# Champion title discussion



## Nate83

Who else feels that it would make sense for a dog breed to be a hunt dog to have a hunt title on it before it can be considered a champion, which means it meet breed standards?


----------



## TheZ's

The GRF has changed a bit but you used to be able to get people here really going with a comment like this.


----------



## Nate83

I don't understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## usually lurking

TheZ's is saying that it may be lead to a heated debate.


----------



## LJack

By that same token should they have to earn a Championship to get credit for hunt titles?


----------



## Nate83

Personally I feel if a dog was breed for a given job then in order to be call a breed standard it should due what was breed for. Hunt title, tracking title and good conformation (don't want to breed defects into the gene pool)


----------



## Megora

LJack said:


> By that same token should they have to earn a Championship to get credit for hunt titles?


To prove that they are breed standard, of course... :nerd:

What I understand the OP is asking is that GRCA would not recognize CH titles unless the dogs prove that they are hunting dogs by a minimal field title (IE, JH).

This would not affect most of the people who just send the dogs out to live most of their young adult lives with handlers. The same people would not have a problem sending the dogs out for serious crunch time training with a field person (types of people who have ten million dogs on their truck) and getting a title put on them, over and done. 

This would affect the people who value their dogs, keep them close to home, and are not sending them out to live with and be trained by somebody sight unseen.

Biggest concern for somebody like me is the mistreatment of dogs at some places. You have that in conformation, including a tragedy that occurred 2 years ago that send really big shock waves through the show rings locally, because it was a very popular handler and a lot of goldens died.

But there are similar stories in field with dogs being mistreated or handled roughly. 

And you add another layer of concern when you have people who do not believe there is a fits all way of training dogs. Lot of us do not believe that all dogs should get handled the same way or put aside when they cannot handle that type of training method. 

Go into obedience where you get more spillover from conformation, and there are a myriad of ways of training everything.

Re the field thing - the way to avoid the concern about rough handling with the dogs would be owner handling the dogs to JH titles. Which is doable but can be tricky when you have a full time job and tight budget. Those 2 things mean you pick and choose the areas where you want to focus on.


----------



## ArchersMom

Wasn't that why the WC was created? There are some breeds that still stress working ability. It's a bit redundant anymore. With enough time and training most dogs could pass a WC or JH. The owner just has to spend the time and money. In fact I've seen a CH golden that was on a Pros truck for forever. If I remember correctly from when I looked up the dogs, it took over 10 tests to earn a JH title.


----------



## jwemt81

No. I do not agree with that at all. Conformation is strictly about the structure and movement of a dog and has nothing to do with the dog's ability to retrieve birds. Not all Goldens are cut out for hunting. Field work and conformation are like apples and oranges and have nothing to do with one another. In fact, many field Goldens are bred to have an entirely different structure than conformation lines. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in hunting/field work and only have a vested interest in conformation. If you are interested in doing both field work as well as showing in conformation, then more power to you and you should absolutely pursue both if you have that kind of multipurpose dog, but having a hunting title should absolutely not be a requirement in order for a dog to be successful in the show ring and become titled.


----------



## Swampcollie

It depends upon the breed and country. At this time it is required in some lands earn a Field certificate or title for a CH to be awarded. So the concept isn't so far fetched.

Requiring a dog to earn a WC prior to being awarded a CH isn't too much to ask IMHDAO.


----------



## Nate83

"What I understand the OP is asking is that GRCA would not recognize CH titles unless the dogs prove that they are hunting dogs by a minimal field title (IE, JH)." Excatly what i was getting to. I would even say that towards border collies as well. They where breed to herd so in order to get a champion title they should get a herd title. In Germany German shepherds need have to complete three test before they can be breed. Just a thought to better the breed.


----------



## jwemt81

TheZ's said:


> The GRF has changed a bit but you used to be able to get people here really going with a comment like this.


Soooooooo true! :bowl:


----------



## GoldenCamper

I never hunted my dogs but Fiona was a master at finding vole's and turtles 

Regardless I believe all of my Goldens could have swam through icy waters and sit all day in a blind then afterward run zigzags through imaginary agility poles.

They don't need a hunt title to be Golden. They are capable of being anything you want them to be.


----------



## Megora

Nate83 said:


> "What I understand the OP is asking is that GRCA would not recognize CH titles unless the dogs prove that they are hunting dogs by a minimal field title (IE, JH)." Excatly what i was getting to. I would even say that towards border collies as well. They where breed to herd so in order to get a champion title they should get a herd title. In Germany German shepherds need have to complete three test before they can be breed. Just a thought to better the breed.


The problem you start out with is people saying you can't bring them to the table to discuss forcing them to do something to prove the dogs are "breed standard", when the other side is not put to the same rigors to compete in two completely different sports.

Meaning, you have the old guys who just roll out to do field work with their dogs are putting 100% of their focus on field work with their dogs. They are not putting too much rigor or test into making sure they only breed dogs who could go from field into the show ring without people asking what breed they are. 

Flip side of that is you have conformation people who are chasing CH titles and showing every weekend during the year. And when they aren't doing that, they have other things they do. Majority of people I know are breeders and are raising litters when not showing. And they work full time as well. 

What you suggest is going to these people and telling them they need to put a very minimal effort into a sloppy quick fix field title. And that is what you get when you have dogs going out there 10 times or whatever to get a title.... as opposed to those dogs who have dedicated trainers raising them and putting a lot of time into training them.

You have this in other breeds already. And it is not raising the level of excellence in those breed by any means. 

You have people like a specific person of a different breed whose main focus in funding their dogs conformation careers (including maintaining a top spot in the breed by showing all the time). And they have decided that they want obedience and field titles on these dogs as well. So a 3 year old is put through boot camp in two different sports to hopeful title in both in the same year so the breed can charge more stud fees and put extra on the advertising. 

My friend who specifically took back the 3 year old mentioned above to cram a JH and a CD on this dog before the summer was over laughed about going into the obedience ring with a paper bag on her head because the dog did not have the amount of training and proving time put in before competing. The owner did not care if the scores were all in the 170's. They just wanted the CD. 

I don't know specifics about the JH, but I do know for a fact that the owner sent the dog home to the breeder to be trained 3 WEEKS before a weekend of trials the dog was entered in. 

The dog got his CD with only 3 weeks worth of really focused training. 

Which was doable, but very ugly.

Along the same lines, there's a big name breeder who got her start in both conformation and obedience. And the little known fact is that she would cram obedience titles to get them done. Scores would be low and performances very ugly, but 30+ years later, we all just see the titles on the dogs. 

She ended up switching gears and focusing only on obedience. And it was at that point that the level of performance improved drastically. Because she was putting 100% into it.


----------



## Nate83

A golden was breed to be a hunting dog not a show dog. wouldn't you agree that if a dog is breed to do a given job it should able to do that job? BTW i am not saying because a golden cant get a hunt title it is a bad golden far from it what i am saying is for a good breed stock would it not make sense for the dog to have title that reflect its breed propose?


----------



## mylissyk

jwemt81 said:


> No. I do not agree with that at all. Conformation is strictly about the structure and movement of a dog and has nothing to do with the dog's ability to retrieve birds. Not all Goldens are cut out for hunting. Field work and conformation are like apples and oranges and have nothing to do with one another. In fact, many field Goldens are bred to have an entirely different structure than conformation lines. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in hunting/field work and only have a vested interest in conformation. If you are interested in doing both field work as well as showing in conformation, then more power to you and you should absolutely pursue both if you have that kind of multipurpose dog, but having a hunting title should absolutely not be a requirement in order for a dog to be successful in the show ring and become titled.


The written AKC Golden Retriever Standard states they are primarily hunting dogs, conformation dogs should meet the standard, that's the whole point. A conformation dog should be able to retrieve birds.

General Appearance — a symmetrical, powerful, active dog, sound and well put together, not clumsy nor long in the leg, displaying a kindly expression and possessing a personality that is eager, alert and self-confident. _Primarily a hunting dog, he should be shown in hard working condition. _Over-all appearance, balance, gait and purpose to be given more emphasis than any of his component parts.


----------



## mylissyk

This is sounding like there should be two breeds.


----------



## Swampcollie

ArchersMom said:


> Wasn't that why the WC was created? There are some breeds that still stress working ability. It's a bit redundant anymore. With enough time and training most dogs could pass a WC or JH. The owner just has to spend the time and money. In fact I've seen a CH golden that was on a Pros truck for forever. If I remember correctly from when I looked up the dogs, it took over 10 tests to earn a JH title.


The GRCA WC is a test to assess the basic "Raw Talent" the dog comes with. There really isn't much trained ability required. From a trainability standpoint the WC is easier than an AKC JH where delivery to hand is a requirement. 

The Breed Standard states the golden retriever is supposed to be a hunting dog. A Conformation Championship is supposed to be awarded to dogs that demonstrate "bred in" superior conformance to the Breed Standard. It kind of weakens the meaning and value of a CH Title when one is awarded without testing or demonstrating conformance to a portion of the Breed Standard. 


