# interesting perspective



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I think I can put the discussion to rest real fast.
The standards do not ever come from the kennel club. 
They are dictated by the parent breed club. Thus the GRCA defines the standard for the goldens, then educates the judges in each of the kennel clubs as to what the standard is.
So if the standard is "wrong", blame the parent club, not the kennel clubs.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Nope, no, nada, wrong, etc etc etc.
First off kennel clubs (AKC, UKC, CKC, etc) DO NOT create the breed standards! The PARENT CLUB of that BREED creates the standard. It is written by the breeders of that breed themselves, then presented to the kennel club for acceptance. The kennel club neither writes nor changes the breed standard.
The show ring does not select for pretty. The show ring does not select for dogs who cannot work. THE BREEDERS DO. If you don't like the dogs -- BLAME THE BREEDERS.

Change must come from within -- from the breed club and the network of breeders. The kennel club cannot dictate what the breeders do. 

I understand the concern and internal, decades-old fight with BC breeders. But it is preposterous to think that the second AKC allowed BCs registration, that the breed went down the tubes simply because dogs shows existed. Who bred those "pretty" BCs in the breed ring? Who created them? THEIR BREEDERS. 

Here is another thought. If it were not for dog shows, there would be no Sealyham terriers, Sussex spaniels, Clumber spaniels, Swedish Valhunds, English toy spaniels, Greater Swiss mountain dogs, Scottish deerhounds, etc. These breeds are virtually extinct beyond the small network of breeders who keep them specifically to breed a litter of show dogs. Maybe these dogs cannot work as efficiently or strongly as their ancestors, who a hundred years ago actually had a job and people who depended on the dog doing that job, and really selected on the instincts and breed type was a secondary selection method. Well today that is not the case. Without the breed ring these breeds would no longer exist. We would not have a Pharaoh hound, a Dandie Dinmont Terrier, a Wirehaired Pointing Griffon. What a shame that would be. 

To condemn a kennel club -- that does a world of good for all dogs, from preserving rare breeds, to upholding stud book integrity, to contributing millions to canine health research -- because breeders refuse to properly educate their own kind -- is very short sighted and naive.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

How difficult (not that it should be easy) is it for standards to change after they've been put to the KC? How frequently do changes happen? 

The GRCA has lots of ways of "rewarding" people who do lots of different things with their goldens. How do those sorts of programs impact breeding patterns/quality/instinctive traits/etcs compared to some of the European programs where dogs have to pass instinct tests and whatnot?

It is interesting to see how the BC folks are handling all of this and how much more.... outgoing?..... loud?.... they are compared to other breeds. 

And again....this all makes me think about the stuff Coppinger has proposed... anyone fascinated by the ethology of dogs, ethics of breeding scenarios in the long-term, etc... should take a look through his book "Dogs" [[[ really great title eh?]]]. It has a really long subtitle...


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

Yep, Stircrazy, your friend needs to work from within and look at the parent club, the breeders, the standard--but not the organizations in charge of the stud book or licensing of clubs/judges/shows (which is the AKC/CKC/UKC). Criticism is misplaced and shows lack of knowledge on the whole process of how breed standards are developed on your friend's part. (JMHO)

I'm not saying there aren't some valid points--but you never get anywhere complaining about the entity that has nothing to do with the concerns or is the party responsible.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

RedDogs said:


> How difficult (not that it should be easy) is it for standards to change after they've been put to the KC? How frequently do changes happen?
> 
> The GRCA has lots of ways of "rewarding" people who do lots of different things with their goldens. How do those sorts of programs impact breeding patterns/quality/instinctive traits/etcs compared to some of the European programs where dogs have to pass instinct tests and whatnot?
> 
> ...


The breed standard for the golden was last revised in September, 1990--the parent club, in this case, the Golden Retriever Club of America, puts together a committee to review whether or not there should be a revision--usually this is after several requests by members; the committee is usually made up of long time breeders. Once proposed wording is passed by the committee and Board, the membership of the GRCA must approve--that's why if you are interested in having input into the breed, become a member of the GRCA!


