# English vs. American Type Goldens



## wantagolden (Nov 22, 2010)

I am reading many articles about the English type retriever and am surprised to find that they are much healthier, than their American counterparts. Is this factually correct? 

Based upon a breeder named "Galaxy Goldens" : http://galaxygoldens.com/FAQ/index.html#q1

They state the following:

"First of all, they are not two different breeds. They are both recognized by the AKC as golden retrievers. But, because of the different genetic lines in the English or "European" goldens there are 4 main differences:

Health- The English retriever is definately a healthier dog than the American retriever. Comparing studies from the Golden Retriever Club of America vs. the British Kennel Club, you can see that:

-62% of American goldens will die because of cancer
-English Goldens are 37% less likely to die from cancer
-The average life span of a English Golden is 15% (19 months) longer than of an American golden.

Additionally, english goldens have been rigorously tested for multiple generations to weed out dogs with higher genetic tendencies toward chronic to the golden retriever breed such as hip dysplasia and elbow dysplasia. 

The result is the English lines are should have lower incidence of these health problems."


** What is your take on this?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

wantagolden said:


> I am reading many articles about the English type retriever and am surprised to find that they are much healthier, than their American counterparts. Is this factually correct? What has been your experience?


It is not correct, just an empty claim that profiteers often claim in order to justify high prices for "English" Goldens.


----------



## LincolnsMom (Sep 28, 2010)

I'm not sure about if it's true or not; but Lincoln is an English and he has had no problems. -he is very young still tho- that i know of his grandparents all lived to a min of 13 years. I'm not sure about the longest they've had a dog live for though. 

I would expect that the only reason that the English may be healthier is because their is less of a stock and people are very picky about which Englishes they breed because of colour, health etc. 

Then again any responsible GR breeder whether English or American should be breeding that way. I wouldn't trust it; unless you can find some very solid proof that the creams are in fact a healthier breed.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

LincolnsMom said:


> I would expect that the only reason that the English may be healthier is because their is less of a stock and people are very picky about which Englishes they breed because of colour, health etc.


Dogs sold as "English" are bred by some of the least ethical profiteers in the business, so they aren't picky at all. There are plenty of great breeders who produce English-type Goldens, but it's also used as a marketing tool for profiteers.



LincolnsMom said:


> Then again any responsible GR breeder whether English or American should be breeding that way. I wouldn't trust it; unless you can find some very solid proof that the creams are in fact a healthier breed.


There isn't any. This issue has been debated and researched extensively on the forum since some of the "English Cream" breeders have made the claim before. It's baloney.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

Seeing how all Golden Retrievers stem from Tweedmouth back in 1906... the same health problems affect the entire breed.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> -62% of American goldens will die because of cancer
> -English Goldens are 37% less likely to die from cancer
> -The average life span of a English Golden is 15% (19 months) longer than of an American golden.
> 
> ...


I think this depends simply on the dogs being bred?

Keep in mind I know people who have been breeding with English lines for the past 20 years because they are trying to get away from linebred American goldens who might have a lot of issues with cancer, epilepsy, heart disease, kidney disease, patella issues, hip and elbow dysplasia, etc... 

If you bring new lines into the breeding, then you might produce goldens that are healthier. 

That said, I think that European goldens are not all perfectly healthy dogs. Just glancing around the forums here and other places, you do hear horrible stories about goldens from over there dying too young from cancer or suffering severe joint disabilities due to poor breeding. They have the same health issues.

I think that the best bet is to look at the pedigrees from the breeder and research. Make sure the dogs have all their clearances and the breeder is not just breeding for profit, but is active in showing and working with their dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

> -62% of American goldens will die because of cancer
> -English Goldens are 37% less likely to die from cancer
> -The average life span of a English Golden is 15% (19 months) longer than of an American golden.
> 
> ...


This is the kind of baloney that I was talking about. These stats are based on surveys of Golden owners in the US and in England, not on analysis of different lines of GRs.

The second claim about rigorous testing is utter BS and has no factual basis.




Megora said:


> I think this depends simply on the dogs being bred?
> 
> Keep in mind I know people who have been breeding with English lines for the past 20 years because they are trying to get away from linebred American goldens who might have a lot of issues with cancer, epilepsy, heart disease, kidney disease, patella issues, hip and elbow dysplasia, etc...
> 
> ...


Linebreeding does not cause any of the diseases you mention, and the GR was created by linebreeding in the beginning. Properly done linebreeding, combined with careful outcrossing, increases health and consistency in lines over time.

Certainly it's a good idea to outcross with healthy dogs, so lots of great breeders would consider dogs from England if they had the right characteristics. It's irresponsible, however, to give any kind of suggestion that English-type dogs have measurably different rates of common health problems simply by virtue of being English-type or being imported from Europe.


----------



## LincolnsMom (Sep 28, 2010)

You know my breeder said that HD had pretty much been bred out of the whites. So I would think take it with a grain of salt. I tend to believe it;s true. But again not all dogs will be.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

LincolnsMom said:


> You know my breeder said that HD had pretty much been bred out of the whites. So I would think take it with a grain of salt. I tend to believe it;s true. But again not all dogs will be.


No offense, but that's a totally absurd thing your breeder said and would make me question many of his or her other claims.

Search the forum. There are literally dozens of threads on bad breeders of "white" GRs from Europe whose dogs failed OFA tests and worse.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Linebreeding does not cause any of the diseases you mention, and the GR was created by linebreeding in the beginning.


Hmmm... I've always thought that linebreeding DOES cause health issues to become more prevalent... and all of those above diseases and disabilities. That's basic biology.

That is why as I said, certain breeders decided to go out their way to find new blood to boost their lines. It wasn't just about breeding lighter goldens. And it wasn't about getting away from linebreeding, which does serve its purpose in shoring up the breed standard and maintaining a type of golden.



> Certainly it's a good idea to outcross with healthy dogs, so lots of great breeders would consider dogs from England if they had the right characteristics. It's irresponsible, however, to give any kind of suggestion that English-type dogs have measurably different rates of common health problems simply by virtue of being English-type or being imported from Europe.


I agree.  

One other thing - I hate it when people throw statistics like that around, because they are only measured by sampling a limited amount of goldens who are reported. 

According to my vet, the majority of old dogs that come to their practice to be put to sleep likely had cancer, but the owners opted not to do the autopsy. That would be all breeds, including mixed breeds. 

And I'm going by my experience with my golden and after speaking with my vet, but most people do not know their dogs have hip or elbow dysplasia until the dog shows clinical signs. And a lot of dogs do not show clinical signs until old age when the vets assume the dog is experiencing age-related arthritis/joint problems. So that is a lot of hip and elbow dysplasia that goes underreported. 

For that matter, there are plenty of American bred goldens out there who are living to old age without too much fanfare or notice. There was a red golden (you can't get any more American than that) on my street who died two years ago. She was almost 18. Her family put her to sleep finally because she could not walk anymore. She had no other "known" health problems. 

Another family in my area has two goldens who are 13 and 15. Both are similar to my current guy and I suspect came from the same place, although I've never asked the family where they bought the girls from. Both are perfectly healthy without any "known" problems. 

But I digress.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

LincolnsMom said:


> You know my breeder said that HD had pretty much been bred out of the whites. So I would think take it with a grain of salt. I tend to believe it;s true. But again not all dogs will be.


Frankly, although color itself has nothing to do with it, I have seen more "whites" that are dysplastic and unsound than any other color. Mainly because of the completely random outcrossing that is done by those who are attempting to produce more "whites". 

