase a ball or play all day. Yes the red can be field lines but it is not safe to say all red dogs are all high energy, just like the lighter color goldens are less high energy.


----------



## spruce (Mar 13, 2008)

I'm just worried that the beautiful reds & golds will be bred out....


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> The darker red goldens aren't consider field goldens? Why have I been under the impression that the blonde goldens are conformation goldens while the redder goldens are field goldens? I know I've picked that up on the golden retriever forums through the years that field goldens are high-energy. I don't mean hyper, I mean high-energy.


Because the "myths" have been perpetuated and exploited. There are darker conformation dogs and lighter field dogs. 
My Drummer was a "little red dog". His father was an English Import - Camrose Betimmy, who was very light. He was "conformation bred". Everyone said "Oh, he's a field bred dog." No. Wrong. 

Sabre (Am. CH. Amigold On A Wing N A Prayer CD MH WCX VCX DDHF OS***) was "field bred". He was light.


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

I have never, ever seen such a variety of size, color and shape in another breed like I have with Goldens. It kills me that people have no idea what a Golden is supposed to look like and I blame that on people not breeding to standard.

I've had people tell me that Griff is "_not a pure Golden Lab_" - and I just smile and say "no, he's not. He's a Golden Retriever." :uhoh: 

I think the Fieldies are probably the closest to standard because the Golden is and will always be a Sporting dog. They don't have the flowing coats for the most part and it's a good thing because a proper retriever will be going through brush and bramble and a flowing coat would be more of a nuisance. 

But... we like our big fluffy cuddlebug Goldens though.. Conformation Goldens. They are pleasing to the eye and soft to the touch. To me they are like 2 different breeds.

There will always be fads and with Goldens today's fad is color. White, cream, light... I wanted a red dawg and couldn't find one when I wanted one. I'm happy with what I got though - it was meant to be.:


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Not knowing Daisy's pedigree :curtain: I have no idea what she is, field or conformation. I see strong field instincts though...I call her my Field & Stream golden 

So she might be more field than conformation though? That's interesting, it sure fits more with her behavior but I have thought for a long time she's conformation because of her color.

Learned something today


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> The darker red goldens aren't consider field goldens? Why have I been under the impression that the blonde goldens are conformation goldens while the redder goldens are field goldens? I know I've picked that up on the golden retriever forums through the years that field goldens are high-energy. I don't mean hyper, I mean high-energy.


I think the red color is a little more common among some of the field breeders who are less interested in conformation, so the stereotype appeared. However, like all stereotypes, it conflates correlation with causality. Even if it's true that more field Goldens are darker and more conformation Goldens are lighter, color doesn't tell you anything about the individual dog. You can get dark conformation Goldens, light field dogs, and BYB dogs of any color.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> I can think of two reasons....
> 
> 1. Redheads can be a little edgy in temperament. Or that's their general reputation. I can see why, since our two reds did have their grumbly moments. They were both still easily trained and they were true golden angels and family dogs. I could probably show pics of our reds with my baby sister who was only 2 or 3 when we got the first guy and scarcely older than that when we got the second one. Sam (I showed his pic on other threads) was her sleeping buddy when she was little. But some people don't always get through that 'shark' phase with them or get through the perception they are poorly bred.


I really can't agree here. There's no relationship between color and temperament. There might, as I said in my previous post, actually be some correlation between color and background, but that doesn't predict anything about individual dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Everything's Golden said:


> Cooper's mom,
> I wonder the same thing: why do red goldens seem to be less desirable? Is it because they are outside the standard? But then why are white goldens so popular and desired? They are also outside the standard.


White Goldens are a fad right now. Oprah got some, even. The pendulum will swing again, I'm sure.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

My light "conformation bred" GOLDEN Retrievers have strong field instincts. Because I strive to breed them to the standard, and that includes the "retriever" part.
I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand... Breed Standards are the blueprints for the breeds. Without them, we have nothing.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

After years of rescuing mixed-breed sweethearts from the pound, I have had four full-blooded Goldens, all of whom could have been registered but none of whom have been. 

The first, Sabrina, was from a loving BYB and she was that true "rich lustrous gold" - so much so that she drew a crowd whenever I took her to parks. Sabrina was the wisest, most intelligent, most loving and most beautiful dog I have encountered in a lifetime of dogs. She was diagnosed with kidney disease (most likely congenital according to the experts, since her kidneys were small) at age 3. When she was almost 8 and began to crash, she was also diagnosed with a "hemorrhagic cancer" (which I take to be hemangiosarcoma, though nobody used that term) on her heart. The combination killed her before her 8th birthday. She also suffered from severe hip displaysia and arthritis. I fought her diseases and pain with her for all I was worth and I will mourn her until the day I die.