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

In any breed, I think the key is to encourage people active in the 'sports' to become conformation judges, and get more 'working' dogs to go into the ring so it's not so uncommon to see the differences in the breeding. The same people who complain about the breed being ruined can help by taking their 'working dogs' into the show ring, so there isn't just the extreme fluffy show dogs being shown.

The same people (here in Alberta anyway) who are complaining that showing border collies will 'ruin' the breed don't have much of an issue looking the other way when it comes to clearances, papers and breeding for profit. So yes, their dogs can herd, but they may have health problems because the parents and grandparents etc. have not been cleared for health issues. One of the 'top' breeders around, last time I was at his place it was not far off of a puppy mill scene, dogs in runs, when the runs ran out there were chains on trees or makeshift kennels, and two litters on the ground and one due soon. And he was hosting a herding clinic so it's not like he was trying to hide things (a friend got a dog from there and we're pretty sure one of the livestock guardian dogs was the father of his pup, he was very big and not a typical drivy border collie at all). Some other breeder's websites openly advertise things like 'pocket beagles' on their websites too...

I think being part of the bigger kennel club with those ethics will help in the end, if more people are getting educated as to health and clearances etc...

Lana


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

Anyone want to bet the next proposed change to the Golden Standard will be the weight range


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

NuttinButGoldens said:


> Anyone want to bet the next proposed change to the Golden Standard will be the weight range


Ugh, I hope not. Jack's lines have a lot of bone but the males (at least the few I've seen) are still within the standard for weight. His half brother was a bit overweight at 80 pounds but they got some weight off of him and he now looks perfect at 75. People always comment that Jack's going to be huge and over 100 pounds, and I think (and sometimes say) "not if he's at a healthy weight!"


----------



## Makino82 (Oct 23, 2009)

I think instead of 'complaining' maybe they should set a special regulation for BC's that gives extra credit to those who can prove the working ability of their dogs if that's what they're so worried about. That way breeders who really are trying to breed for health and instinct can prove they do so?? That way breeders / buyers have the choice of what they want to go for.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

NuttinButGoldens said:


> Anyone want to bet the next proposed change to the Golden Standard will be the weight range


Why do you say this? 

Goldens are NOT like labs in the show ring -- most show goldens are in great shape and NOT overweight. Most really do weigh what the standard calls for, give or take. Fisher weighs 76 lbs and is always one of the largest in the ring.

Weight is NOT an issue in our breed -- at least on the show/competition side of things -- what pet people do to their dogs is certainly nothing the standard can protect or dictate. 

Changing a standard is a VERY difficult and lengthy process, not one that is done frequently or arbitrarily. The last standard change in goldens was 20 years ago and was to add clarifying information, it did not CHANGE anything that was required. (It further described physical attributes, not changing it to something different.)


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Also, there's someone else on GRF that has posted several times -- to show her dog he'd have to put on 15-20 lbs, unwilling to put on the weight necessary for the breed ring, etc etc. I absolutely do not see this. Fisher weighed MAYBE 5 lbs heavier while being shown than now while actively training for Master level HTs. I cannot imagine putting 15-20 lbs on ANY dog to go in the show ring.


----------



## Stircrazy (Nov 30, 2009)

Had to run to costco, good to see some discussion on this, I for one never knew you could revise or change a breed standard, I though the original standard stands. 

My argument with my friend was the same as K9's but take this.. I did a search on the bread standerd for BC and it is pathetic. 

hight 18-22"
weight 25 -65lbs

coat 2 types with variance and a multitude of color, ect 

the whole thing is very vague and almost any BC you see on the street qualifies. 

one of the main arguments is AKC and CKC used to let the BC compete in preformace under a "others" catagory as they were not reconized, then all of a sudden 2 years ago they reconize them, adopt a breed standard.

the original breed standard for these dogs were ISDS hearding trials, 100% preformace, and were named boarder collies in 1915 to distinguish ISDS regesterd dogs from the new "show ring" dogs which were only called collies by the kennel clubs.