And, again, I owned an Enflish import. A true English Golden Retriever. From Rossbourne Kennels. He was, rediographically, moderately to severly dysplastic at 10 months of age.


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

wantagolden said:


> -62% of American goldens will die because of cancer
> -English Goldens are 37% less likely to die from cancer
> -The average life span of a English Golden is 15% (19 months) longer than of an American golden.


I would love to see the peer reviewed veterinary studies that lead to these conclusions.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Frankly, although color itself has nothing to do with it, I have seen more "whites" that are dysplastic and unsound than any other color. Mainly because of the completely random outcrossing that is done by those who are attempting to produce more "whites".


And I need to add also due to the lack of clearances being done by manufacters/marketers of "rare white Golden Retrievers".


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

No offense, but I would never trust anything a breeder says who has a breeding planned with a dog who only has prelims done. Unless there is a REALLY good reason otherwise.

Can't you see prelims listed in OFA? They aren't there, but they are stated "good" on the website.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> Hmmm... I've always thought that linebreeding DOES cause health issues to become more prevalent... and all of those above diseases and disabilities. That's basic biology.


Actually, it's sort of a common misunderstanding of basic biology. Inbreeding causes recessive genes to express themselves more frequently, so you can get recessive characteristics cropping up. They can frequently be detrimental characteristics, since they're not easily eliminated by natural selection, since they don't express themselves often enough.

_Linebreeding_, however, makes use of a smaller genetic pool in order to provide consistency in offspring. You express those recessives and then don't breed the dogs who are phenotypically undesirable. You eliminate undesired characteristics, both from dominant and recessive genes. 

So, for example, if a dog is carrying a recessive gene for an eye disease, outcrossing him will help that disease from appearing in the offspring. However, the gene will still continue, and you'll periodically get dogs who have the disease. Linebreeding might express the disease more often initially, but it would allow you to eliminate the gene much more quickly from the stock.

By the time you get to the modern day purebred, you're down to a relatively small number of hereditary conditions, and linebreeding allows you to get very consistent health results. So linebreeding isn't inherently going to bring out brand new recessive conditions the way it would in a non-purebred population.

Anyway, without getting even more complicated, it's basically an issue of the difference between natural genetic selection and the breeding of purebred stock. Not all the same rules apply.



Megora said:


> According to my vet, the majority of old dogs that come to their practice to be put to sleep likely had cancer, but the owners opted not to do the autopsy. That would be all breeds, including mixed breeds.
> 
> And I'm going by my experience with my golden and after speaking with my vet, but most people do not know their dogs have hip or elbow dysplasia until the dog shows clinical signs. And a lot of dogs do not show clinical signs until old age when the vets assume the dog is experiencing age-related arthritis/joint problems. So that is a lot of hip and elbow dysplasia that goes underreported.


I think it's quite wise to look at the reporting issue. Good American breeders are OFA-ing the living heck out of their stock these days, and the result is that we're identifying a huge proportion of the actual dysplastic dogs, many of which will never show symptoms. There's a similar surge in the diagnosis of cancer as techniques get cheaper and more accurate. The rise in stats doesn't necessarily mean a rise in the actual incidence of a condition.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Frankly, although color itself has nothing to do with it, I have seen more "whites" that are dysplastic and unsound than any other color. Mainly because of the completely random outcrossing that is done by those who are attempting to produce more "whites".
> 
> And, again, I owned an Enflish import. A true English Golden Retriever. From Rossbourne Kennels. He was, rediographically, moderately to severly dysplastic at 10 months of age.


Doesn't that make sense though? A person is breeding for a specific trait ignorant to all other desireable qualities except coat colour. I think it would make substantially sense that the "English Goldens" would be more inclined toward health problems because breeders are narrowing their scope to one trait.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

I will qualify my comments by saying that phenotypically my dogs would be identified as English in style. My pedigrees however are varied--there are English dogs, French dogs, American dogs, American field dogs and English field dogs in play. This is the style I appreciate and prefer, and have owned, trained and lived with for 15 years now. I have and love "English" dogs and will still say that these claims are a crock of s***.

English-line dogs are no healthier than American-line dogs as a population. No quality, controlled studies exist to support such a conclusion. Anecdotal reports do not constitute quality research on the matter. People who make those claims are marketing a product. They want you to buy the line so you will buy their pups. They often make these claims in lieu of proving their dogs in other venues.

Your best bet for getting a healthy long lived Golden is to buy from a breeder who comprehensively tests for inheritable health issues, who proves the trainability, temperaments, and sound structure of their dogs through participation in conformation, obedience tests, hunt tests etc., and who has proven health and longevity in their bloodlines. That is true whether the dog comes from an American, English, or blended pedigree.

Equally, your chances of getting a sick or structurally unsound dog increase if purchased from someone purely breeding to pump out puppies regardless of the standard, who fails to subject their dogs to objective assessment by qualified experts, and whose pedigrees are haphazard and lacking clear histories of longevity and health information.

Chose the style that appeals to you (so long as still bred to the standard) and chose a breeder whose actions in their breeding practises live up to the promise of wanting to produce sound healthy dogs. Merely selecting one style over the other is no guarantee of this.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Braccarius said:


> Doesn't that make sense though? A person is breeding for a specific trait ignorant to all other desireable qualities except coat colour. I think it would make substantially sense that the "English Goldens" would be more inclined toward health problems because breeders are narrowing their scope to one trait.


I just want to qualify this--True fanciers of the English style are not breeding for colour. Reputable breeders of English bloodlines have dogs in a range of colours, and breed for temperament, correct coat texture, trainability, etc, etc,--their interpretation of the standard just leads them to select traits identified as "English" as what they view as correct. 

Breeding for "platinum" or "white" coats as a primary or sole selection factor is a sign that someone is not reputable. There are reputable breeders of English line dogs in North America just as there are disreputable breeders of American style dogs. The style a breeder prefers is not what indicates they are reputable--breeding practises do that.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> _Linebreeding, however, makes use of a smaller genetic pool in order to provide consistency in offspring. You express those recessives and then don't breed the dogs who are phenotypically undesirable. You eliminate undesired characteristics, both from dominant and recessive genes. _


But that smaller genetic pool will still have flaws or weaknesses that happen. I'm thinking that by the time a breeder discovered that a stud dog has an issue (like eye or heart disease, or even cancer), that it does not appear until that dog is an old dog and has already spawned quite a lot of dogs who have been bred many times. 



> I think it's quite wise to look at the reporting issue. Good American breeders are OFA-ing the living heck out of their stock these days, and the result is that we're identifying a huge proportion of the actual dysplastic dogs, many of which will never show symptoms. There's a similar surge in the diagnosis of cancer as techniques get cheaper and more accurate. The rise in stats doesn't necessarily mean a rise in the actual incidence of a condition.


There's a difference between the OFA and surveys. Most golden owners who are not involved with the dog world or who only visit the vet once a year do not ordinarily find out about those surveys soon enough to respond. And like I said, there are quite a lot of diseases and conditions which seem to go unnoticed. And I can see how that happens.

The OFA might not give a good idea about the breed in general (because a majority of dog owners are not going to xray their dogs unless they're limping, and then they don't see the point of sending to the OFA if they aren't breeding). I'm going to guess that the system would be a lot more informative if vets or breeders started pushing puppy owners to submit xrays, especially if the dog is dysplastic. Same thing about people putting age and health details on K9data, particularly if their dogs died from cancer, etc. <- I can dream about a perfect world anyway.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sweet Girl said:


> I would love to see the peer reviewed veterinary studies that lead to these conclusions.