Yes, I have seen/judged numerous CH dogs trying to earn a JH. Sometimes be a Golden Retriever fan can be painful to watch.


----------



## Nate83

The way I read it yes. If you look way back in the golden history all the dogs where smaller and slimmer then now, they also tended to be dark as well. Culham Brass is a good example of this.


----------



## Nate83

Swampcollie said:


> The Breed Standard states the golden retriever is supposed to be a hunting dog. A Conformation Championship is supposed to be awarded to dogs that demonstrate "bred in" superior conformance to the Breed Standard. It kind of weakens the meaning and value of a CH Title when one is awarded without testing or demonstrating conformance to a portion of the Breed Standard.


I agree. BTW i learned today what a swampcollie is LOL


----------



## hotel4dogs

The problem with it is that then the WC will get dumbed down so that a 14 year old 3 legged blind beagle could pass with no training.
If you doubt it, look at the Labrador WC test.



Swampcollie said:


> It depends upon the breed and country. At this time it is required in some lands earn a Field certificate or title for a CH to be awarded. So the concept isn't so far fetched.
> 
> Requiring a dog to earn a WC prior to being awarded a CH isn't too much to ask IMHDAO.


----------



## Megora

Nate83 said:


> A golden was breed to be a hunting dog not a show dog. wouldn't you agree that if a dog is breed to do a given job it should able to do that job? BTW i am not saying because a golden cant get a hunt title it is a bad golden far from it what i am saying is for a good breed stock would it not make sense for the dog to have title that reflect its breed propose?


You talk to anyone out there, and they are going to tell you that when they get a golden retriever, they are anticipating having a dog who can do everything the owner wants to do. 

In general, this is a sporting breed. It is a breed that you expect to be active, engaging, and confident.

And a lot of us will say straight up that this is not the best apartment breed. This is not the best "babysitter" breed. This is not the best senior citizen breed (if raising from puppyhood). And this is not necessary the breed for couch potatoes in general. 

Modifying the purposes the dogs are bred for so they make good dogs for all of those homes, is troubling. It's actually a bigger reason for a split in the breed. It's not necessarily dogs being bred specifically for the show ring.

If you read off the bit that Mylissyk shared re the breed standard, there are those of us out there who are pretty confident about our dogs being what is described there. All the more with those of us showing 5 year olds who thankfully have not fallen apart in middle age (ie, dogs are in the best shape of their lives at 2-3 years old, and then after that they start putting on weight and losing some of the drive and flash they had when younger). 

This show boy that I own is not the best pet for seniors. He's a gentleman with obedience titles, but he's also a lot of dog. He needs outlets for energy. He needs to work. This is a dog that needs to go out on weekends and run and swim. We've had a particularly constant winter since the beginning of Dec, so we haven't had access to swimming since then, but he still needs to run. And does get a lot of off leash time. 

That's stuff that's not applied to field titles, but it's what you expect to have in a sporting breed. 

And having gone out there with my dog representing goldens in the sporting group (and also on a different scale, we did win the Owner/Handler Sporting Group a couple times as well and got to represent the group) - you know your dog belongs out there when he's driving forward all muscle and soundness.


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> The problem with it is that then the WC will get dumbed down so that a 14 year old 3 legged blind beagle could pass with no training.
> If you doubt it, look at the Labrador WC test.


Yep, the Lab WC test is pretty darned easy. But, they still have to pick up a single and bring it back in order to have their CH recognized by the LRCA. 

The GRCA doesn't require even that much.


----------



## gdgli

Nate83 said:


> Who else feels that it would make sense for a dog breed to be a hunt dog to have a hunt title on it before it can be considered a champion, which means it meet breed standards?


That can lead to quite a heated discussion.


----------



## nolefan

What happens when eventually Goldens lose the original traits that have made them so special to us? If people breed Goldens with out any attempt to retain their retrieving instinct or their water instinct or their desire to work or their desire to please people you can bet that day will eventually come. Already, too many people will say that their Golden doesn't care for water, or their Golden will chase a ball but has no interest in bringing it back. Or how about people you know who complain that their dog is 'high energy' but isn't biddable, clearly has no interest in working with people.

You may not love to hunt but if you truly love Goldens, not just for what they are on the exterior but for what they are on the inside, you absolutely should care about this issue. It is a crying shame that our primary breeding stock for the breed, conformation Goldens, are producing generation after generation of dogs with all the emphasis being placed on physical characteristics and not nearly enough being placed on mental traits and instinct. The outside matters, but it's the inside that makes them such beloved companions and working dogs.


----------



## gdgli

Unfortunately, participation in field events has declined in my club. When I first went out to a training session I waited three hours in the rain to run my dog. The late Janet Bunce was also there. EVERYONE came out. Now the interest is not there and unfortunately "primarily a hunting dog" is just a thought here on Long Island. I really do not want to judge but there is one drawback and that is that there are at least two types of Goldens with a possible third type developing i.e. a divergence in the breed.

I just hope that our breed does not go the way of the Irish Setter.


----------



## Swampcollie

This right here is the heart of the issue.


> You may not love to hunt but if you truly love Goldens, not just for what they are on the exterior but for what they are on the inside, you absolutely should care about this issue. It is a crying shame that our primary breeding stock for the breed, conformation Goldens, are producing generation after generation of dogs with all the emphasis being placed on physical characteristics and not nearly enough being placed on mental traits and instinct. The outside matters, but it's the inside that makes them such beloved companions and working dogs.


Getting the balance of qualities that make up personality and temperament right, and maintaining it, is HARD. If you just simply decide to ignore a substantial portion of what makes a Golden a Golden because nobody can see it in the Conformation ring, are you really producing a superior dog worthy of a CH Title?


----------



## LJack

By that same token if a dog is carrying many penalizing faults like disqualification size issues, huge splashes of white, yellow wolf style eyes and hard expressions is that a problem? 

If the dog is a really competitive hunt/field dog but ultimately is more identified as a generic hunting dog than Golden, then what?


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

yOu know, I don't care to get into a fighting match, but conformation is completely subjective to the judges opinions on looks. I don't necessarily think that a field golden is not breed standard just because it doesn't have a CH in front of his name. Often times field goldens have beautiful structure but aren't draped in fur or have huge blocky heads or the trendy color of fur. Put a field golden that is really nicely structured in the ring next to big broad heads with heavily boned long furred bodies and I would say nine out of ten times the judges will pick the broad heads. It would take a very objective judge to have the balls to say, hey, that field golden might not look as "pretty" but shoot he is built nicer. 

And I happen to think my field bred golden looks quite "pretty" in this photo....


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

ha, Ironically the field trialers I know HATE those yellow eyes!! I know a breeder personally that will NOT breed a dog if the eyes are yellow. So field breeders do try hard to do a good job on some stuff too!


----------



## Nate83

gdgli said:


> That can lead to quite a heated discussion.


I wanted a lively debate and i feel i got it.


----------



## Nate83

LJack said:


> By that same token if a dog is carrying many penalizing faults like disqualification size issues, huge splashes of white, yellow wolf style eyes and hard expressions is that a problem?
> 
> If the dog is a really competitive hunt/field dog but ultimately is more identified as a generic hunting dog than Golden, then what?


there are plenty breeders that will breed with a dog that has a metric ton of hunting title and is a good dog, im not talking throwing money at it to get the title but a good dog.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I feel like this thread is going to degenerate fast.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Other countries require a hunting title to have a full CH...
but LJack's question is fair if one sees the two venues as equals. But you don't want the hunting titled dogs to have to be correct as well, right? I think what you're saying is you would like to know a dog getting a CH is truly a dog who can earn at least a WC, implying he has ability to be a gentleman's hunting companion and not just arm candy?


----------



## Nate83

This is Eng. CH. Noranby Campfire, he is the first golden champion. The other pic is a current champion, you can see the difference in everything from the coat to the overall size and build.


----------



## Nate83

hotel4dogs said:


> I feel like this thread is going to degenerate fast.


 Not at all it is a very good discussion and everyone has there points


----------



## Megora

MillionsofPeaches said:


> yOu know, I don't care to get into a fighting match, but conformation is completely subjective to the judges opinions on looks. I don't necessarily think that a field golden is not breed standard just because it doesn't have a CH in front of his name. Often times field goldens have beautiful structure but aren't draped in fur or have huge blocky heads or the trendy color of fur. Put a field golden that is really nicely structured in the ring next to big broad heads with heavily boned long furred bodies and I would say nine out of ten times the judges will pick the broad heads. It would take a very objective judge to have the balls to say, hey, that field golden might not look as "pretty" but shoot he is built nicer.


The most beautiful structure I've seen on a golden retriever was one that I believe came from a big field/performance breeder here in MI. I'd name the breeder, except because of what I'm gonna say here.

I was sitting back and watching this dog retrieve gloves, articles, dumbells - and when she was away from her owner, she was really pretty to look at. Same thing when stacked up and holding a stay. Very balanced, nice front and back. 