Charlie, also from a BYB though in a different part of the U.S., is probably what people refer to as "English," though I never heard the term before I joined the GRF a few months ago. He has light cream coloring with caramel-colored ears and saddle, big blocky head, deep chest, thick undercoat, and extraordinary feathering that draws a crowd. He is an absolute sweetheart, but not a rocket scientist among dogs (read that as "not quite dumb as a post"). He is smart enough to get what he wants from life. He is also hypothyroid, had a splenectomy when he was 7 (biopsy showed it to be not malignant, but who knows?), had surgery for a growth on one eye, has cysts inside his eyes, and is now having seizures at age 12. He is still my big cuddle puppy and I ache because I know that I am going to lose him soon.

Joker, half-brother to Charlie, is a curly-haired guy about 9 years old, with a golden tan coat that is now flecked with white. He is hypothyroid and I want to have an ultrasound done soon to be sure he doesn't have an enlarged spleen since I'm suspicious. He is my laughing sweetheart, smart and funny, my timekeeper dog who keeps us on schedule. He is also hypothyroid.

The baby is Sunny, the only one of the lot to be from verifiable championship bloodlines. She is beautiful, shiny golden, very smart, indomitable, and a counter-surfing landshark at not quite 6 months old. She is the one I did all of the research for, in hopes of having her for a long and healthy life, but it is too soon to tell.

My point is that color does not measure the health of the dog, nor do AKC papers provide the guarantee that I once thought they did. I wouldn't want to say it's a crap-shoot, but sometimes that's what it feels like. 

I am glad there are breeders who work to make it better and help to educate "pet people" like me. I don't want to show my dogs and I don't want to breed them. I just want to have them around to spoil for a lot of years...to buy sofas for them and steps to help them onto those sofas when they get old, fence big yards for them, and provide good food, an ample supply of tennis balls, regular door service, and lots of cuddles. Is that so much to ask?


----------



## Kally76 (Jun 14, 2010)

Pointgold said:


> My light "conformation bred" GOLDEN Retrievers have strong field instincts. Because I strive to breed them to the standard, and that includes the "retriever" part.
> I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand... Breed Standards are the blueprints for the breeds. Without them, we have nothing.


I wish all breeders were that way. It really is sad now. A lot of them really are more concerned with what colors they are going to end up with, than being concerned with the quality of the dogs. It does get really difficult for people searching for puppies.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

So we can't distinguish by behavior a field golden from a conformation golden? 

I'm confused again.

Daisy doesn't have strong "retriever" skills but maybe that's because I didn't train her for that. She's a hunter ... and if you could see her fishing, you would know exactly what I mean. I have yet to find another dog that will "stalk" and wait the way she does when she's fishing. Her discipline is amazing, and that wasn't from training -- it goes much deeper than that.

Am I going off on a tangent here? Don't mean to, just trying to understand the differences between field and conformation and where Daisy might be in the continuum. Like I said, I've always assumed she was conformation because of her color but now I'm wondering if she might not be more field.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> My light "conformation bred" GOLDEN Retrievers have strong field instincts. Because I strive to breed them to the standard, and that includes the "retriever" part.
> I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand... Breed Standards are the blueprints for the breeds. Without them, we have nothing.


Sorry, but a quick search of Nitelite on k9data shows 21 dogs, but only two of them have any non-conformation titles, and both of those dogs were from a 1991 breeding. So how can you say you're preserving the "retriever" part if you're not testing those skills in any venue?

Isn't that the charge you consistently level against breeders who don't get titles? Am I missing something? Are some dogs or titles not listed?


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

changed my mind


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Sorry, but a quick search of Nitelite on k9data shows 21 dogs, but only two of them have any non-conformation titles, and both of those dogs were from a 1991 breeding. So how can you say you're preserving the "retriever" part if you're not testing those skills in any venue?
> 
> Isn't that the charge you consistently level against breeders who don't get titles? Am I missing something? Are some dogs or titles not listed?