They aren't. It's two big surveys done by the GRCA and a (I forget which) British organization. They weren't controlled for comparison to each other, and they were both based solely on what people wrote on surveys.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> But that smaller genetic pool will still have flaws or weaknesses that happen. I'm thinking that by the time a breeder discovered that a stud dog has an issue (like eye or heart disease, or even cancer), that it does not appear until that dog is an old dog and has already spawned quite a lot of dogs who have been bred many times.


Absolutely. Gene pool size doesn't directly correlate to proportion of flaws. Linebreeding is not a solution to genetic disease, but linebreeding is also not the cause of genetic disease, nor does the smaller gene pool automatically mean it's a weaker gene pool overall. In your scenario, that's a gene (actually, almost certainly a complex series of genes and epigenetic factors) that exists within the population and is getting expressed in linebred and outcrossed dogs both. The scenario you describe is actually more likely in outcrossed dogs than in linebred dogs because the condition would appear more randomly and sporadically. 

Linebreeding, done wrong, can have disastrous consequences to be sure. It's one of the reasons that willy-nilly backyard breeding of Goldens results in such poor health. Even if the breeder thinks he's outcrossing, he's still doing so within the very narrow genetic pool of the breed, so it's not the same thing as outcrossing in natural selection.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

nixietink said:


> No offense, but I would never trust anything a breeder says who has a breeding planned with a dog who only has prelims done. Unless there is a REALLY good reason otherwise.


One thing I've learned on the board is that some of the most respected and successful breeders breed on prelims more often than you'd think. They're often quiet about it, but it does happen, even if they're also lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it.

EDITED: I'm not going to remove the original statement, since it's quoted later, but I did apologize for putting this the way I did. What I meant was that the practice is more common among highly respected breeders than one might think, given that the GRCA Code of Ethics says you shouldn't breed before 24 months and that COE and its age limit are often quoted when people on the board analyze bad breeders.


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> One thing I've learned on the board is that some of the most respected and successful breeders breed on prelims more often than you'd think. They're often quiet about it, but it does happen, even if they're also lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it.


Yes, and I do agree that it is done by reputable breeders now and again. But back to my other question, aren't prelims available to be seen in the OFA database?


----------



## KellyH (Sep 5, 2010)

My darling Bridget was an English Golden, and she died at 13 and a half from CANCER. So, as an English Golden owner, I say these claims are rubbish. It's all about the breeding lines and not about whether they are English or American, IMHO. Bridget was born in Israel (I lived there for 11 years). She was bred by the Israel Guide Dog Centre for the Blind, from two imported English dogs. I raised her for a year as a puppy walker and then she was supposed to go back to the centre to be trained to work with a blind person. She flunked out so I got to keep her. Over the years all my vets were so impressed with her structure, her temperament, her eyes, teeth etc. - even as she got older. They said they'd never seen such a healthy dog. Yet she still got cancer (osteosarcoma in her pelvis) and died. I attribute her longevity to impeccable breeding by the centre, and NOT because she was an "English" Golden. There are some wonderful American dogs on this forum who are living long, prosperous lives, and as others have mentioned, English dogs who have passed away young and have had elbow and hip dysplasia problems. I believe longevity in dogs is a combination of good breeding and care by responsible owners. I believed that's why Bridget lived so long... but it didn't stop her getting cancer in the end. 

Oh, and although she was an English golden - she was very "gold" in colour - not cream - a light gold, but definitely gold nonetheless.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> One thing I've learned on the board is that some of the most respected and successful breeders breed on prelims more often than you'd think. They're often quiet about it, but it does happen, even if they're also lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it.


Really? When a breeder like Birnam Wood uses a dog on prelims, or, Rhonda Hovan, it is not done lightly. It is rarely, IF EVER, done with young bitches, but rather with young dogs. It is most often done when it is to be the bitch's last litter, and know, too, that the genetic health history of that dog being used is sound - with solid clearances in a vertical pedigree. And I do not hear them "lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it". 
The issue is of concern when ONLY prelims are done and bitches under 2 are being bred, and dogs even a year old and _younger, _and by "inferior" (your words) breeders who are just using intact dogs because they have them, with no rhyme or reason to the pedigree.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

sterregold said:


> I just want to qualify this--True fanciers of the English style are not breeding for colour. Reputable breeders of English bloodlines have dogs in a range of colours, and breed for temperament, correct coat texture, trainability, etc, etc,--their interpretation of the standard just leads them to select traits identified as "English" as what they view as correct.
> 
> Breeding for "platinum" or "white" coats as a primary or sole selection factor is a sign that someone is not reputable. There are reputable breeders of English line dogs in North America just as there are disreputable breeders of American style dogs. The style a breeder prefers is not what indicates they are reputable--breeding practises do that.


I would say that is what we were discussing. To be blunt, A LOT of websites that advertise "English Cream" or "White Goldens" turn out to be breeders I want nothing to do with. There's a marked difference between somebody breeding a european style golden and what I'm predominantly seeing on various websites. Sadly, coat colour and english style have become an advertising point to sell dogs.

A white coat, gold coat, red coat is not indicative of much. But, if I type "English Cream Golden Breeder" I'm certain I'll find far more shyster's looking to make a quick buck then if I type Golden Retriever Breeder. Coat colour is now a market ploy... and I view it negatively when advertised.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Really? When a breeder like Birnam Wood uses a dog on prelims, or, Rhonda Hovan, it is not done lightly. It is rarely, IF EVER, done with young bitches, but rather with young dogs. It is most often done when it is to be the bitch's last litter, and know, too, that the genetic health history of that dog being used is sound - with solid clearances in a vertical pedigree. And I do not hear them "lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it".
> The issue is of concern when ONLY prelims are done and bitches under 2 are being bred, and dogs even a year old and _younger, _and by "inferior" (your words) breeders who are just using intact dogs because they have them, with no rhyme or reason to the pedigree.


I was just pointing out that even though the GRCA ethical guidelines make it very clear that it's not acceptable to breed dogs under two, many influential breeders feel that they can break that rule. Nowhere in the GRCA's guidelines does it make any exceptions like the ones you describe. It doesn't say, "don't breed dogs under two, unless they're boys with a good health history and you really, really want to breed an older bitch one more time before she's too old for it."

And sorry, you're right. Rhonda and Sylvia have never, to my knowledge, logged onto the board and hypocritically told other breeders that it's unacceptable to breed dogs under two. However, many people on the board repeat the claim that breeding on prelims is unacceptable, despite the actions of the breeders they admire. I should not have said "they" so vaguely. I won't go back and edit the post (since it would remove the context for your post), but I do apologize for putting it that way, since it wasn't accurate.

The GR community, as expressed in its ethical guidelines and in the criticism of bad breeders on the board, says one thing, but many of its members bend that rule pretty darn far. That's how I should have put it.

Breeding dogs on prelims is a regular practice among show breeders, even those who are highly regarded in the community. You're right that it's typically young dogs, not bitches, but it is done more often that I would have thought, given the talk that is talked. A couple of hours' cross-referencing top winning dogs and k9data will turn up plenty of situations in which a dog between 18 and 24 months is bred to a bitch over two just after his prelims come back.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

nixietink said:


> Yes, and I do agree that it is done by reputable breeders now and again. But back to my other question, aren't prelims available to be seen in the OFA database?