But she was about 4" undersized. 

And she had a coat more like long-haired Vizslas than a golden retriever. Meaning more of a single coat and no furnishings (breed standard calls for moderate furnishings). 

She had a narrow head as well, and oversized/long ears. 

This dog would not even be allowed in the ring because of the size DQ. 

Other thing wrong with this dog which I would believe was more a trained behavior vs structural related because she moved smoothly from head to tail when fetching..... But she gaited like a hackney horse in heel position. With feet going higher than her head. 

In the conformation ring, you do get judges who don't know how to judge movement. With all breed judges favoring flashy and breeder judges supposedly favoring movement where the feet aren't flying off the ground. 

And most of the time that I've seen - it seems like the judges have 2 sticky areas that can make or break a dog in the show ring.

1. does the handler know how to handle the dog and keep it looking nice 99% of the time in the ring. With them knowing to "hide" the dog the other 1%.

2. solid movement

Heads are something that judges look for (I think), but a lot of dogs with gorgeous heads lose out there day in and day out because they can't control themselves when moving + the handlers aren't that great at catching the judge's eye in a good way.


----------



## Nate83

Prism Goldens said:


> Other countries require a hunting title to have a full CH...
> but LJack's question is fair if one sees the two venues as equals. But you don't want the hunting titled dogs to have to be correct as well, right? I think what you're saying is you would like to know a dog getting a CH is truly a dog who can earn at least a WC, implying he has ability to be a gentleman's hunting companion and not just arm candy?


 Yep perfectly said


----------



## LJack

I’ll be honest nearly all dog sports are dying off. Those competing are usually ultra focused on one discipline. Also the disciplines are becoming extreme.

Field trials and Conformation award extremes not moderation. To require that Conformation Championships have a work clause in them hints at the perception of extremes. Not that I disagree, there are extremes for sure. 

Field dogs are also extreme so to moderate them, then I would think that a similar requirement would be beneficial. Say passing the CCA for SH, MH, FCs or AFCs to be recognized. However, my local club won’t even offer a CCA this year because it losses money and there is not enough interest.

Most countries that have a working requirement do not have the same trials we do, nor are their Conformation rings stacked with professionals. 

If we want our breed and sports to still be around, we need to get inclusive not exclusive. How many homes hunt these days? Is there another way to get these qualities tested? How about dock diving? What about obedience where retrieving is required? Barn hunt? Does it have to be what you are thinking right now? 

I have seen this conversation devolve many times. Hunt enthusiasts want to limit Conformation enthusiasts and make this suggestion. First it is a WC requirement, then that won’t be enough for some, then it becomes the JH, then some will say well they don’t have to honor so it has to be a MH, then it becomes well they really should have to trial. There is no one answer to this. 

My ultimate question is why do you think a Champion is not bred to the standard? What about the dog makes you believe they can’t do the work? 

Does a Ridgeback need to hunt lion to prove themselves? Do Dals have to find a carriage to prove themselves? There are breeds with an original purpose that doesn’t really exist in our current world. Does that mean they don’t meet their standard? 

I have no desire to kill ducks for a hobby. I have no desire to get my dogs bit by a Gila Monster or Rattle Snake, very real concerns in my state. Nor do I want to send my dog off to someone when I don’t do that for Conformation. I fully support anyone who does want to do these things, right down to voting to maintain those rights. However my lack of interest, decision to spend my money on my family or passions does not mean I don’t look for these traits. 

Adding a requirement like this will only drive people right out of showing. I know I would leave. It is already hard enough for me as a middle class working person to complete in the venue I am passionate about. I just don’t have the time, money or inclination to travel and train for a title that does not appeal to me personally.


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

Here's an interesting point. 

It seems that a field golden can do the work despite lacking the so called structure that conformation golden breeders inset they need to function in the field. Why do you think that is?


----------



## Megora

changed mind


----------



## gdgli

For the record, the poodles I have seen in the field and not suitable for my pheasant hunting or my duck hunting. My hunting requires extremely athletic dogs with extremely high drive and and insane love for water


----------



## LJack

Nate83 said:


> This is Eng. CH. Noranby Campfire, he is the first golden champion. The other pic is a current champion, you can see the difference in everything from the coat to the overall size and build.


I am curious do you believe that the breeders of Noranby Camfite at the he was born, just 3 years after they were first shown as flat coats (Golden), considered this dog to be the template by which all future Goldens should be judged?

Are there differences? Of course! I for one lament the amount of coat we are seeing in the ring. 

I think a lot of what you see a drastic differences though has more to do with hair (I agree with you there is too much), grooming, presentation and the development of breed type. Remember the standard is a written template there are bound to be variations in interpretation. That is actually a good thing for the breed.


----------



## Megora

changed mind


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

Yes that fur is kind of what I’ve been thinking about as far as getting the job done. I have heard so many people say the dogs need a lot of coat to keep them warm while hunting in the winter And swimming. Yet I see field Golden’s with less coat do just fine while I see heavy coated dogs struggle to pull themselves out of the water while lugging all that heavy water logged coat with them. Glad to hear there are breeders that try to stay away from that.


----------



## LJack

MillionsofPeaches said:


> Here's an interesting point.
> 
> It seems that a field golden can do the work despite lacking the so called structure that conformation golden breeders inset they need to function in the field. Why do you think that is?


That to me is an easy question to answer. First and formost because a dog with Drive will do the job even it it hurts or kills them. I have seen my Min Pin do just that. Min Pins have serious vermin hunting blood behind them. He just about killed himself several times and caused permanent damage to his body. He was extremely incorrect and though his instincts said yes his body paid the price especially as he aged. 

Second generic hunting dogs do great jobs, however generic is not Golden. The standard is a blueprint or template first started by expert dog people and usually horse people. What is in there is designed to build a Golden not a generic hunting dog. The things they included are designed to make a Golden able to do his original job well, easily and ultimately as pain free as possible. 

If generic hunting dog is all it took to be any sporting breed, all the standards would be identical. But instead the breed founders wanted different things in their partners.


----------



## gdgli

Megora said:


> Question is though, if you wanted extremely athletic and extremely high drive.... why get a golden retriever when there are other breeds out there who are show bred, breed standard, and have all of that to offer in addition to being extremely athletic and extremely high drive?
> 
> That's about the same amount of concerning as people who want newfie heads and collie coats on show goldens.
> 
> Many of us are into golden retrievers to begin with because other retriever breeds and pointing retriever breeds too are too much dog for most people who aren't living outside or something.


Your post suggests that Goldens should not be extremely athletic and extremely high drive. That is the root of the problem. The dog is supposed to be a hunting dog. My needs are for the athlete. I am a hunter. I hunt my dog five hours or more at a time. Why should I use a retriever breed with an inferior nose?


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

Gosh why do people always act like Field Golden’s are bouncing off the all all the time. They have such great off switches at home. Shoot should they not be high drive in the field or is that also considered too much dog as well? I have a family and kids and no land to speak of. I couldn’t handle a dog that was bouncing off the walls. 

I do fear that the natural drive and desire of the Golden is being bred out of them so they won’t be too much dog for some people. And since hunting and field is my venue and it is what the dog is supposed to do this scares me for the breed. 

I’m not as king for show people to stop showing. I could care less if that’s what you like to do. But I do worry about the breed with some of these tweaks that evolve over time due to subjective judges in the ring that ultimately determine the future generations of golden retrievers. Think about the fur. A couple judges choose overly heavy coats and then breeders start breeding for more coat. Well this truly is detrimental to the dog as an outdoor athletic lifestyle hunting.


----------



## Megora

changed mind


----------



## gdgli

Megora
Your post said if I want extremely athletic and extremely high drive why not get another breed. Implication is that this is not in our breed.


----------



## LJack

MillionsofPeaches said:


> A couple judges choose overly heavy coats and then breeders start breeding for more coat. Well this truly is detrimental to the dog as an outdoor athletic lifestyle hunting.


Are you sure that’s how that happened? 

I have heard a different story driven more by a breeder or breeders determined to remake the breed. 

I have no idea which is true. Unless there is evidence, I don’t know that we can say either way.


----------



## Megora

gdgli said:


> Megora
> Your post said if I want extremely athletic and extremely high drive why not get another breed. Implication is that this is not in our breed.


If you want me to put italics in to emphasize the words you used, I can do that.

I saw the emphasis on "extremely", vs emphasis on having a naturally athletic and high drive dog.


----------



## Nate83

LJack said:


> MillionsofPeaches said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple judges choose overly heavy coats and then breeders start breeding for more coat. Well this truly is detrimental to the dog as an outdoor athletic lifestyle hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure that’s how that happened?
> 
> I have heard a different story driven more by a breeder or breeders determined to remake the breed.
> 
> I have no idea which is true. Unless there is evidence, I don’t know that we can say either way.
Click to expand...