Very few "show dogs" to this day compete in sheep trials and vise versa. 
the stance quite a few hearding trial clubs have is that by breading for a specific look you are not promoting the original purpose of the breed which was hearding and nothing else. so good breaders who breed for good working dogs are looking for proven, healthy dogs. they still do clearances and such as if a dog had hip displacia or something likt that it wouldn't be able to preform at a high level so it is in there interest for stuff like that also. 

Also by breeding for looks you also get a lot of breeders which will take a dog that doesn't preform that well but looks great and eventualy you lose the preformance aspect of the dog. 

Steve


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I agree.
I've been to a lot of big dog shows recently, with about 100 goldens entered each day, and I have to say I have not seen even one overweight golden in the ring. If anything, I've seen several that probably could have gained 2 or 3 pounds.
Tito weighs in at 68 or 69 pounds, and is right in the middle of what I see in the show ring.
Now the pig-a-dor retrievers I've seen, that's a different story.




K9-Design said:


> Also, there's someone else on GRF that has posted several times -- to show her dog he'd have to put on 15-20 lbs, unwilling to put on the weight necessary for the breed ring, etc etc. I absolutely do not see this. Fisher weighed MAYBE 5 lbs heavier while being shown than now while actively training for Master level HTs. I cannot imagine putting 15-20 lbs on ANY dog to go in the show ring.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> I cannot imagine putting 15-20 lbs on ANY dog to go in the show ring.


Yeah--doesn't added weight contribute to that dreaded top line roll? Try winning with that.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

K9-Design said:


> Also, there's someone else on GRF that has posted several times -- to show her dog he'd have to put on 15-20 lbs, unwilling to put on the weight necessary for the breed ring, etc etc. I absolutely do not see this.


That might have been me.... my 52-lbs-on-a-good-day dog is also too short and not really a conformation prospect  though he probably would have done the CCA provided he was taller. 


...I noted you said it had been 20 years since a change, and that someone else had commented 1990ish was the last. I was about to ask which piece of information was right. I can't believe 1990 was 20 years ago!!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I love the idea of programs like the CCA for this very reason. A dog can be a very nice representative of the breed, have nothing "wrong" with it, but just not have the qualities that would make it considered the best one in the ring. The competitive nature of the breed ring makes breeding for what wins in there the priority for many. The same can be said for many performance breeders too. I see so many itty bitty goldens running agility. And they are winning. 

In my mind the CCA is great because it's not about breeding to be the "best." It's about breeding to meet certain guidelines (the standard).

I guess working certificates and hunt tests are the performance version of this. They are pass/fail. Whereas in field trials, there is always the effort to make a more competitive dog, because the competition is constantly evolving. And other aspects of the dogs are suffering.

I think that as long as people as striving to be the best in some aspects, the aspects that are not considered will have a tendency to decline in quality.


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Makino82 said:


> I think instead of 'complaining' maybe they should set a special regulation for BC's that gives extra credit to those who can prove the working ability of their dogs if that's what they're so worried about. That way breeders who really are trying to breed for health and instinct can prove they do so?? That way breeders / buyers have the choice of what they want to go for.


Or maybe they should have to prove a certain herding prowess, say something akin to our WC or a JH (sorry don't really know the herding titles) BEFORE being eligible to show in conformation. 