To answer your question: Yes, if the breeder turns the radiographs in to OFA. My golden has prelims done when she was 16 months old and you can view them on OFA. Some might take an xray and the vet says it looks good and they do not pay to send the results in to OFA. It should be sent in to OFA to let 3 specialist determine what grade it is.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I was just pointing out that even though the GRCA ethical guidelines make it very clear that it's not acceptable to breed dogs under two, many influential breeders feel that they can break that rule. Nowhere in the GRCA's guidelines does it make any exceptions like the ones you describe. It doesn't say, "don't breed dogs under two, unless they're boys with a good health history and you really, really want to breed an older bitch one more time before she's too old for it."
> 
> And sorry, you're right. Rhonda and Sylvia have never, to my knowledge, logged onto the board and hypocritically told other breeders that it's unacceptable to breed dogs under two. However, many people on the board repeat the claim that breeding on prelims is unacceptable, despite the actions of the breeders they admire. I should not have said "they" so vaguely. I won't go back and edit the post (since it would remove the context for your post), but I do apologize for putting it that way, since it wasn't accurate.
> 
> ...


 
It is hardly rampant among well respected breeders, as it is among BYB and millers, nor is it done indiscriminately by those well respected breeders. Additionaly, GRCA Board members have done it, and I'm sure will allow that there ARE "exceptions to the rules". And it needs to be made very clear that it is with a specific goal in mind for a _well laid out breeding program_ - a term often loosley tossed about by those who have no "program" other than to put puppies on the ground and money in their bank accounts. 
Again, the issue is when ONLY prelims are done, and never followed up by actuall clearances at an age when the dogs can be certified as clear. As an example, there is a breeder here (no longer on the forum, I do not believe) who repeated used a young dog on several bitches, on prelims only, at under a year old. I believe that some of the bitches only had prelims, as well. Several litters were produced and oops - the dog didn't clear when two. All of a sudden he was gone. Lesson learned? Dunno, cuz a new young dog has repleaced him and is being used. Lets hope the same thing doesn't happen... Now, one of those well respected breeders would not have done the same thing, because again, they would have made sure that there was a SOLID history of health clearances throughout the pedigree. The pedigrees in the above example have _lots _of holes. THAT is where you might find breeders here expressing their concerns.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I highlighted and italicized a line that is important to note when discussing the COE and breeders "bending" the _guidelines._



Following you will find the Code of Ethics adopted by the Board of Directors on April 20, 1997. This text was adopted after many revisions, long discussions, review of other national breed clubs’ Codes and consideration of input from the membership. _The Code’s nature is not punitive, but rather a guideline that is informational and states the accepted norm in Golden Retrievers. _This Code will appear in the GRCA booklet Acquiring a Golden Retriever and in new member packets. New members, by their application, agree to abide by and follow the guidelines outlined in the Code of Ethics. The reaffirmation statement on the annual dues renewal also will note members’ agreement to follow the guidelines of this Code.
The Golden Retriever Club of America endorses the following Code of Ethics for its members. It is the purpose of GRCA to encourage its members to perfect through selection, breeding and training the type of dog most suitable in all respects for work as a companionable gun dog, and to do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of Golden Retrievers in every endeavor. 


Golden Retriever Club of America - The GRCA Club


Note again, a word that leaces this open to "bending" the guidelines:

_Generally,_ a Golden Retriever is not physically and mentally mature until the age of 2 years; an individual dog’s suitability as a breeding animal is difficult to assess until that time. 


Personally, I am more comfortable in follwoing the guidelines more strictly, because I do not presume to be as knowledgeable as a Sylvia, or a Rhonda. However, with their guidance I _might _(and once did) allow one of my own dogs to be used on prelims. I am also struggling with the fact that my bitches are not producing as well (number-wise) when waiting to breed them as they might be if bred the minute they turn two. Again, until you are a breeder with any experience, you cannot possibly know all the issues and concerns that arise.​


----------



## scottie (Oct 1, 2007)

When I was researching to get a golden retriever (only had spaniels before) I didn't find cancer causing a major health concern here, Hip Dysplasia was more of a health worry and I had to look around for a breeder who had hip scored and had low results, but most good breeders here test for hip scores and eye scores too.
Charlie is a light colour, but not near white, when I think of american type goldens I think of a red colour as they seem to be a lot darker than most goldens here.
Like everywhere these days, there are good breeders who health test and love their breed and the pups and there are people out to make a quick profit.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I highlighted and italicized a line that is important to note when discussing the COE and breeders "bending" the _guidelines._
> 
> 
> 
> ...




By your logic, _all_ the guidelines can be bent in this fashion. And if you read back through what I said, I never said it was a problem to breed between 18-24 months. I answered a person's question by saying that though the GRCA guidelines are clear on the subject and most people will publicly support those guidelines, many respected breeders do not follow that particular aspect strictly.



Pointgold said:


> Personally, I am more comfortable in follwoing the guidelines more strictly, because I do not presume to be as knowledgeable as a Sylvia, or a Rhonda. However, with their guidance I _might _(and once did) allow one of my own dogs to be used on prelims. I am also struggling with the fact that my bitches are not producing as well (number-wise) when waiting to breed them as they might be if bred the minute they turn two. Again, until you are a breeder with any experience, you cannot possibly know all the issues and concerns that arise.


Even if you've been breeding for a while, I think it would be a bit presumptuous to say you know "all the issues and concerns that arise," and I do not accept that a person needs to have actually bred dogs for decades in order to have a valid viewpoint on breeding.

And, yet again, I will point out that I have not passed judgment on the practice in this thread. Quite the opposite.​


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Braccarius said:


> I would say that is what we were discussing. To be blunt, A LOT of websites that advertise "English Cream" or "White Goldens" turn out to be breeders I want nothing to do with. There's a marked difference between somebody breeding a european style golden and what I'm predominantly seeing on various websites. Sadly, coat colour and english style have become an advertising point to sell dogs.
> 
> A white coat, gold coat, red coat is not indicative of much. But, if I type "English Cream Golden Breeder" I'm certain I'll find far more shyster's looking to make a quick buck then if I type Golden Retriever Breeder. Coat colour is now a market ploy... and I view it negatively when advertised.