From my reading the coat separation happened around 1910s. Color is another big change that happen around that time.


----------



## K9-Design

Jeeze where have I been all day on this thread?!

Nate - I appreciate your independent thought on this topic.
Look at the pictures of goldens from WAY BEFORE Noramby Campfire, the original Magoffin dogs, they are much more moderate and bigger dogs.
Campfire was only 10 months old in that photo -- a lanky teenager.

Goldens were not recognized by the AKC for another 22 years --- the "separation" started during the late 70s & early 80s
The breed's last Dual Champion was in the early 70s

What drove the separation? Too many breeders focusing on one area of competition and those venues becoming exponentially more competitive. The extremes won. The moderates got left in the dust. Same reason they keep moving back the 3 point line in basketball. Kids get better, the old game isn't a challenge anymore.

I strongly, strongly am against requiring any title to validate another title in another venue. What happens when you "require" a hunting title to validate a breed CH? Well the hunting title requirement gets dumbed down so hard, it's no longer a challenge to pass it. If it's not a challenge, why bother. What is it proving.

Here's the other issue. A piece of paper stating a dog holds "X" title means NOTHING. It means he met the statistical requirements of the title. 
A CH certificate doesn't tell you how good of a front the dog has, is he balanced, does he have slipped hocks, is he too long in back, does he track wide. Nope. It tells you he got 15 points and two majors. How did he get 15 points and two majors? Was he shown sparingly to breeder judges by his amateur owner? Did he finish from the puppy classes? Did he finish after his owner dragged him to 300 shows? Did he finish after being on 5 different pro handlers trucks for 4 years? 

Same for any performance venue. I know a BIG NAME show Champion golden who took nearly 40 tries to finish his JUNIOR HUNTER.
I know a GRAND CHAMPION show golden who took a staggering FIFTY-SIX TRIES to earn a Master Hunter. It has the same elusive "Dual Dog Hall of Fame" notoriety as my GRAND CHAMPION show golden who took a tidy SIX TRIES to earn his Master Hunter. Same titles. Very different stories.

A dog is measured in the eye of the beholder. Titles tell you nothing. Go see him and judge for yourself. Stay critical.


----------



## myluckypenny

I have one of both, a small field golden (she's only 47lbs, super petite, and very light on coat) and a show golden with lots of bone and too much hair (as in I will never take him pheasant hunting because the amount of burrs he would attract is frightening to think about). I frequently say that my perfect dog would be a mixture of them both. The conformation and temperament of my show line, the drive, energy, and smarts of my field line, with a coat somewhere in between. But I don't think requiring certain titles to achieve other titles is the answer to that though, its supporting those breeders that do strive for the all-around dog, which is what I will do with my next golden! That and when you get your dog Nate, make an effort to show that your dog can do it all.


----------



## Nate83

I oldest dog I've seen was Nous but he isn't a true golden retriever. Culham is the one that has the best poise to compare with. When you say the 70s you are speaking 1970s correct? AKC took longer then the English kennel to recognize the breed and the article i believe was talking about the coat and color separation within the English kennel. I got your take on it Prisms and a ton others the post would be complete if Marcia Schlehr posted her thoughts. LOL.
Btw k9-design I will be getting a boy golden soon and will be using Fisher as a model, I got my work cut out.


----------



## Nate83

myluckypenny said:


> I have one of both, a small field golden (she's only 47lbs, super petite, and very light on coat) and a show golden with lots of bone and too much hair (as in I will never take him pheasant hunting because the amount of burrs he would attract is frightening to think about). I frequently say that my perfect dog would be a mixture of them both. The conformation and temperament of my show line, the drive, energy, and smarts of my field line, with a coat somewhere in between. But I don't think requiring certain titles to achieve other titles is the answer to that though, its supporting those breeders that do strive for the all-around dog, which is what I will do with my next golden! That and when you get your dog Nate, make an effort to show that your dog can do it all.


O I have ever intention to try to dabble in everything, like I told k9 I am using her boy Fisher as a model.


----------



## myluckypenny

Nate83 said:


> O I have ever intention to try to dabble in everything, like I told k9 I am using her boy Fisher as a model.


Hah, she doesn't know it, but her boy Fisher is my model as well  Which is funny, because my boy's name actually is Fisher (named before I knew about him).


----------



## K9-Design

Yes 1970s I thought you were implying a split between show and field not English vs. American

Use Bally as a model, he's a better dog...
But I appreciate the sentiment!
OK Fisher was THE BEST 

my best advice -- if you want to compete and earn high level titles in multiple venues....choose pedigrees with dogs competing and earning high level titles in multiple venues -- oh! and be a good dog trainer (the hardest part!)

Best of luck!


----------



## Nate83

No the article was talking about coat and color separation during the 1910s so I assumed they where talking about the English kennel. 
I almost got a bally boy but there was a mix up with the breeder so it didn't happen. The line of the boy im getting looks good.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Anney and Fisher were the inspiration for me and Tito, too.
We set out to prove that a moderate dog with a nice structure (who was bred only to be a pet) could achieve success in multiple venues, without ever being sent out to live with a trainer or handler. 



Nate83 said:


> O I have ever intention to try to dabble in everything, like I told k9 I am using her boy Fisher as a model.


----------



## usually lurking

K9-Design said:


> Here's the other issue. A piece of paper stating a dog holds "X" title means NOTHING. It means he met the statistical requirements of the title.
> A CH certificate doesn't tell you how good of a front the dog has, is he balanced, does he have slipped hocks, is he too long in back, does he track wide. Nope. It tells you he got 15 points and two majors. How did he get 15 points and two majors? Was he shown sparingly to breeder judges by his amateur owner? Did he finish from the puppy classes? Did he finish after his owner dragged him to 300 shows? Did he finish after being on 5 different pro handlers trucks for 4 years?
> 
> Same for any performance venue. I know a BIG NAME show Champion golden who took nearly 40 tries to finish his JUNIOR HUNTER.
> I know a GRAND CHAMPION show golden who took a staggering FIFTY-SIX TRIES to earn a Master Hunter. It has the same elusive "Dual Dog Hall of Fame" notoriety as my GRAND CHAMPION show golden who took a tidy SIX TRIES to earn his Master Hunter. Same titles. Very different stories.
> 
> A dog is measured in the eye of the beholder. Titles tell you nothing. Go see him and judge for yourself. Stay critical.


This. I believe, Nate, that what you are truly looking for beyond good structure, is not only a dog that is biddable, but that wants to work and derives pleasure from working. My last Golden, while he had great conformation, was miserable doing anything other than being a playmate and babysitter. Don't get me wrong, he was a great family dog, but he never would have made it in the field or the obedience ring, even despite being biddable. Would he do it, if I really pushed? Yes, but he didn't want to. He had zero work ethic, unless it was related to the kids. Current dog is a "pet." That is what I asked for, and that is what I got, just like the prior one - sort of.... He has enough structural faults that he would never earn a CH in the breed ring, and there isn't anything in his pedigree other than a lot of CH, GCH, and lower level titles (and even those are few and far between. I cannot, off hand, recall frequency of titles for half siblings). Having said that, he has an amazing work ethic. He loves training, and he lights up like a supernova when he goes out to track. He is driven and *wants* to work, in addition to being biddable. He'd work all day, if you let him, and, despite being HIGHLY food motivated, he usually ignores food, in favor of continuing to follow the track as fast as he can. (It's been a challenge to slow him down.) Can he do more than tracking and obedience? Time will tell, but I suspect he'll do just about anything because he loves to work and derives joy from the work itself. Look for dogs that look like they are having fun and want to be out there, in addition to being good at what they do.


----------



## Alaska7133

MillionsofPeaches said:


> You know, I don't care to get into a fighting match, but conformation is completely subjective to the judges opinions on looks.


When I started showing, my pup's breeder told me, you are only paying for the opinion of one judge on one day. That's it. One person's opinion. Tomorrow is another show and another judge, and who knows what that judge may think. Showing is not objective at all. Showing can be so frustrating and political... 

Whereas a WC, has specific rules. But it is a pass/fail system, not graded on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, so any dog that passes the test gets the title. Unlike the show ring.


----------



## Nate83

this is the most repliesi have seen in the hunt part of the forum and i am glad i got to see everyone opinions on the subject.


----------



## Alaska7133

Nate83 said:


> this is the most repliesi have seen in the hunt part of the forum and i am glad i got to see everyone opinions on the subject.


It was a very good question. By the way the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers national breed club doesn't recognize a Ch title without at least a WC. Their WC is slightly different from ours, but not much.


----------



## Nate83

I think later down the road things will change, or they will break into two breeds. I personally do not hunt but when i get my boy i will get at min a JH on him if i am able to, i am getting ahead of myself because i got to get the boy first, i have a bad habit of counting the chicken before the eggs have even been laid lol.


----------



## nolefan

hotel4dogs said:


> Anney and Fisher were the inspiration for me and Tito, too.
> We set out to prove that a moderate dog with a nice structure (who was bred only to be a pet) could achieve success in multiple venues, without ever being sent out to live with a trainer or handler.