You''re sorry? Because my dogs hunt. Actually hunt. With my husband, and my sons, and many of the people who have bought them hunt with them. Actually hunt. If I could afford to do both conformation titles and field titles, financially and time-wise, I would. I happen to enjoy showing, so have made that my priority, thank you. I do like to bird hunt when I have time. Anything else you might like to challenge me on? I'm sure a search of my posts here would find everal in which I have said exactly this before.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> You''re sorry? Because my dogs hunt. Actually hunt. With my husband, and my sons, and many of the people who have bought them hunt with them. Actually hunt. If I could afford to do both conformation titles and field titles, financially and time-wise, I would. I happen to enjoy showing, so have made that my priority, thank you. I do like to bird hunt when I have time. Anything else you might like to challenge me on? I'm sure a search of my posts here would find everal in which I have said exactly this before.


You have a lot of posts, so it's hard to sort through the history. Good to know that you've proven your dogs' retrieving skills.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Sorry, but a quick search of Nitelite on k9data shows 21 dogs, but only two of them have any non-conformation titles, and both of those dogs were from a 1991 breeding. So how can you say you're preserving the "retriever" part if you're not testing those skills in any venue?
> 
> Isn't that the charge you consistently level against breeders who don't get titles? Am I missing something? Are some dogs or titles not listed?


I don't think that breeding dogs who have the drive to retrieve means that they have to have field titles.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Sorry, but a quick search of Nitelite on k9data shows 21 dogs, but only two of them have any non-conformation titles, and both of those dogs were from a 1991 breeding. So how can you say you're preserving the "retriever" part if you're not testing those skills in any venue?
> 
> Isn't that the charge you consistently level against breeders who don't get titles? Am I missing something? Are some dogs or titles not listed?


 
Sorry, but a quick search in K-9 Data doesn't show you as a breeder, or having any titles on your dogs. (CGC is not a title but a certificate) So, how can you be such an expert on breeding and training if you are not testing those skills in any venue?

THAT was nasty.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

You can't "prove" your golden retrievers' skills in the field without a title, an objective assessment of accomplishment.

Not saying that golden retrievers need to be field tested ... but it does kinda go along with the breed standards. They are bird dogs. 

I do see some hypocrisy in this. Not to offend at all, but I do. What in the sam heck does show ring/conformation titles have to do with bird hunting.

I think I agree with the person who mentioned earlier (or was that a different thread ??) that field skills are more in keeping with the intended purpose of this breed.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> You can't "prove" your golden retrievers' skills in the field without a title, an objective assessment of accomplishment.
> 
> Not saying that golden retrievers need to be field tested ... but it does kinda go along with the breed standards. They are bird dogs.
> 
> ...


Go hunting. If the dog HUNTS, and puts meat on the table, there is no hypocrisy in that. And, that I tell people who contact me about purchasing a puppy with the intention of hunting, whether based on puppy testing done at 7 weeks we think it would or would not be suitable. And, that someone did purchase a "conformation bred" puppy from me and DID put field titles on her, and used her as their foundation bitch with field competition being their priority, and have been very successful, says that I have done what I always attempt to do.
You wanna donate some of your hard earned wages to back one of my dogs doing field competitions? It's VERY expensive. I LIKE showing dogs, so that is what I have concentrated on. My husband LIKES hunting. So him taking my "show dogs" hunting is a bonus.
Successfully hunting IS the field skills that are in keeping with the intended purpose of the breed, don't you think? Ever been to a field trial? I have. Lots of fun, but it's not quite the same as a morning bird hunting with your companion. I have the pleasure of being able to do that, too.

Sheesh.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

I'm asking, how do you "prove" field accomplishment without title? I'm not saying your dogs can't hunt or that they don't have good instincts ... but how do you _prove_ your dog in the field venue without a title?

I'm asking a good question. This was argued in the Cynazar thread ... you can't prove your dog in a certain venue without a title.

Apparently you have, without a field title. I'm genuinely confused now.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

***I want to make it VERY clear that I have NEVER claimed to breed field dogs. Never. I HAVE strived to preserve the instincts and ability that make a Golden Retriever exactly that. And, hunting with the dogs, and those folks who have put field titles on them and used them for their breeding programs have been happy,and does prove that the instincts remain intact. I have been proud to have been a small part of their success. I make no apologies for what I have done with my dogs. Being called a hypocrit, and to have to defend myself and what I have done to those who have done far less is distasteful at best.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Sorry, but a quick search in K-9 Data doesn't show you as a breeder, or having any titles on your dogs. (CGC is not a title but a certificate) So, how can you be such an expert on breeding and training if you are not testing those skills in any venue?
> 
> THAT was nasty.