Braccarius, I felt it merited the distinction because the *OP* only referred to English--not English Cream or any of the other marketing variants. All too often on this board I see a breeder being questioned merely because the phrase English appears in connection with their dogs or breeding program. Making that distinction is important--cream, creme, platinum snow white etc etc along with unwarranted health and temperament claims, or claims they are a distinct variety within the breed, or even a type apart (type is what makes a dog representative of its breed, style is about those more subtle distinctions which is why I prefer the clear use of those terms..), are what we need to beware of--not the word English on its own.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> By your logic, _all_ the guidelines can be bent in this fashion. And if you read back through what I said, I never said it was a problem to breed between 18-24 months. I answered a person's question by saying that though the GRCA guidelines are clear on the subject and most people will publicly support those guidelines, many respected breeders do not follow that particular aspect strictly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Where is it MY logic that all the guidelines can be bent? I am simply pointing out what others - specifically GRCA Board Members who have not followed the COE to the letter - have stated - that is that the COE is a GUIDELINE. Period. 
Read what you wrote. It most certainly seems that you were chastising well respected breeders who breed on prelims (quietly = sneakily perhaps?) and that some here on the board are somehow hypocritical for "lecturing" "inferior" breeders who do.
"One thing I've learned on the board is that some of the most respected and successful breeders breed on prelims more often than you'd think. They're often quiet about it, but it does happen, even if they're also lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it."
If you were referring to me as a breeder on the board who has bred on a prelim, I've not been "quiet" about it, and I've not done it "often" at all. Again, I've been vocal about those who do it ONLY on prelims, and with underaged bitches.
Nor did I say that I know all the issues and concerns that arise when breeding, but until you have been breeding for some time, you'll not be familiar with the things that can and do happen, nor how many of the decisions made are reached. Evenas long as I have been breeding, I certainly am not. As for having a valid viewpoint on breeding, that's not at all what I said or even was referring to. A valid viewpoint is far different than years of hands on experience and knowing what goes on "behind" the scenes, so to speak, and believing that is hardly presumptuous. I may have a valid viewpoint on teaching English, but I will never presume to believe that I can simply stand up in a classroom and do it well.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Personally, I am more comfortable in follwoing the guidelines more strictly, because I do not presume to be as knowledgeable as a Sylvia, or a Rhonda. However, with their guidance I _might _(and once did) allow one of my own dogs to be used on prelims. I am also struggling with the fact that my bitches are not producing as well (number-wise) when waiting to breed them as they might be if bred the minute they turn two. Again, until you are a breeder with any experience, you cannot possibly know all the issues and concerns that arise.


Laura... do experienced breeders breed on preliminaries based on when the heat happens? I do not own a female golden so I have no clue as to how often a dog goes into heat a year, but I'm guessing it isn't too often, right? 

I'm not exactly thrilled that my guy's mom was bred on preliminaries. Er... now that I know those are not exactly the same as actual OFA certs. Back then I looked at how old the dogs were (over 2 years old) and that they both had clearances. That and I absolutely loved the mom and wanted one of her puppies, so I guess I didn't ask enough questions. Lesson learned. :uhoh: 

That said, she did have her clearances afterward and those preliminaries held. 

So I guess I'm wondering is if a breeder knows that those preliminaries are beyond any doubt, and they were done within 6 months of the real ones, if that why you see some breeders winging it and breeding dogs like that.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Where is it MY logic that all the guidelines can be bent? I am simply pointing out what others - specifically GRCA Board Members who have not followed the COE to the letter - have stated - that is that the COE is a GUIDELINE. Period.


Your logic appeared to be that because it is a guideline, we can bend it selectively. However, I do not think that any of us would agree, for example, that doing CERFs is a guideline we should bend under any circumstances. You undermined the entire GRCA code of ethics with your post since your logic was that a really good breeder can selectively break this one rule. If a knowledgable breeder can break one rule, why can't she break others, since, as you say, the COE is just a guideline?



Pointgold said:


> Read what you wrote. It most certainly seems that you were chastising well respected breeders who breed on prelims (quietly = sneakily perhaps?) and that some here on the board are somehow hypocritical for "lecturing" "inferior" breeders who do.


Which is why I apologized and clarified what I said. It would indeed be hypocritical to breed dogs before 24 months and then to chastise others for doing so. And if I wrote "quietly," I meant "quietly" and not a different word. It is very clear that you're twisting my words when you take the words I've said and insert other words that mean different things. I also was not referring specifically to the two breeders you later mentioned when I said "quietly." I mentioned no names.



Pointgold said:


> "One thing I've learned on the board is that some of the most respected and successful breeders breed on prelims more often than you'd think. They're often quiet about it, but it does happen, even if they're also lecturing "inferior" breeders about doing it."
> If you were referring to me as a breeder on the board who has bred on a prelim, I've not been "quiet" about it, and I've not done it "often" at all. Again, I've been vocal about those who do it ONLY on prelims, and with underaged bitches.


I was very careful not to write about the fact that one of your dogs came out of a breeding where a stud was used just after 18 months, but that would be a great example of a highly respected breeder who bred on prelims. The last time I wrote about it, you sent a series of personal attacks, insults, and threats to me by PM and to my private e-mail address, so I was not going to make that mistake again.



Pointgold said:


> Nor did I say that I know all the issues and concerns that arise when breeding, but until you have been breeding for some time, you'll not be familiar with the things that can and do happen, nor how many of the decisions made are reached. Evenas long as I have been breeding, I certainly am not. As for having a valid viewpoint on breeding, that's not at all what I said or even was referring to. A valid viewpoint is far different than years of hands on experience and knowing what goes on "behind" the scenes, so to speak, and believing that is hardly presumptuous. I may have a valid viewpoint on teaching English, but I will never presume to believe that I can simply stand up in a classroom and do it well.


I'm not sure what your point is here. You said that I couldn't know what went into the decision unless I had bred for a long time, and I don't agree that I can't understand things without doing them personally for decades.



And let me point out, while I'm going, that none of this was about you. I answered somebody else's question, and I did so accurately. I didn't point out the issue of breeding practices relative to you or your mentor. You brought names in; you assumed I was talking about your dog. It wasn't about you until you made it that way.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

sterregold said:


> Braccarius, I felt it merited the distinction because the *OP* only referred to English--not English Cream or any of the other marketing variants. All too often on this board I see a breeder being questioned merely because the phrase English appears in connection with their dogs or breeding program. Making that distinction is important--cream, creme, platinum snow white etc etc along with unwarranted health and temperament claims, or claims they are a distinct variety within the breed, or even a type apart (type is what makes a dog representative of its breed, style is about those more subtle distinctions which is why I prefer the clear use of those terms..), are what we need to beware of--not the word English on its own.


That... I can agree with! I just wish that there was some quick way to distinguish between breeders looking for an english style dog... and breeders looking for a white dog.

There is an awful lot of lawerly speak on this thread. I think we may have deviated from the original post slightly.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Your logic appeared to be that because it is a guideline, we can bend it selectively. However, I do not think that any of us would agree, for example, that doing CERFs is a guideline we should bend under any circumstances. You undermined the entire GRCA code of ethics with your post since your logic was that a really good breeder can selectively break this one rule. If a knowledgable breeder can break one rule, why can't she break others?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

kfayard said:


> To answer your question: Yes, if the breeder turns the radiographs in to OFA. My golden has prelims done when she was 16 months old and you can view them on OFA. Some might take an xray and the vet says it looks good and they do not pay to send the results in to OFA. It should be sent in to OFA to let 3 specialist determine what grade it is.


Thank you for the answer!

Sorry to cause a debate! I was just concerned that the website the OP cited said the sire of a fall/winter planned litter had OFA prelims of "good". However, when I went to OFA, no prelims were listed. Basically I was pointing out that I would take anything said on the website with a grain of salt. 

Oh, and the dam of that litter only has a cardiac clearance in the OFA database, but has all the clearances listed on the website...


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> The GR community, as expressed in its ethical guidelines and in the criticism of bad breeders on the board, says one thing, but many of its members bend that rule pretty darn far. That's how I should have put it.
> 
> Breeding dogs on prelims is a regular practice among show breeders, even those who are highly regarded in the community. You're right that it's typically young dogs, not bitches, but it is done more often that I would have thought, given the talk that is talked. A couple of hours' cross-referencing top winning dogs and k9data will turn up plenty of situations in which a dog between 18 and 24 months is bred to a bitch over two just after his prelims come back.