It's nice that you had a bit of success with your moderate dog  :grin2:

owner trained and handled is pretty darn amazing. And there was no need for 65 attempts to title


----------



## Alaska7133

Nate83 said:


> I think later down the road things will change, or they will break into two breeds.


Most breeds in the Sporting Group, have split over the last 50 years. It's extremely difficult to be good at everything. I don't see splitting as being a benefit. Instead it will make the breeding pools smaller and less diverse.


----------



## hotel4dogs

See, here's the thing.
Tito was bred to be a Golden Retriever.
Not a show dog.
Not a field dog.
Not an agility dog. 
And so on....
So I ended up with a true Golden Retriever. Nice structure? Check. Want to try obedience? I can do that. Agility? Got ya covered. Tracking? Show me what you want and I'll do it. Birds? Heck, I'm a Golden Retriever, I love birds, I will hunt and retrieve all day. Water dog? Let me loose on the dock! Nosework? I have a fantastic nose.
Don't have time or energy to do much today? Cool, I'll just chill on the floor until you're in the mood to go do something.
Oh, and I'll be 11 in a couple of weeks and I have no arthritis and can do just about everything I could do when I was young because I have the proper structure to hold up to the things I've done all my life.
And THAT is the old fashioned Golden. Ready, willing and able to do whatever you want to do, but content to lie by your feet and snooze, too.
And it's what *we* are destroying by breeding to win in a specific venue, rather than breeding to preserve the breed.


----------



## Nate83

Alaska7133 said:


> It's extremely difficult to be good at everything. I don't see splitting as being a benefit. Instead it will make the breeding pools smaller and less diverse.


that is kinda why i started the post as well. If we keep breeding simply based on looks the gene pool will become weak.


----------



## Nate83

hotel4dogs said:


> See, here's the thing.
> Tito was bred to be a Golden Retriever.
> Not a show dog.
> Not a field dog.
> Not an agility dog.
> And so on....
> So I ended up with a true Golden Retriever. Nice structure? Check. Want to try obedience? I can do that. Agility? Got ya covered. Tracking? Show me what you want and I'll do it. Birds? Heck, I'm a Golden Retriever, I love birds, I will hunt and retrieve all day. Water dog? Let me loose on the dock! Nosework? I have a fantastic nose.
> Don't have time or energy to do much today? Cool, I'll just chill on the floor until you're in the mood to go do something.
> Oh, and I'll be 11 in a couple of weeks and I have no arthritis and can do just about everything I could do when I was young because I have the proper structure to hold up to the things I've done all my life.
> And THAT is the old fashioned Golden. Ready, willing and able to do whatever you want to do, but content to lie by your feet and snooze, too.
> And it's what *we* are destroying by breeding to win in a specific venue, rather than breeding to preserve the breed.


 Agreed and exactly what i am getting to, just slower LOL


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> See, here's the thing.
> Tito was bred to be a Golden Retriever.
> Not a show dog.
> Not a field dog.
> Not an agility dog.
> And so on....
> So I ended up with a true Golden Retriever. Nice structure? Check. Want to try obedience? I can do that. Agility? Got ya covered. Tracking? Show me what you want and I'll do it. Birds? Heck, I'm a Golden Retriever, I love birds, I will hunt and retrieve all day. Water dog? Let me loose on the dock! Nosework? I have a fantastic nose.
> Don't have time or energy to do much today? Cool, I'll just chill on the floor until you're in the mood to go do something.
> Oh, and I'll be 11 in a couple of weeks and I have no arthritis and can do just about everything I could do when I was young because I have the proper structure to hold up to the things I've done all my life.
> And THAT is the old fashioned Golden. Ready, willing and able to do whatever you want to do, but content to lie by your feet and snooze, too.
> And it's what *we* are destroying by breeding to win in a specific venue, rather than breeding to preserve the breed.


And my comment is that people are going away from the Tito type of golden and aiming for more extreme versions of what they singularly focus on. This should not be a breed that is ending up in the "extremes" - particularly when it comes to energy, activity, and even drive. 

There's a lot of us who would never have gotten into golden retrievers if they had the high energy and extreme drive similar to field labs. 

And some performance lines are approaching the high energy and extreme drive of the field labs. Which is fine for the people who prefer all that, but most of us want a more moderate dog who looks like a golden retriever. 

The extreme stuff, among else, is concerning because temperament is tangled up in all of that.


----------



## NicoleGold

MillionsofPeaches said:


> Gosh why do people always act like Field Golden’s are bouncing off the all all the time. They have such great off switches at home. Shoot should they not be high drive in the field or is that also considered too much dog as well? I have a family and kids and no land to speak of. I couldn’t handle a dog that was bouncing off the walls.


I just want to chime in to emphasize this point. I seriously want to bang my head against a wall every time I read those "choosing a golden retriever" threads where people are telling others to avoid breeders who focus on hunting and performance venues because "those dogs will be so high energy" and "need a job" and "you will have to run them for hours a day". WHAT!? My goldens do not need a job. They do not get trained or run daily (or hardly ever). They LIKE to work, not need to. They love being pets and with their people, but they don't care what they are doing. 

So all this worry about extremes in terms of energy and drive and whatnot just seems exaggerated.


----------



## hotel4dogs

My point exactly!




Megora said:


> And my comment is that people are going away from the Tito type of golden and aiming for more extreme versions of what they singularly focus on. This should not be a breed that is ending up in the "extremes" - particularly when it comes to energy, activity, and even drive.
> 
> There's a lot of us who would never have gotten into golden retrievers if they had the high energy and extreme drive similar to field labs.
> 
> And some performance lines are approaching the high energy and extreme drive of the field labs. Which is fine for the people who prefer all that, but most of us want a more moderate dog who looks like a golden retriever.
> 
> The extreme stuff, among else, is concerning because temperament is tangled up in all of that.


----------



## FTGoldens

One of the wonderful attributes of our breed is that a Golden Retriever Person can find a great dog within the breed, whether they want a pet, a conformation competitor, an agility competitor, a SAR co-worker, an obedience competitor, a tracker, a hunt test dog, or a field trial competitor. If a GRP wants an all-around dog (e.g., Tito the Monster), ours is a breed wherein there just possibly could be another one ... maybe.
If the GRP doesn't want an "extreme," then there are tons of choices; if the GRP wants an extreme, they still have choices!
Me ... I want an extreme ... I play the field trial game and to win, my dogs have to beat the extremes in that OTHER breed (yes, said OTHER breed has the same situation).
Is pursuit of my goals, as some have implied, deleterious to the breed ... I think not, but that's just one person's opinion.
FTGoldens


----------



## Megora

> Me ... I want an extreme ... I play the field trial game and to win, my dogs have to beat the extremes in that OTHER breed (yes, said OTHER breed has the same situation).


To me, this is detrimental to the breed because I don't think the breed was ever intended to be that extreme. And people who got into the breed for other reasons do not want a dog who is basically bred for the same hard attributes as labs, chessies, etc. 

And keep in mind those other breeds are getting bred to extremes as well to compete. 

It's not good for any of these breeds. 

It's also disregarding breed standards if you are breeding for the most extreme dogs you can every litter and continuing to go that direction vs breeding for steady, sound, dogs who cleanly and clearly represent the breed in every attribute.


----------



## usually lurking

FTGoldens said:


> Me ... I want an extreme ... I play the field trial game and to win, my dogs have to beat the extremes in that OTHER breed (yes, said OTHER breed has the same situation).
> Is pursuit of my goals, as some have implied, deleterious to the breed ... I think not, but that's just one person's opinion.


If your goal is to win at all costs, regardless of whether your personal pursuit of excellence increases demand for dogs that are at or beyond an extreme, then that, in this one person’s opinion, seems very self-centered. It certainly doesn’t seem like the position of someone interested in the betterment of any breed.


----------



## Ljilly28

The breed standard addresses the requisite large and small details of structure and type needed to hunt in the original way goldens fit into the retriever category . I think that before dogs can earn an MH, AFC, or FC, they should have a breed CH. 

Just joking.

But it is the same point. 

What if you have a game, brave and birdy dog who finished MH/** at two, and is broken down with spinal arthritis and spondylosis by 6 bc he worked crazy hard on a poor structure with a long loin and long body? I ask this because I am babysitting one right now.

Please dont ever quote that Primarily A hunting dog dependent clause which is forever being used incorrectly with terrible grammar. The sentence says that the dog should be SHOWN. That is the main point of the sentence . The dog should be shown in hard working condition.


----------



## Ljilly28

Swampcollie said:


> Requiring a dog to earn a WC prior to being awarded a CH isn't too much to ask IMHDAO.


And of course requiring the MH to earn at least one 3 point major on the flip side


----------



## Ljilly28

MillionsofPeaches said:


> yOu know, I don't care to get into a fighting match, but conformation is completely subjective to the judges opinions on looks. .