To be honest, I'd like to see something like that in Goldens. I don't think they would need to be field trial trained, but at least a JH or WCX. But then you have the other side of the coin, where some people would say that a dog should fit the written standard before being eligible to be an AFC or FC. It all really boils down to which, if any, part of the standard is more important? Ideally of course, we'd like a dog that meets all areas of the standard. But IMHO, a Golden RETRIEVER should at least like birds and be proven to able to retrieve in the field before it calls itself a Champion.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I guess that is one area that you could blame the kennel club and not the parent club. Isn't it labs that wanted to require a WC for a dog to be considered a champion and AKC refused? My understanding is that while those dogs may be considered AKC champions, they are not considered champions by the breed club unless they have the WC.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

IowaGold said:


> Or maybe they should have to prove a certain herding prowess, say something akin to our WC or a JH (sorry don't really know the herding titles) BEFORE being eligible to show in conformation.
> 
> To be honest, I'd like to see something like that in Goldens. I don't think they would need to be field trial trained, but at least a JH or WCX. But then you have the other side of the coin, where some people would say that a dog should fit the written standard before being eligible to be an AFC or FC. It all really boils down to which, if any, part of the standard is more important? Ideally of course, we'd like a dog that meets all areas of the standard. But IMHO, a Golden RETRIEVER should at least like birds and be proven to able to retrieve in the field before it calls itself a Champion.


I know a couple of people who show and own Vizslas and the Code of Ethics of that parent club says that breeders will select stock that not only conform to the breed standard, but exhibit natural hunting ability. Many breeders have used that as their barometer a JH -- this is what I have been told by a couple of sources but I don't know how widespread the practice is or how closely breeders follow the suggestions of the Code of Ethics among vizslas.


----------



## Stircrazy (Nov 30, 2009)

IowaGold said:


> Or maybe they should have to prove a certain herding prowess, say something akin to our WC or a JH (sorry don't really know the herding titles) BEFORE being eligible to show in conformation.
> 
> To be honest, I'd like to see something like that in Goldens. I don't think they would need to be field trial trained, but at least a JH or WCX. But then you have the other side of the coin, where some people would say that a dog should fit the written standard before being eligible to be an AFC or FC. It all really boils down to which, if any, part of the standard is more important? Ideally of course, we'd like a dog that meets all areas of the standard. But IMHO, a Golden RETRIEVER should at least like birds and be proven to able to retrieve in the field before it calls itself a Champion.


I think sporting dogs should have to get a "championship" in preformance befor it should be allowed to show in confomation. I think that for all dogs which were bread for a purpose. get there qualification in that purpose then go for conformation but keep confomation as the bar for breeding. 

I feel in this manor the younger dogs can start there preformance training and do thoes compatitions, then the good ones from that go to the conformation so you are insuring that you get proven hunting, hearding, ect dogs that also meet the physical make up standard resulting in the best possible dog acording to the original purpose. 

as a side question, why is it allowed to alter the "standard" to me this seams silly. if a dog is supoed to be so tall, and weigh so much, why change it 20 years later to allow say a taller dog, or more weight. (just using these as an example) I think if looks were secondary to preformance there would be no need to change the standard. 

another thing I have been wondering about is how can people say the parent club for GRs is the GRCA? the golden was developed and established in Scotland and the original breed standard was developed. why do we have slightly different standards between UK, Canada and the US. the UK dogs are more stalky and heavier with lighter coats, broader heads and shorter muzzels, the us are more lanky have a weight range and are darker coats, the canadian have the build of the US dogs but a coat color inbetween the UK and US.. 
and field dogs are smaller than show dogs and darker coated.. so to me it reads that a proper example of what the dog was bread for generly would be excluded from the show ring.. 

it would be interesting to see the original standard from the late 1800's to see how it has changed over the years..

Steve


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> I guess that is one area that you could blame the kennel club and not the parent club. Isn't it labs that wanted to require a WC for a dog to be considered a champion and AKC refused? My understanding is that while those dogs may be considered AKC champions, they are not considered champions by the breed club unless they have the WC.


I wonder if the AKC could/would listen to a breed club if they required an AKC title, like a JH (thus easier for the AKC to track)? Maybe they could withhold awarding the Champion Certificate until the JH title was met?

I'm curious about the labs myself. I've got a friend with "English" labs (aka pigadors). I had asked her if the parent club enforced that rule for ads in their breed magazine (I assume they have a magazine like GRNews). Unfortunately she never did get back to me.