I find these comments just as vague and unfounded as the questions raised by the OP in this thread. Please show where you get the numbers from to substantiate these comments. 
There is a HUGE difference when an established responsible breeder decides to use a dog before the age of two on prelims and a breeder who regularly breeds numerous dogs before the age of two on prelims and never submits for finals. I always find your position on this very odd as you are a very intelligent person and I can not believe you do not see any difference between the two. I sometimes think you do it just to get a rise out of other forum members.


----------



## astropdoggy (Jun 28, 2010)

Sounds like a marketing ploy. That statement itself is too much of a general statement and as dogs owners, if we know and have learned anything from puppyhood, everything and anything depends on the dog him/herself and how they are taken care of.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

AmbikaGR said:


> I find these comments just as vague and unfounded as the questions raised by the OP in this thread. Please show where you get the numbers from to substantiate these comments.
> There is a HUGE difference when an established responsible breeder decides to use a dog before the age of two on prelims and a breeder who regularly breeds numerous dogs before the age of two on prelims and never submits for finals. I always find your position on this very odd as you are a very intelligent person and I can not believe you do not see any difference between the two. I sometimes think you do it just to get a rise out of other forum members.


I appreciate your compliment, Hank; I hold your opinions in a good deal of esteem. And I do see the difference between established breeders doing it carefully and getting the certs later and profiteers breeding too young in order to make money.

However, if you look back at the what I originally wrote, all I said was that it quietly happens more than one would think, given what the COE says. I have since clarified my comment and apologized for putting it badly. If the COE prohibits it, I would assume that great breeders never do it, which is what I thought for a long time.

However, when PG first enlightened me on the subject, I spent quite a while digging through the k9data entries of several top GR breeders, and I found that lots (about half) of them had at least one time they had bred a dog under 24 months old. Having never once heard that exception previously mentioned on the board, I found it an oddly quiet practice, given the frequency of times that other breeders are slammed on the board for breeding on prelims. It seemed like nobody was taking the time to explain the difference between a great breeder making an exception to the rule and the way that the profiteers were doing it.

When I say a "regular" practice, I mean that it is verifiable on k9data that several top breeders have done it. It's not isolated to the two highly respected people PG mentioned. However, I don't mean that some large percentage of show litters is generated that way; I simply noted that it seemed common to have done it at least once. I don't know how to substantiate it without naming names (and thus painting an even larger target on my back), but all I did is take the Eukanuba show list and look up dogs from those kennels and the kennels that appear in their pedigrees. Anybody can see it if they take the time to sort through the public databases.

And I brought it up at first in order to make it clear that even though the COE clearly says that dogs should not be bred before two, many good (even great) breeders still do it. The bare fact that a breeder has bred an 18-month-old dog is not a reason to assume the breeder is bad. So despite the fact that I'm getting vilified for lumping good breeders in with bad, my original point was just that the age rule isn't hard and fast, which is precisely what PG was saying.

I don't think it's fair to say I was trying to get a rise out of anybody. I responded to somebody's question, and it was only then that I got jumped on. It's not like I responded directly to somebody in order to get a rise. I tried to answer a question honestly, and I didn't mention any names or quote anybody else but the asker when I responded.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

For what it's worth, I think that saying "regularly" sounds like a lot more than what is actually the case from your pedigree research. That doesn't sound "regular" at all to me, it sounds like a very rare exception to the general rule.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> For what it's worth, I think that saying "regularly" sounds like a lot more than what is actually the case from your pedigree research. That doesn't sound "regular" at all to me, it sounds like a very rare exception to the general rule.


Fair enough. It was a large fraction of the breeders I looked at (appx. 1/2), though it was a very small fraction of the overall number of litters.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

It is highly offensive to me to be accused of undermining the COE. I have been a member in good standing of the GRCA since 1987, have sincerely attempted to be an honest and ethical breeder, and have never taken the COE or the breed standard lightly. And, as a long time member of the GRCA, I have been involved in MANY discussions with both the general memberhip, and board members, as to the COE and it's wording. That it is a "guideline", and not punitive, and that "generally" Golden Retrievers are not mature until the age of two, leaves room for the "bending" of that which is considered the "norm" and to be ethical. And is something that I, and others, are conflicted about. 
I was simply providing examples, and yet again, found my words to be twisted and the meaning assumed to be something that it was not.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Pointgold said:


> It is highly offensive to me to be accused of undermining the COE. I have been a member in good standing of the GRCA since 1987, have sincerely attempted to be an honest and ethical breeder, and have never taken the COE or the breed standard lightly. And, as a long time member of the GRCA, I have been involved in MANY discussions with both the general memberhip, and board members, as to the COE and it's wording. That it is a "guideline", and not punitive, and that "generally" Golden Retrievers are not mature until the age of two, leaves room for the "bending" of that which is considered the "norm" and to be ethical. And is something that I, and others, are conflicted about.
> I was simply providing examples, and yet again, found my words to be twisted and the meaning assumed to be something that it was not.


Not sure if it means much, but I understood your posts and have understood your position on this issue from previous threads.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> It is highly offensive to me to be accused of undermining the COE. I have been a member in good standing of the GRCA since 1987, have sincerely attempted to be an honest and ethical breeder, and have never taken the COE or the breed standard lightly. And, as a long time member of the GRCA, I have been involved in MANY discussions with both the general memberhip, and board members, as to the COE and it's wording. That it is a "guideline", and not punitive, and that "generally" Golden Retrievers are not mature until the age of two, leaves room for the "bending" of that which is considered the "norm" and to be ethical. And is something that I, and others, are conflicted about.
> I was simply providing examples, and yet again, found my words to be twisted and the meaning assumed to be something that it was not.


I apologize, and I know that you have done a great deal to uphold the COE and to make sure others are doing so.

I did not agree with the logic that the whole COE is a guideline and can therefore be bent if you're experienced enough, because I believe that leads us down a dangerous road. I think that the age aspect is obviously flexible, but only within the parameters you set out, since highly admired breeders do bend it to that degree from time to time, but there are many aspects to the COE that are hard and fast and should not be bent for any reason or on any occasion. I admit that I am uncomfortable about the bending of it at all, and that my discomfort clearly bleeds through in what I say, so I'm sorry for that too.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

wantagolden said:


> Additionally, english goldens have been rigorously tested for multiple generations to weed out dogs with higher genetic tendencies toward chronic to the golden retriever breed such as hip dysplasia and elbow dysplasia.
> 
> The result is the English lines are should have lower incidence of these health problems."


Well, I wish someone would have informed Chance of this...a surgeon from UC Davis said that Chance's ED was the worst case he's ever seen. 

Chance's "breeder" has at least 60-65 puppies on the ground at all times. And no health testing. 

Can you imagine how many other "English" pups and adults from this kennel are dysplastic? And how many are reproducing? 

So no, I don't agree that they have less health issues...


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Wow, I had no idea there was any wiggle room at all with the prelims. Certainly wouldn't have guessed that from general forum talk over the years, or maybe I just missed it.

I'm enlightened  Lots of room for discussion here.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Not sure if it means much, but I understood your posts and have understood your position on this issue from previous threads.


Thank you. It does mean much.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> Wow, I had no idea there was any wiggle room at all with the prelims. Certainly wouldn't have guessed that from general forum talk over the years, or maybe I just missed it.
> 
> I'm enlightened  Lots of room for discussion here.


Yes, you must have missed it. It has been discussed dozens of times.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Yes, you must have missed it. It has been discussed dozens of times.


Wiggle room for breeding on prelims has been discussed here dozens of times? Yes, I definitely missed that. Can you link me up?