That is far from true . What is a 90 degree angle- how far off from that? Level, Scissor bite, what percentage of the leg does the hock take up, how many fingers long is the loin. Many judges know what they are doing, and are fine lifelong students of dogs. What is more subjective here is the poster's option of conformation judges and breeders. As Pat Trotter says, the judge with the badge judges that day, but the breeder judges every time they select parents of a litter, and that is in the gene pool forever. Even with that contempt for a dog's conformation and for conforming to the breed standard, you are still the judge if you breed.


----------



## Ljilly28

LJack said:


> Does a Ridgeback need to hunt lion to prove themselves? Do Dals have to find a carriage to prove themselves? There are breeds with an original purpose that doesn’t really exist in our current world. Does that mean they don’t meet their standard?
> 
> I have no desire to kill ducks for a hobby. I have no desire to get my dogs bit by a Gila Monster or Rattle Snake, very real concerns in my state.


Very salient and true points. Elkhounds can no longer by law do their job, but the breed standard provides a blueprint for what their particular foot must be like based on their original job. And I am not going to shock my dog for any reason even if it is called by the euphemism "stim" or have 18 dead ducks in my freezer next to the ice cream. I will cheer for all the great hunting dogs and admire them; you should cheer for all the great show dogs We will all send props and real admiration to Anney and Barb who do it all.


----------



## Megora

If field people want more conformation people to get into the sport....

Could they please start teaching classes at training clubs??? Even if the trainer takes people on road trips during the session, there's a level of comfort that comes with showing up at the training club to start with and knowing that you are learning with people at the same level.

Especially for puppy level field training - because I get that while the pups are little, that's the most ideal time to get them going on training foundation stuff.

And get people in there with a diverse tool box. Teach me to train my dog for field WITHOUT a zap collar. 

If there currently isn't a way to really get the dogs good without a zap collar - figure one out for people like me. 

I'm used to being in obedience where there are 10 million different ways to teach your dogs how to do any exercise. And whether you are positive only or old school or somewhere degree in the middle, there's ways of doing stuff and training people how to train their dogs.

Please?????? 

It's all in the teach me to teach my puppy view that I have - and truly, I do want to get a JH on my next pup down the road. But it's a very difficult goal to work on when field work is completely SEPARATE from where people regularly train. All the more so when I don't know the teachers or what they do and when I ask around, I'm basically told to come out and watch and throw birds around are weird-gross stuff like that. :laugh:

And then by the time people have adult dogs - they might feel more "Weird" about jumping back into field training because their dogs are set in their ways and people enjoy finding ways to poke fun of other people's dogs and put them down. 

If you have classes where everyone is at the same level and you don't have a chance of working with or around people who are very high level training getting impatient with you and your dog for not having a clue... it might be easier for some people to get into the sport.

And no, I can't learn by reading books or watching videos. And forget about online classes. I get more excited and learn better in person, working my own dog. 

Ages ago when I first started out in obedience training - the one chick teaching classes had a field/hunting class. It was basic level training so pretty easy. But I really loved those classes. We did a few rounds with my golden back then. He was way better than all the hunting labs and GSP's that were in the same class - primarily because he was not running through walls when fetching and he was steady and paid attention to what was going on and listened to me.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Ljilly28 said:


> And of course requiring the MH to earn at least one 3 point major on the flip side


I apologize if you were being sarcastic, but I don't see how a WC can be compared to in any way to a 3 point major. 

Personally, I don't think any single title is indicative of good breed representation. Titles indicate that you've done reasonably well in your venue of choice. I think we oughta change the CH title to something like CCH (conformation champion) because there is no distinction (champion of what? certainly not an overall champion), unlike AFC/FC/OTCH/MACH/CT etc. So it just *sounds* like a CH should be an overall well-rounded representative of the breed, although we know that is certainly not always the case. The OP's question, in my opinion, is a matter of semantics. No one would expect a field requirement if the title in question were a CCH. Just like no one would expect an aspiring MH or FC to earn a 3 point major to complete the title...:uhoh: Conformation Champion means just that. Master Hunter means just that.


----------



## hollyk

i don't think a WC is needed to be a CH.
I think breeding with an eye to temperament and longevity is important. The rest.....pick your type/venue and go have fun. Life is better with a Golden.


----------



## Nate83

Ljilly28 said:


> That is far from true . What is a 90 degree angle- how far off from that? Level, Scissor bite, what percentage of the leg does the hock take up, how many fingers long is the loin. Many judges know what they are doing, and are fine lifelong students of dogs. What is more subjective here is the poster's option of conformation judges and breeders. As Pat Trotter says, the judge with the badge judges that day, but the breeder judges every time they select parents of a litter, and that is in the gene pool forever. Even with that contempt for a dog's conformation and for conforming to the breed standard, you are still the judge if you breed.


No showing is 100% the opinion of he judge, they have a road map but they get to make the final pic. Yes i have been only to one show so my experience is very limited but i stayed the whole day and asked questions that might have seemed dumb but everyone answered them like they here not, but from my newbie point of view showing your dog is solely based on what the judge likes or doesn't like.


----------



## Nate83

Vhuynh2 said:


> The OP's question, in my opinion, is a matter of semantics. No one would expect a field requirement if the title in question were a CCH. Just like no one would expect an aspiring MH or FC to earn a 3 point major to complete the title...:uhoh: Conformation Champion means just that. Master Hunter means just that.


 No it wasnt, it was made because of two reason first i wanted to see others peoples thoughts and second i asked it because it is a good question to be asked.


----------



## K9-Design

Ljilly28 said:


> And I am not going to...have 18 dead ducks in my freezer next to the ice cream.


No man if you want to do it right you get a second freezer for your ducks!!!!!!


----------



## Vhuynh2

Nate83 said:


> No it wasnt, it was made because of two reason first i wanted to see others peoples thoughts and second i asked it because it is a good question to be asked.


Oops, sorry, the thread got off track so I had forgotten your original question and I guess I made up something else in my head. Sorry! You’re right. A field requirement for a CH was brought up later on.


----------



## Nate83

Nate83 said:


> Oops, sorry, the thread got off track so I had forgotten your original question and I guess I made up something else in my head. Sorry! You’re right. A field requirement for a CH was brought up later on.


 lol it's ok


----------



## hotel4dogs

This is a guess not backed up by facts, I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm guessing the conformation championship was the first one recorded by AKC, hence it's the CH. The ones that came later needed an additional letter or letters to differentiate them.
BTW, if they did change the title, it would more correctly be BCH, as the true designation is "bench champion".
But since the AKC loves to make up new titles or certificates to keep the money rolling in, how about different levels of bench championship titles based on performance achievements, similar to the VCD titles? 



Vhuynh2 said:


> I apologize if you were being sarcastic, but I don't see how a WC can be compared to in any way to a 3 point major.
> 
> Personally, I don't think any single title is indicative of good breed representation. Titles indicate that you've done reasonably well in your venue of choice. I think we oughta change the CH title to something like CCH (conformation champion) because there is no distinction (champion of what? certainly not an overall champion), unlike AFC/FC/OTCH/MACH/CT etc. So it just *sounds* like a CH should be an overall well-rounded representative of the breed, although we know that is certainly not always the case. The OP's question, in my opinion, is a matter of semantics. No one would expect a field requirement if the title in question were a CCH. Just like no one would expect an aspiring MH or FC to earn a 3 point major to complete the title...:uhoh: Conformation Champion means just that. Master Hunter means just that.


----------



## Ljilly28

Nate83 said:


> No showing is 100% the opinion of he judge, they have a road map but they get to make the final pic. Yes i have been only to one show so my experience is very limited but i stayed the whole day and asked questions that might have seemed dumb but everyone answered them like they here not, but from my newbie point of view showing your dog is solely based on what the judge likes or doesn't like.


Well, Malcolm Gladwell suggests ten thousand hours to get really good at something. Seems like you put in your first 7 understanding a sport and culture new to you.


----------



## Nate83

Nate83 said:


> Well, Malcolm Gladwell suggests ten thousand hours to get really good at something. Seems like you put in your first 7 understanding a sport and culture new to you.


 so you think it isn't ? And you feel it takes 10,000 hrs to understand it.


----------



## Prism Goldens

A bazillion hours in, there is still much to learn.
Just keep on keeping on!


----------



## Ljilly28

Many dog men and women have been students of the breed for 40, 50 years and are second or third generations in dogs. It takes a long apprenticeship , an attitude of lifelong learning, several mentors, and a whole lot of experiential time before making pronouncements or generalizations - even if even then. Learning what is true for yourself, and then working on to thine own dogs be true, takes years and years.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Be careful what opinions you form at dog shows. You will get widely diverse comments on the judges, and on judging in general, depending on how the person's dog placed (or didn't). I've seen this in all dog sports, but more in conformation than anywhere else.
The same argument, btw, can be made at the higher levels of other competitive sports such as obedience and field trials where the judges compare dogs, that it's subjective. Some obedience judges are really fussy about straight fronts, some about heeling position, some about perfect finishes, and so on, just as an example.