I've never claimed to be an expert in training or breeding, never held myself up as an example of a great breeder, never told people that they weren't allowed to break a rule of the COE that I had broken myself, never attacked a breeder for not having titles in one breath and then held up my family's personal experience with dog as proof of ability in the next. I've never mocked another breeder for claiming to be good at something without proving it in a venue. I also don't bring up GRM in comparison to every breeder I don't like.

I never tell people how to breed beyond stating what's on the GRCA's own site, and I usually start the post with "I'm not a breeder, but..." I wouldn't begin to know how to tell people which parts of the COE they're allowed to break and which they aren't. 

I have some limited experience in training unruly dogs and some research background, and I try to use my experience to help people. You'll notice that I advise people on companion skills, not competition, because that's what I'm good at and experienced at. I've never titled a dog in obedience or agility because I've never tried, but I challenge you to find a place where I gave bad advice to a family struggling with their dog. I try to give support and ideas to people whose dogs have tough medical issues, and I do research on complex food issues to help people out who don't have the time and background in science research that I have. And I'm careful to state that I'm not an expert.

I haven't been perfect, but my goal has been to be helpful, and I've never claimed expertise I don't have, nor have I held people to standards I don't meet myself. I know I come on too strong or too arrogant sometimes, and I try to apologize sincerely when I do.

I find your attacks on other breeders usually accurate, though sometimes way over the top and counterproductive. Once in a while, though, your comments are so wildly hypocritical that it takes my breath away, and in those situations, yes, I feel it's appropriate to "challenge" you. Nobody else on this forum seems willing to draw down the utter crazy that comes out of you when you're called on your behavior, but I'm not fussed by it. 

You even managed to get a mod to go back and edit a post where you called me an ass so now it doesn't look like you did. And then you gave a hilarious non-apology for it. Do you have any idea how much you scare and intimidate people? Each time we spar in a public thread I get several PMs from people thanking me for standing up to you and expressing that they don't dare do it.

And if anybody thinks I'm picking on poor old Laura and she's the victim here, you clearly haven't been the recipient of the PM and offsite insults, attacks, and threats she sends people when they get on her bad side.

And yes, this post is totally going to get my warned and perhaps banned, but it's the truth so, to borrow a PG phrase, I'll stand by it.

Laura, I might be the forum's nerdy know-it-all, but you are the forum bully.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> I'm asking, how do you "prove" field accomplishment without title? I'm not saying your dogs can't hunt or that they don't have good instincts ... but how do you _prove_ your dog in the field venue without a title?
> 
> I'm asking a good question. This was argued in the Cynazar thread ... you can't prove your dog in a certain venue without a title.
> 
> Apparently you have, without a field title. I'm genuinely confused now.


I have bred dogs with field titles. I have dogs that hunt. I even put field titles on a Pointer bitch (a JH and APC's Top Derby Dog, actually) I've been there, I've done that. I know what it takes. I like showing. So I do. What do YOU do? Why do you "care"? You've said you _don't_ care about titles. 
What more do you want, JE???


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I've never claimed to be an expert in training or breeding, never held myself up as an example of a great breeder, never told people that they weren't allowed to break a rule of the COE that I had broken myself, never attacked a breeder for not having titles in one breath and then held up my family's personal experience with dog as proof of ability in the next. I've never mocked another breeder for claiming to be good at something without proving it in a venue. I also don't bring up GRM in comparison to every breeder I don't like.
> 
> I never tell people how to breed beyond stating what's on the GRCA's own site, and I usually start the post with "I'm not a breeder, but..." I wouldn't begin to know how to tell people which parts of the COE they're allowed to break and which they aren't.
> 
> ...


 
I won't stoop to comment to anything here other than that I NEVER, ever managed to get a mod to edit my post. I didn't know it was, because I've not gone back, and if it was, that mod needs to make it very clear that it was done WITHOUT my knowlege or request.

And again, I will not apologize for anything that I have done in dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I have bred dogs with field titles. I have dogs that hunt. I even put field titles on a Pointer bitch (a JH and APC's Top Derby Dog, actually) I've been there, I've done that. I know what it takes. I like showing. So I do. What do YOU do? Why do you "care"? You've said you _don't_ care about titles.
> What more do you want, JE???


You understand that the point is not that Jo believes in titles, just that you are holding other breeders to a standard of proof that you don't seem to feel the need to hold yourself to, right?

Can you imagine if Cynazar came on here and said, "I hunt with my dogs, and that's proof enough of their ability." She'd be filleted by you!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> You understand that the point is not that Jo believes in titles, just that you are holding other breeders to a standard of proof that you don't seem to feel the need to hold yourself to, right?
> 
> Can you imagine if Cynazar came on here and said, "I hunt with my dogs, and that's proof enough of their ability." She'd be filleted by you!