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

nixietink said:


> Thank you for the answer!
> 
> Sorry to cause a debate! I was just concerned that the website the OP cited said the sire of a fall/winter planned litter had OFA prelims of "good". However, when I went to OFA, no prelims were listed. Basically I was pointing out that I would take anything said on the website with a grain of salt.
> 
> Oh, and the dam of that litter only has a cardiac clearance in the OFA database, but has all the clearances listed on the website...


Yes, that is not good! I am not too sure on this breeder! I did a little researching and not one of her dogs has OFA hip/shoulder clearances. Some mention of Penn number. Some even have an OFA number and I went to look at it that way...and nothing came up.

If you look at the previous litters: Angel puppies were whelped on 3/27/10 and she was born 5/15/08. She had puppies at 22 months old.

On Belle says her date of birth on the website is 11/30/08 and when you click on her pedigree is says 11/30/05. Probably an accident. If you go to her OFA page. You can see that the cardiac (done by a practioner) was done on 12/06....but did not turn it in until 5/08!!!!
Cerf was done in 08. This breeder is not up-to-date with some cerfs.

Also...Belle's mother (Ema) was diagnosed with PRA in 08

Jaycee-can not find anything on the OFa website...even though it list OFA cardiac and cerf numbers.

I am not sure what is going on here...maybe there is an explanation for all the wrongful statements on the website. :no:

I personally would not buy a puppy here!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> Wiggle room for breeding on prelims has been discussed here dozens of times? Yes, I definitely missed that. Can you link me up?


Breeding on prelims has. I'm not sure where you are getting "wiggle room" from.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Breeding on prelims has. I'm not sure where you are getting "wiggle room" from.


That most of the time it's not okay but sometimes it is and that even you have bred on prelims once?

That sure sounds like wiggle room to me. Probably not using the right words...maybe I should say "room for discretion."


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> That most of the time it's not okay but sometimes it is and that even you have bred on prelims once?
> 
> That sure sounds like wiggle room to me. Probably not using the right words...maybe I should say "room for discretion."


 
Read the posts, JE. I think that it is all very clear, as well as the fact that I have in fact discussed having allowed a stud service on one of my dogs on a prelim. Old news. And attempting to continue to make it nefarious serves no one.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Read the posts, JE. I think that it is all very clear, as well as the fact that I have in fact discussed having allowed a stud service on one of my dogs on a prelim. Old news. And attempting to continue to make it nefarious serves no one.


You've totally twisted my intent, Laura. I'm curious, I thought I understood and I clearly don't. All of this is real eye-opener for me. I see it more as an opportunity to learn, sorry you don't.


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> Wiggle room for breeding on prelims has been discussed here dozens of times? Yes, I definitely missed that. Can you link me up?


I can vouch that it has been discussed before. Can't think of any specific threads (since there are a TON on clearances) but I do know it has been discussed here quite a few times.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

nixietink said:


> I can vouch that it has been discussed before. Can't think of any specific threads (since there are a TON on clearances) but I do know it has been discussed here quite a few times.


Thanks, Nixie. I was just hoping someone could provide a few handy links. Have a long weekend coming up, would be nice to research a bit. I'll search on my own, though sometimes searching here is not the easiest.


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> Thanks, Nixie. I was just hoping someone could provide a few handy links. Have a long weekend coming up, would be nice to research a bit. I'll search on my own, though sometimes searching here is not the easiest.


I agree, it can be a pain sometimes. I'll keep my eyes open, too.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

nixietink said:


> I can vouch that it has been discussed before. Can't think of any specific threads (since there are a TON on clearances) but I do know it has been discussed here quite a few times.


I remember bringing it up once and facing the ensuing firestorm, but I don't remember other times when exceptions to the 24-month rule were discussed. It's not that I don't believe there are other threads, just that I was like Jo and never saw them. I remember gajillions of threads condemning breeders for breeding on prelims, but no discussion of exceptions or how to do it properly.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I remember it coming up in threads at least a couple of times, mainly because I remember that PG had described the one instance that she approved her dog to be used on a bitch's last litter. I've always held that circumstance in my mind as being the only time it should EVER be done and only with a very very special boy, for a good reason (pedigree wise) and with a history of health clearances behind the dog. I also remember thinking that, at least in my mind, one could NEVER justify breeding a bitch on prelims.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I remember bringing it up once and facing the ensuing firestorm, but I don't remember other times when exceptions to the 24-month rule were discussed. It's not that I don't believe there are other threads, just that I was like Jo and never saw them. I remember gajillions of threads condemning breeders for breeding on prelims, but no discussion of exceptions or how to do it properly.


Maybe this will refresh the memory. 

Golden Retrievers : Golden Retriever Dog Forums - View Single Post - Recherche Goldens near Roanoke, VA


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Things sure get weird around here sometimes


----------



## honeysmum (Dec 4, 2007)

kwhit said:


> Well, I wish someone would have informed Chance of this...a surgeon from UC Davis said that Chance's ED was the worst case he's ever seen.
> 
> Chance's "breeder" has at least 60-65 puppies on the ground at all times. And no health testing.
> 
> ...


I find this thread very confusing as everyone is talking about English pups but how many litters come from both dog and bitch that have been imported to the USA from Great Britain I cant imagine many (perhaps male sperm) the GR is not an English breed :doh: UK yes but not English.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> Things sure get weird around here sometimes


Ain't that the truth!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> You've totally twisted my intent, Laura. I'm curious, I thought I understood and I clearly don't. All of this is real eye-opener for me. I see it more as an opportunity to learn, sorry you don't.


 
Oh, I've learned plenty.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I remember bringing it up once and facing the ensuing firestorm, but I don't remember other times when exceptions to the 24-month rule were discussed. It's not that I don't believe there are other threads, just that I was like Jo and never saw them. I remember gajillions of threads condemning breeders for breeding on prelims, but no discussion of exceptions or how to do it properly.


 
It is absolutley untrue that discussion of exceptions has not occurred. And it is conveniently not being mentioned that the "condemnation" has been of "breeders" who breed ONLY on prelims, and repeatedly.With dogs with hodge-podge pedigrees, and lots of holes as far as clearances - and no idea what will be produced. And also those who knowingly continue to breed to dogs who have failed follow ups, but advertise that prelims were good,. It is constantly being stated that prelims are not clearances. 

That "firestorm" you refer to was because of the accusatory nature of your bringing up that I'd allowed a stud service on prelims.A dog with a very solid ancestral history of clearances, from well known pedigrees, and having a very good idea as to what would be produced. To a Canadian champion bitch, with all clearances, with puppies from her previous litters with good clearances.



EDT TO ADD: Correction - I mispoke. I believe that the "firestorm" that ensued was actually about me having bought a dog from a "pro breeder" who had used a dog under the age of two, on prelims. That dog was Ch Pebwin's XPDNC, Multiple specialty winner, National Specialty winner, Westminster Kennel Club Best of Breed winner, GRCA Outstanding Sire. (He's also produced many OFA Excellent offspring). Yeah, that was a bad move on the part of Birnam Wood's Sylvia Donahey-Feeney to have found him and used him as a "promising" young dog. 
This is RARELY the case of the "breeders" that are condemend here for using underaged dogs on prelims ONLY. 

As for me having allowed a stud service with one of my dogs before the age of two, that has been discussed here before, as well. You can say what you'd like about me but I've never hidden that fact. (Oh, and by the way, I took a puppy back on that service, not money. Just in case anyone might suggest that it was about money for me.)