----------



## Nate83

O I know I have a lot to learn a whole lot to learn. What I was saying is judging is subjective, the judges get a roadmap but THEY make the final decision that by definition is subjective.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I get what you're saying, I just wanted to point out that it's very subjective in the higher levels of other sports as well. Field trials? One judge may consider a performance "lining the blind" and place the dog very high, while another may consider it "lack of showing control" and fail the dog. One judge may say you "challenged the blind" while another may say you blew the whistle too many times. That's just one cheesy example. Same is true in tracking, one judge may consider it "guiding the dog" while another may consider it being a good team member.
And so on.




Nate83 said:


> O I know I have a lot to learn a whole lot to learn. What I was saying is judging is subjective, the judges get a roadmap but THEY make the final decision that by definition is subjective.


----------



## Nate83

Those are very good points.


----------



## Swampcollie

Ljilly28 said:


> And of course requiring the MH to earn at least one 3 point major on the flip side


I didn't say anything about tests requiring "Trained" abilities such as those required for a MH or *** which are very demanding. A WC is designed to test natural "Inborn Traits". Asking that a dog demonstrate that it will go out, pick up a bird, and bring it back to someplace close to the handler, isn't that hard from a teaching or training standpoint. That is, it isn't IF your dog has correct temperament and personality for the breed. Most well bred puppies will be able to do most of the work required of a WC Test at 10 to 12 weeks of age. So these are issues you could have looked at and answered long before your pup was ever allowed set foot in the Conformation Ring. 
The breeds stated "purpose" is a hunting dog. The BOD of the GRCA has long since and on more than one occasion made a point that "Hunting Dog" is the Purpose of the breed. (Your argument about grammar is utter, complete nonsense.) Therefore fitness for the stated purpose in the Breed Standard should be answered prior to awarding a Conformation Championship just like other breeds like Tollers and Labradors have done for years. 

A lot of the owners of CH dogs will look at requiring a test of natural inborn traits or abilities in a dog and see absolutely no problem because they already know without a doubt their dog demonstrates those qualities in spades. 

Then their will be those with CH dogs that dig their heels in and oppose such tests because such an examination will easily expose incorrect personality and temperament in their dogs.


----------



## Nate83

"A WC is designed to test natural "Inborn Traits". Asking that a dog demonstrate that it will go out, pick up a . That is, it isn't IF your dog has correct temperament and personality for the breed. Most well bred puppies will be able to do most of the work required of a WC Test at 10 to 12 weeks of age."


I would love to see if this would work. The puppy I am getting I am confident could do this but I actually want to see it.


----------



## Megora

Swampcollie said:


> Most puppies will be able to do most of the work required of a WC Test at 10 to 12 weeks of age.


I've seen videos on youtube re WC test and that looks very basic and sort of what we taught the dogs in class years ago. It's stuff I think any retriever will do. Basically direct retrieves and unlike with obedience where you send the dogs and wait for them to return with you standing stock still like a statue, I heard the owners repeatedly guiding/calling the dogs as they were coming back. And the dogs weren't even sitting when they got back. <= I hope I wasn't watching the wrong videos, but that was stuff that I think most dogs can do without much training. 

The issue that pops up though is I'm friends with people who do field and that's their focal point. So the puppies ARE getting their mouths on birds very early. And the owners have access to working fields, ponds, guns, and training buddies where the dogs are really used to all of that stuff. 

Where you have disconnect with people out there is retrieves are very easily broken. It's one of the easiest exercises to totally mess up as an owner. And the dogs learn the keep away game or they learn they don't HAVE to bring stuff back to their owners. 

The other issue is I have friends in conformation who have very high energy goldens and these goldens have not received early training that most field and obedience dogs get as puppies. So my friends literally turn white as a sheet when they see a dog off leash in an uncontained area, because their experience with their dogs is they will run. 

A lot of old field people put a lot of blame on the dogs for not being what they should be, but owners bear responsibility. I've seen it in obedience. Actually there is somebody very close to me who drives me nuts because she bought a dynamic dog. This dog was a DREAM dog. Super smart, very owner focused, very eager to please, eager to work, etc. 

And this puppy is going on 8 months... and he still hasn't been taught any off leash work or stays. :surprise: And this owner is terrified of taking her dog off leash, because she's rightfully certain that this dog will just run. 

This owner, you can't put all the blame on her. It's where she trains. 

But back to what I said before - if training clubs put an effort into getting more people with puppies comfortable with doing WC tests. I would not have a doubt that more and more goldens out there would have these certificates. And the very least you would have that on conformation dogs, as the owners would be putting that much time in. Maybe not everyone, because people do not seem dedicated as others to training their own dogs in anything. But you would get more cross over if there were more easy access. But if field people cross over to get CCA's done on their dogs. I'd say that with more access (at training clubs, more diversified ways of training, less shock more fun), that you would have more show people getting WC's on their dogs. Which I believe those are the equivalents. 

If it's something where they can reasonably train basics and "rehearse" the test through classes at a training club. It can be done. And not just morning classes for retirees and homemakers...

That said, doubt it would draw everyone I can think of... some people already have access to obedience classes, and they don't them with their dogs. They barely make it for handling classes if they do. A lot of the training of the conformation dogs is done by pro handlers. And there is training involved....


----------



## hotel4dogs

Two comments...
First, getting a well bred puppy to go out and pick up a bird at 10-12 weeks is a no brainer, they go crazy over the birds. Getting them to give it up, however, can be a bit more challenging .
Second, find a field trainer in your area and take your puppy for an evaluation. Most are happy to do it for a reasonable fee. You'd probably really enjoy the experience.



Nate83 said:


> "A WC is designed to test natural "Inborn Traits". Asking that a dog demonstrate that it will go out, pick up a . That is, it isn't IF your dog has correct temperament and personality for the breed. Most well bred puppies will be able to do most of the work required of a WC Test at 10 to 12 weeks of age."
> 
> 
> I would love to see if this would work. The puppy I am getting I am confident could do this but I actually want to see it.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Actually I've seen pretty well trained dogs fail a WC because it's so easy compared to what they are training for they can't handle it. A dog who constantly trains on 200-300 yard marks can have a hard time checking up to pick up a 40 yard plop!


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> Actually I've seen pretty well trained dogs fail a WC because it's so easy compared to what they are training for they can't handle it. A dog who constantly trains on 200-300 yard marks can have a hard time checking up to pick up a 40 yard plop!


Barb - with the WC... are they using birds for both land and water retrieves?


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yes, they do.
Used to be pheasants on land and ducks in water, not sure what they do now. Some clubs have used pigeons, too.



Megora said:


> Barb - with the WC... are they using birds for both land and water retrieves?


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> Yes, they do.
> Used to be pheasants on land and ducks in water, not sure what they do now. Some clubs have used pigeons, too.


The videos I watched - looked like ducks in the water. 

I couldn't tell what the dogs were retrieving on land though - it was something that looked "pink" in the one video I watched. 

This is the type of thing that I'd need to take classes for with my guys, because my dogs are NOT getting introduced very early to birds the way dogs in field homes are. The first thing that went into Bertie's mouth was a metal article.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Gotta disagree. Tito never saw a bird (or bumper) until he was 3. We ran WC and JH right away anyway.
The WC is supposed to measure "what came in the box", not what was trained in.
Most, if not all, clubs have a bird or two at the WC site for you to mess around with before you run. It's really all you need.



Megora said:


> The videos I watched - looked like ducks in the water.
> 
> I couldn't tell what the dogs were retrieving on land though - it was something that looked "pink" in the one video I watched.
> 
> This is the type of thing that I'd need to take classes for with my guys, because my dogs are NOT getting introduced very early to birds the way dogs in field homes are. The first thing that went into Bertie's mouth was a metal article.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> Gotta disagree. Tito never saw a bird (or bumper) until he was 3. We ran WC and JH right away anyway.
> The WC is supposed to measure "what came in the box", not what was trained in.
> Most, if not all, clubs have a bird or two at the WC site for you to mess around with before you run. It's really all you need.


Bertie's been trained with bumpers. 

But the only birds that he's seen usually are associated with me screaming "LEAVE IT!" LOL. 

I really doubt that my guys would know that it's OK to pick up a dead bird. A lot of leave it training can trump instinct...


----------



## Alaska7133

Going back to the original post, the first US golden retriever specialty had 2 events: field trial and conformation. And today both of those events are still at every single national specialty. As they should stay that way. 

Can we have another dual champion (field and show)? Probably not. Too specialized in both areas. I hope some day we can again. Labs haven't either in decades. But chessies have! There is one here in my town. Owner trained chessie with a Ch and a FC. If chessies can do it, maybe we can some day too. 

Go have fun with your dog. Try anything and everything. You never know what you or your dog will do well with. Every dog is different, every handler is different.