Wrong. Because I've said before that hunting is an important and valid measure of a dog's instinct. And I have held myself and my dogs to that standard of proof, and I do know what it takes. I can honestly and objectively evaluate my dogs, and I have others do it, as well. I am far more critical of my dogs than you will EVER know. EVER. The Cynazar's of the world have done _none of it. _

And I _do_ understand exactly the "point" of this.._._


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Jo Ellen said:


> Not knowing Daisy's pedigree :curtain: I have no idea what she is, field or conformation. I see strong field instincts though...I call her my Field & Stream golden
> 
> So she might be more field than conformation though? That's interesting, it sure fits more with her behavior but I have thought for a long time she's conformation because of her color.
> 
> Learned something today


She very well might be neither. It's NOT either/or. There is a HUGE part of our breed that is strictly pet bred, meaning they weren't bred for either their conformation or their hunting/athletic abilities. My dog Sage is an example. He's a darker golden and I've taken him hunting. But that does not make him a field bred dog. His parents were bred simply because they were both golden retrievers. They weren't the offspring of conformation dogs, nor did their immediate ancestors have any hunting titles.

And even if 3, 4, 5 generations back there was a Champion or a MH, that does not necessarily make a dog conformation or field bred. Once the breeder no longer considers conformation and/or field ability when making the decision to breed, their pups are pet bred.


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I've never claimed to be an expert in training or breeding, never held myself up as an example of a great breeder, never told people that they weren't allowed to break a rule of the COE that I had broken myself, never attacked a breeder for not having titles in one breath and then held up my family's personal experience with dog as proof of ability in the next. I've never mocked another breeder for claiming to be good at something without proving it in a venue. I also don't bring up GRM in comparison to every breeder I don't like.
> 
> I never tell people how to breed beyond stating what's on the GRCA's own site, and I usually start the post with "I'm not a breeder, but..." I wouldn't begin to know how to tell people which parts of the COE they're allowed to break and which they aren't.
> 
> ...


This post makes me so sad. What is our forum coming to??

I am taking NO sides here at all, I want that to be clear. However, the constant bickering and hostility here really puts a damper on a lot of good discussions and threads. I have been scared to say anything, but I see bullying going both ways. Why aren't posts just ignored if there is that much disdain for one another?


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

nixietink said:


> This post makes me so sad. What is our forum coming to??
> 
> I am taking NO sides here at all, I want that to be clear. However, the constant bickering and hostility here really puts a damper on a lot of good discussions and threads. I have been scared to say anything, but I see bullying going both ways. Why aren't posts just ignored if there is that much disdain for one another?


I'm so with you on this. Thank you for speaking up.

I want to learn about good breeding practices and understand the issues to the extent that I can as a non-breeder who loves Goldens as pets, not show dogs or competitors in any venue except my heart. This forum should be a safe place to ask questions. I am certain that knowledgeable people can discuss issues and even disagree with one another without having to resort to accusations. In the long run, objectivity and integrity build credibility.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I have never personally "attacked" any breeder, or called them names. I've addressed the breeding practices. I am passionate about the breed, and don't sugar coat what I say. Unfortunately, I have been personally attacked, as well as my breeding practices, and have responded defensively, again, because I am passionate and believe in what I do, and have done. I will no longer do so. I am sorry that this has made others feel badly. I doubt that you have any idea how it makes me feel.


----------



## Heidi36oh (Feb 27, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> You understand that the point is not that Jo believes in titles, just that you are holding other breeders to a standard of proof that you don't seem to feel the need to hold yourself to, right?
> 
> Can you imagine if Cynazar came on here and said, "I hunt with my dogs, and that's proof enough of their ability." She'd be filleted by you!


Oh so true!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Heidi36oh said:


> Oh so true!


Sigh. Oh so not true.


----------



## Heidi36oh (Feb 27, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Sigh. Oh so not true.


LOL..I leave it at that


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Jo Ellen and all (and I am promising I am not picking on you! lol You do ask good questions !! 

You all have unknowingly hit upon a debate that has been going on between conformation breeders and field breeders since the dawn of golden retrievers!! How do you prove that a golden has maintained the basic hunting skills that they were bred for is the question that field breeders ask of conformation breeders. Conformation breeders then ask why the AKC standard is often ignored with the field bred goldens. So, it is often quite a sore spot with golden breeders on either side of the fence.