BTW Did you know that "English" Labs and "British" Labs are not the same thing? There was a booth with "British" Labs at Pheasant Fest, so of course I had to stop and ask. "British" Labs are basically just like our field labs (racier, lighter, etc.), except they are directly from Great Britain.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

sorry, I answered from my own geographic location, and here the parent club is the GRCA. 




Stircrazy said:


> another thing I have been wondering about is how can people say the parent club for GRs is the GRCA? the golden was developed and established in Scotland and the original breed standard was developed. why do we have slightly different standards between UK, Canada and the US. the UK dogs are more stalky and heavier with lighter coats, broader heads and shorter muzzels, the us are more lanky have a weight range and are darker coats, the canadian have the build of the US dogs but a coat color inbetween the UK and US..
> and field dogs are smaller than show dogs and darker coated.. so to me it reads that a proper example of what the dog was bread for generly would be excluded from the show ring..
> 
> it would be interesting to see the original standard from the late 1800's to see how it has changed over the years..
> ...


----------



## gabbys mom (Apr 23, 2008)

IowaGold said:


> I wonder if the AKC could/would listen to a breed club if they required an AKC title, like a JH (thus easier for the AKC to track)? Maybe they could withhold awarding the Champion Certificate until the JH title was met?
> 
> I'm curious about the labs myself. I've got a friend with "English" labs (aka pigadors). I had asked her if the parent club enforced that rule for ads in their breed magazine (I assume they have a magazine like GRNews). Unfortunately she never did get back to me.
> 
> BTW Did you know that "English" Labs and "British" Labs are not the same thing? There was a booth with "British" Labs at Pheasant Fest, so of course I had to stop and ask. "British" Labs are basically just like our field labs (racier, lighter, etc.), except they are directly from Great Britain.


I have owned labs for most of my life; showed them etc. 

There is no such thing as "English labradors" or "British labradors" except those being bred/born in Great Britain. It's much like the "English Creme Golden Retrievers"-- just a farce perpetuated by breeders that either don't care enough to explain it to pet people who misunderstand or who have found it works extremely well for them in marketing to less educated lab people. The only real divisions in Labs are "show, field and companion." 

Also, many pet people use the term "english labrador" to refer to those with a blockier head; this too is incorrect as the blockier head that you see today is distinctly an American creation.


----------



## gabbys mom (Apr 23, 2008)

IowaGold said:


> I'm curious about the labs myself. I've got a friend with "English" labs (aka pigadors). I had asked her if the parent club enforced that rule for ads in their breed magazine (I assume they have a magazine like GRNews). Unfortunately she never did get back to me.
> .