Golden retrievers are the best breed because we can do so much with them.


----------



## hollyk

Megora said:


> Bertie's been trained with bumpers.
> 
> But the only birds that he's seen usually are associated with me screaming "LEAVE IT!" LOL.
> 
> I really doubt that my guys would know that it's OK to pick up a dead bird. A lot of leave it training can trump instinct...


Winter was well over 1 on dead birds and well over 2 for live flyers. She is soft mouthed but prey drive shone though and she never had problems picking up birds dispite no exposure as pup.


----------



## Nate83

WC looks way more natural. I am definitely going to try it.


----------



## marsh mop

usually lurking said:


> If your goal is to win at all costs, regardless of whether your personal pursuit of excellence increases demand for dogs that are at or beyond an extreme, then that, in this one person’s opinion, seems very self-centered. It certainly doesn’t seem like the position of someone interested in the betterment of any breed.


Wow, this place never changes. Rude and nasty comments should not be tolerated.


----------



## FTGoldens

marsh mop said:


> Wow, this place never changes. Rude and nasty comments should not be tolerated.


LOL ... true ... not only was that a gross misinterpretation of what was said ... it's highly likely that the poster has never personally seen an FC AFC Golden, much less spent enough time with one to realize that the EXTREME attributes desirable in a competitive field dog are intelligence, athleticism, courage, watery nature, soundness, obedient. And I have heard from a pretty good source that at least one FC AFC was an outstanding therapy dog at a children's hospital. Yeah, those darned extreme dogs ....


----------



## usually lurking

FTGoldens said:


> LOL ... true ... not only was that a gross misinterpretation of what was said ... it's highly likely that the poster has never personally seen an FC AFC Golden, much less spent enough time with one to realize that the EXTREME attributes desirable in a competitive field dog are intelligence, athleticism, courage, watery nature, soundness, obedient. And I have heard from a pretty good source that at least one FC AFC was an outstanding therapy dog at a children's hospital. Yeah, those darned extreme dogs ....


If my comments were interpreted as rude, then I apologize, as that was not the intent. It was meant as an observation, based on your phrasing. I'd like to point out that you stated quite adamantly that you want an "extreme dog," in no uncertain terms, as that is what it takes to win. I fail to see how that can be misinterpreted. I refuse to argue with you about the qualities required to compete in a FT because the qualities required to win may or may not line up with the breed standard. I interpreted your post to mean that you want a dog that can win, regardless of whether that dog fits into the standard. If that is not what you meant, then I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. If you did, indeed, mean that winning is more important than the dog fitting into the standard, then my comments stand accurate as posted.


----------



## Ljilly28

First, I want to say how much I loved Quar, and his kids and grandkids got me through childhood. Right up until my grandfather died, my goldens hunted with him in real time. The second thing I want to say is I believe , hope, and would do just about anything to support Anney if she becomes that one amazing person to break the half a century long drought or even better it with a GCH/AFC or CH/FC CH/AFC. I think I will send her 1,ooo flowers or maybe 1,000 dog toys and admire that more than any olympic gold medal. The rest of us are not going to do that, and speaking for myself I don't have the right stuff- inside myself, aside from inside one of my dogs. On the other hand, I'm not a slouch. I am a second generation golden person who went from growing up with hunting and obedience goldens, to pets, to some top show dogs who also do therapy work and some simple obedience titles like CD. I train dogs all day, dogs and puppies of all breeds at many levels and own a very thriving training center with five instructors and always-full classes . So. From my perspective, such as it is, Anney is one of the few who might breed/ own a dog who absolutely embodies every spirit and letter of the standard. The rest of us- some are closer than others- really can't police the other sports very well. We breed what we find ethical, what has integrity to us and is timelessly compliant with the breed standard. We learn grow, and change our view over time or we find our place and make it the best place it can be.


----------



## Nate83

Ljilly28 said:


> The second thing I want to say is I believe , hope, and would do just about anything to support Anney if she becomes that one amazing person to break the half a century long drought or even better it with a GCH/AFC or CH/FC CH/AFC. I think I will send her 1,ooo flowers or maybe 1,000 dog toys and admire that more than any olympic gold medal. The rest of us are not going to do that, and speaking for myself I don't have the right stuff- inside myself, aside from inside one of my dogs.


I disagree and I believe Anney will agree with me when I say anyone can do it, they just need to want it, do I think ill get anywhere near the titles she has heck no. Will I give it the good old college try Yep I will.


----------



## myluckypenny

Nate83 said:


> I disagree and I believe Anney will agree with me when I say anyone can do it, they just need to want it, do I think ill get anywhere near the titles she has heck no. Will I give it the good old college try Yep I will.


I'm going to have to disagree with you. AFC's are very difficult to get with a field bred dog, let alone a dog that would also do well in a show ring (especially to a GCH level). It takes more than just wanting it. You need the right talented owner in combination with that once in a lifetime dog.


----------



## Nate83

myluckypenny said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you. AFC's are very difficult to get with a field bred dog, let alone a dog that would also do well in a show ring (especially to a GCH level). It takes more than just wanting it. You need the right talented owner in combination with that once in a lifetime dog.


I was being positive. Now i am going to do research into Gch and AFC


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

myluckypenny said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you. AFC's are very difficult to get with a field bred dog, let alone a dog that would also do well in a show ring (especially to a GCH level). It takes more than just wanting it. You need the right talented owner in combination with that once in a lifetime dog.



Yeah I was thinking that getting qualified is pretty hard with a field golden let alone a conformation breed. I honestly don't think a conformation golden would have the endurance and physical build that would be suitable for the training alone that goes into attaining a FC or AFC. And that isn't an insult it is just a fact.


----------



## Nate83

Ok after doing a brief reading of the field trial rules, i would like to revise my statement LOL. good luck Anney LOL


----------



## marsh mop

usually lurking said:


> FTGoldens said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL ... true ... not only was that a gross misinterpretation of what was said ... it's highly likely that the poster has never personally seen an FC AFC Golden, much less spent enough time with one to realize that the EXTREME attributes desirable in a competitive field dog are intelligence, athleticism, courage, watery nature, soundness, obedient. And I have heard from a pretty good source that at least one FC AFC was an outstanding therapy dog at a children's hospital. Yeah, those darned extreme dogs ....
> 
> 
> 
> If my comments were interpreted as rude, then I apologize, as that was not the intent. It was meant as an observation, based on your phrasing. I'd like to point out that you stated quite adamantly that you want an "extreme dog," in no uncertain terms, as that is what it takes to win. I fail to see how that can be misinterpreted. I refuse to argue with you about the qualities required to compete in a FT because the qualities required to win may or may not line up with the breed standard. I interpreted your post to mean that you want a dog that can win, regardless of whether that dog fits into the standard. If that is not what you meant, then I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. If you did, indeed, mean that winning is more important than the dog fitting into the standard, then my comments stand accurate as posted.
Click to expand...


Calling someone " very self centered" is considered a rude thing to say in most of the places I go. Must be a little different where you are. My bad.


----------



## Kalhayd

Please remember to remain on topic and stay respectful. 


Thank you!


----------



## usually lurking

marsh mop said:


> Calling someone " very self centered" is considered a rude thing to say in most of the places I go. Must be a little different where you are. My bad.


No, I called the poster's viewpoint, as I interpreted it, self-centered. One can have a self-centered position on a topic, yet not be a self-centered person. I would be remiss in calling anyone that I do not know "self-centered," but I can certainly form an opinion about someone's position on a given topic, based on their use of language.


----------



## Megora

FTGoldens said:


> LOL ... true ... not only was that a gross misinterpretation of what was said ... it's highly likely that the poster has never personally seen an FC AFC Golden, much less spent enough time with one to realize that the EXTREME attributes desirable in a competitive field dog are intelligence, athleticism, courage, watery nature, soundness, obedient. And I have heard from a pretty good source that at least one FC AFC was an outstanding therapy dog at a children's hospital. Yeah, those darned extreme dogs ....


But again, when you are using the words "extreme" and redefining this breed so it is more like (God forbid) Chessies and field labs, that's when people have to object. Breeders should not be breeding for EXTREMES. They should be looking for moderation. And they should be making sure they are keeping the breed together (physically and mentally).


----------



## Vhuynh2

Megora said:


> But again, when you are using the words "extreme" and redefining this breed so it is more like (God forbid) Chessies and field labs, that's when people have to object. Breeders should not be breeding for EXTREMES. They should be looking for moderation. And they should be making sure they are keeping the breed together (physically and mentally).


So are you implying that goldens should only be moderately intelligent, athletic, courageous, watery, sound, and obedient?


----------



## Nate83

So due to the fact that we are getting off topic and getting hostile towards other i am asking admin to shut the topic down.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM

Nate83 said:


> So due to the fact that we are getting off topic and getting hostile towards other i am asking admin to shut the topic down.


I sent you a PM, thanks.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM

The OP (Nate83) has requested this thread be closed.


----------