Many field breeders will not accept the fact that conformation goldens can be hunted with and have basic titles such as a WC(which really isn't that basic since it does require a double) or a JH. Field trials have become highly competitive and many say that they have strayed from the original intention of testing skills for the dogs and have become something that only high drive and high energy dogs can win at-many being labradors!

The same is true of the conformation breeders. A single point doesn't prove the dog is Championship worthy and nor does a CCA-that is just meeting the most basic parts of the standard. The breed ring(conformation shows) was developed as a proving ground to prove that your dogs were good specimens of the breed and that they met the AKC standard. Field people would argue that the conformation shows have digressed too far, as well.

We have many people who hunt with our dogs and a couple who actually fly with them to Colorado and Canada to hunt with them. We also have people who own our dogs and our boys' kids that have hunting titles on them. That is their hobby. I don't particularly enjoy that and I "think" that is what PG was trying to say in her posts. But, does that mean that her dogs have not maintained the basic instinct to be able to do the job they were bred to do? No-not when her husband is out hunting with them.

The golden retriever was more a gentleman's hunter and was not really bred to *have* to help put meat on the table to earn his keep. 

This dog game is expensive no matter what venue-field or conformation that you chose to pursue and it is very hard to do more than one activity with a breeding program and do it well. There are only so many hours in the day and only so many dollars that can be devoted to the dogs. You don't very often see a Master Hunter with a Championship. It takes too much time and energy. Is it done? Absolutely-but not often. A dual champion is even more rare.

Jennifer


----------



## sandyhp (Jan 21, 2008)

GoldensGirl said:


> ...
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Oh, it's very much a crap shoot.

I wholeheartedly agree with you .... I too want to have them around to spoil for a lot of years!


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

Let me say that when I started this thread I never knew that it would turn into another arument between the three of you but it has. Let everyone back off and stop it with the name calling and that means all of you. 

Brian, let me put this out publically for all the members so their is *no *question that the post that was changed by me (in the scan or grope thread) was done not to show any favortisim as it sounds like in your post. I changed the highlighting in the post of Pointgolds *not* to hide anything but because we have certain rules of no profanity and we try to hold true to that. And tht word appeared as profanity because it was highlighted. And we are not going to debate what she meant or didnt mean again. The forum had a blocker for certain words but for some reason it has not been working lately. And after that incident happened we checked into it and fixed it. Some words may slip thru and if we see it we will fix it. It was also done to stop any more complaints from any other members that saw it or any more posts that might have started arguments from other members. I was not showing any favoritism to PG just trying to stop more arguments and fix a wrond done to a member. 

This stops here and now. Each of you keeps saying there are pms from Pointgold but not one you has ever sent them to a moderator. And we have heard this from Pointgold. so who is to say who is the bad guy? The mods cannot do anything about the pms unless you send them to us. If things happen off the forum we can do nothing about that. You have to take that up with the mods or admin of those sites. 

Each of you seem to be willing and happy to jump all over the other for the least little word in a post that you can find. It is almost as you wait for the other person to post something that you can jump on them about it and start an argument. Why not say something differently without being so confrontational? So why dont you take the ignore button or leave each other alone for a week if you can. If you cant then you will take the consequences. It will be a ban. 

I hate posting this publicaly but each of you have no problem taking it public and I think this is the only way I think it will stop. And I guess I will have to close another thread because there cannot be a discussion without the three of you going after each other. And no We dont want ten pms or emails saying I am not the bully or I am the victim. We have all heard it all before and see it all on the forum. Unless you want to share all the pms and emails we have seen the posts here. Sorry to be so blunt but we have been thru this over and over. 

I know there are some spelling errors in this post so as soon as I finish it, I am going back to taking some more migraine medicine from the migraine that I have been battling all evening. And this new fight hasnt helped. 

The last thing I will say is to Everyone: When we discuss the breeder threads, I do recommend that when we ask questions to the breeders, it is done with courtesy and with information to back up your questions. Like with the color posted at the end of the cynazar golden thread that I added. I posted the information the colors listed on their site as white are not in the standard according to the GRCA or AKC. 

Maybe *everyone* should go back and look at the FAQS of the forum again
Golden Retrievers : Golden Retriever Dog Forums - FAQ: Forum FAQ


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

I know this thread was closed but I am just putting this out there as an advance notice that the GRF management team will be going back to banning members that break board rules. We tried a kinder approach to these types of incidents such as this but it does not work, so we will go back to what does work.


----------