Currently the WC requirement is not enforced- it is supposed to be an honor policy (and I believe that is due to the lack of AKC cooperation in that regard). You may see some changes in that though as mainly field people are now in charge of the LRC.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Okay a few things here.
First off, yes golden originated in Scotland and the first original standard for goldens was established by the British KC and still stands today (whether it has changed from the original set forth a hundred years ago I have no idea).
The American golden standard was written and nearly identical save for changes in vernacular to the British standard when the GRCA was formed and goldens accepted by AKC in the 1930s. 
If you read the British standard, even today, it is very brief and leaves a LOT of room open for interpretation. The change in the US standard only added text to further explain and not leave grey areas in the standard. Yes there are some minor differences between the US and UK standards. The UK standard allows for any color from cream to gold, whereas the US standard implicitly states any dog who is so light as to be considered white is a major fault. The US standard implicitly states "Untrimmed natural ruff" -- the UK standard does not -- thus we see the extreme grooming of the neck in the UK show rings. Now whether or not one is more correct -- I don't think there is any reason to pick. The AKC has their requirements to recognize a breed, and the golden fanciers of the time had to follow that, and that meant creating a breed standard and having AKC approve it. I don't think our standard needs changing and is rather detailed.
Now as far as changing a standard -- really you will not see dramatic changes made to a standard over time. The only noted case of this in recent history was 10-15 years ago when the Labrador standard added a DQ (disqualification) for height (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Before there was a suggested height but not a DQ for over or under. (FYI Goldens have a height DQ.) A group of lab breeders even sued the LRC and AKC because guess what, their labs that previously were just faulty and out of standard height were now DQed. Well whose fault was it for breeding labs that exceeded or did not meet the standard in the first place? Height is one of the few DQs that can be absolutely measured and quantified, there is no arguing with it. 
The only thing I disagree with in our golden standard is that there is a DQ for entropion/ectropion. Well not that I think a golden should receive show points with either of those diseases but they are judged by dog show judges and not veterinarians. Some mild cases of entropion or ectropion are not visible upon a 2 minute once-over in the ring and any staining could be covered up by makeup. On the other hand just this past winter I saw a very lovely bitch in the ring, with HORRID eye stains -- and apparently she had been DQed once already by the judge who suspected entropion. Good for the judge -- but shaky ground in our standard. Maybe these problems were more prevalent back in the day, we just don't see entropion/ectropion that much in show goldens.
Now for the performance requirement debate. I absolutely understand and support the idea of only dogs with some performance ability becoming "Breed champions." That is a really nice thought. Totally and 100% impractical. Here's why. If you REQUIRE something that means people will CHEAT to make it happen. Well maybe "cheat" is a strong word but -- let's just say -- not all requirements are made equal. Does a dog who is a breed champion yet took 10 tries with a professional field trainer to get a WC sound like a RETRIEVER to you??!!!!
Look at the Lab WC. It's even more dumbed down than our WC is. Two singles on land and ONE on water. These are less than 50 yards. I have seen dogs FAIL this. If you make it a requirement, those dogs with not an ounce of retrieving ability are still going to be able to pass one eventually. Just like some goldens with way too much bulk, hair and no trainability or natural desire can go and get a JH with enough time to kill. Does that prove anything to anybody? NO. It's still UP TO THE BREEDERS and the COMMUNITY OF FANCIERS to apply peer pressure and EDUCATE themselves on how to select breeding stock with working ability. 
I feel the same way about clearances. There's no way I would breed to or buy from a dog without all 4 clearances. But the second you say clearances are REQUIRED to register a litter or a dog must pass all 4 before being a champion -- well guess what, that sets the stage for people to be devious and substitute dogs during exams to pass a clearance, to forge papers, to get 10 exams before someone passes the dog. Is that any better? 
We golden people have it good when it comes to clearances and I hope it gets this way with performance (hunting) ability. There is so much pressure from the GRCA's COE and just the community of breeders and buyers that someone who knowingly breeds without a clearance is held very suspect. 
Okay, there's my take.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<<We golden people have it good when it comes to clearances and I hope it gets this way with performance (hunting) ability. There is so much pressure from the GRCA's COE and just the community of breeders and buyers that someone who knowingly breeds without a clearance is held very suspect.>>

Wanted to elaborate for a second on why I really like what the golden community has forged as far as peer pressure for clearances. Recently I was talking to someone who owns & shows Mastiffs. We somehow got on the subject of hip dysplasia and she said well my dog's mother wasn't OFA'd until after the litter, and besides it really didn't matter to me. I was floored. In Mastiffs, the national club's COE does not suggest official clearances and many Mastiff breeders only do a hip clearance if they suspect a problem. To them, knowing the lines, watching the dog's movement and looking at hip xrays themselves is good enough. And true to be told, if you look at the total number of hip xrays evaluated by OFA for that breed, it is SUPER low. To the person I was talking to, hip dysplasia wasn't a big deal in her breed and they didn't get to hyper about it. She thought it was silly that we golden people NEEDED OFA to tell us how our dog's hips were. This blew my mind! Yet if you look at the rankings put out by OFA, goldens are something like #36 for prevalence of hip dysplasia and mastiffs are like #38...not that much difference. So I applaud our breed for being so demanding and proactive when it comes to health and clearances.


----------