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

honeysmum said:


> I find this thread very confusing as everyone is talking about English pups but how many litters come from both dog and bitch that have been imported to the USA from Great Britain I cant imagine many (perhaps male sperm) the GR is not an English breed :doh: UK yes but not English.


It is just the term that is commonly used on this side of the pond to refer to dogs in the style most commonly seen in the show rings in Gr. Britain and Europe. It refers to the look rather than direct origins. That's what people are accustomed to calling it, so that is what gets used.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> As for me having allowed a stud service with one of my dogs before the age of two, that has been discussed here before, as well. You can say what you'd like about me but I've never hidden that fact. (Oh, and by the way, I took a puppy back on that service, not money. Just in case anyone might suggest that it was about money for me.)


I don't think anyone here is accusing you of hiding anything. But you really are defensive about it. And angry that anyone is talking about it at all. I don't get that. Breeding on prelims is unusual and strongly discouraged, generally speaking. The questioning kinda goes along with doing it. Be open about it, talk about it. If it's okay, it's not a big deal.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

AmbikaGR said:


> Maybe this will refresh the memory.
> 
> Golden Retrievers : Golden Retriever Dog Forums - View Single Post - Recherche Goldens near Roanoke, VA


Hank, I obviously remember the big argument one, 'cause I brought up the issue myself. I even mentioned it in the post you quoted. It was discussions prior to that that I wasn't aware of.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> It is absolutley untrue that discussion of exceptions has not occurred.


I didn't say it hadn't occurred, just that *I* hadn't seen it discussed until I brought it up myself in the Recherche thread. And even then, it was only discussed because I brought it up. More the fool me for that one.



Pointgold said:


> And it is conveniently not being mentioned that the "condemnation" has been of "breeders" who breed ONLY on prelims, and repeatedly.With dogs with hodge-podge pedigrees, and lots of holes as far as clearances - and no idea what will be produced. And also those who knowingly continue to breed to dogs who have failed follow ups, but advertise that prelims were good,. It is constantly being stated that prelims are not clearances.


I have mentioned over and over and over in this thread, from the very first time that it was brought up, that there's a clear difference between the kind of exceptions you've mentioned with good breeders and made yourself and the rampant abuse of the ethics that occurs with bad breeders. It's crystal clear to me how the exceptions are special situations, and I have never indicated any confusion on this issue in this thread.



Pointgold said:


> That "firestorm" you refer to was because of the accusatory nature of your bringing up that I'd allowed a stud service on prelims.


You took it as an accusation, but it wasn't me who called you a hypocrite in that thread, all I said was this:



> Hey Laura, I would have written this in a PM, but you seem to have turned them off or maybe just blocked me, but isn't one of your dogs from a litter where the stud was under 2?
> 
> I thought pro breeders sometimes bent or broke rules like that.


You ran with it like it was an attack, but there's nothing accusatory in there and certainly nothing meriting a series of insults and a threat. I asked you to clarify the difference between what you were saying Recherche was doing (breeding underage frequently, etc.) and what good breeders sometimes do. I don't think the difference is at all obvious to a layperson, since both practices violate the letter of the COE. 



Pointgold said:


> As for me having allowed a stud service with one of my dogs before the age of two, that has been discussed here before, as well. You can say what you'd like about me but I've never hidden that fact. (Oh, and by the way, I took a puppy back on that service, not money. Just in case anyone might suggest that it was about money for me.)


I don't think I saw that thread, because I didn't know that until this very moment. But that's two highly respected breeders and two exceptions to the rule. One could forgive me for calling it a "regular" practice.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I didn't say it hadn't occurred, just that *I* hadn't seen it discussed until I brought it up myself in the Recherche thread. And even then, it was only discussed because I brought it up. More the fool me for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think that your tone in those posts to me was quite obvious. I am quite done with whatever it is that you are doing. I am happy to address this topic with anyone else who has any questions for me, and who has a genuine interest in the subject.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> I think that your tone in those posts to me was quite obvious. I am quite done with whatever it is that you are doing. I am happy to address this topic with anyone else who has any questions for me, and who has a genuine interest in the subject.


Really. I can't imagine anyone would want to ask you about it now. You have a how dare you ask me kind of mentality about this. But you did it, you bred on prelims. So we're asking you, you're here, you breed, we're asking you. 

But you're mad. You've set the tone yourself, and the only one here who's made anything nefarious is ... _you_.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> Really. I can't imagine anyone would want to ask you about it now. You have a how dare you ask me kind of mentality about this. But you did it, you bred on prelims. So we're asking you, you're here, you breed, we're asking you.
> 
> But you're mad. You've set the tone yourself, and the only one here who's made anything nefarious is ... _you_.


Really, JE. You could not be more wrong. I'm not mad. That would be wasting energy and emotion better used positively, elsewhere, with others.
A "how dare you ask me" mentality? If that were the case, I would not have volunteered the information myself, now, would I? No, I simply do not care to play the ""Ohhh, I gotcha game that you and Tippykayak seem to enjoy so much. I actually enjoy discussing the topic with people who are interested in the _subject _as opposed to simply thinking that they are "getting" me. Toss bait elsewhere. I am so done biting.
Have a nice night.


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Unfortunate. I know you don't like me, I'm not very fond of you either ... but that has nothing to do with this. I really do want to understand.

Oh well.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> "Ohhh, I gotcha game that you and Tippykayak seem to enjoy so much.


Once again, you accuse me of this in a thread where I participated first and responded to somebody else and then you jumped all over something I said. If I wanted to bait you, I'd come find stuff you wrote and then bait you. As it stands, you start this foolishness by coming after me again and again. It is patently ridiculous for you to suggest that I somehow am playing a game with you when I wrote something that wasn't to you or about you and then you attacked me over it.


----------



## LincolnsMom (Sep 28, 2010)

Wow..dramarama...I understand that I should NEVER say this; but because I felt very insulted myself I must say that when you replied to me Tippykayak and this is more than once I found you to be very rude and aggressive. 

Maybe you are not meaning to come across this way; but I feel that since I am not the only one who is feeling this way I must say that I agree. I do believe though that since we are all one this forum together we should drop it now and walk away. 

We are here for our love of our dogs. And we are of course not all going to get along but for the sake of the fact that we are trying to help others and learn from each other it should be water under the bridge?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

LincolnsMom said:


> Wow..dramarama...I understand that I should NEVER say this; but because I felt very insulted myself I must say that when you replied to me Tippykayak and this is more than once I found you to be very rude and aggressive.
> 
> Maybe you are not meaning to come across this way; but I feel that since I am not the only one who is feeling this way I must say that I agree. I do believe though that since we are all one this forum together we should drop it now and walk away.
> 
> We are here for our love of our dogs. And we are of course not all going to get along but for the sake of the fact that we are trying to help others and learn from each other it should be water under the bridge?


I don't think it's really fair to call me "rude and aggressive" in the beginning of the post and then ask for things to be like water under the bridge at the end of it.

Still, for what it's worth, I'm sorry I wasn't tactful earlier. Sometimes I'm careless with tone.


----------



## LincolnsMom (Sep 28, 2010)

I was trying to be truthful while not hurtful. Thank you for your apology; it is better when we can all get along. We don't all have to be friends but we do all have to be respectful no matter what right? From both sides.


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> They aren't. It's two big surveys done by the GRCA and a (I forget which) British organization. They weren't controlled for comparison to each other, and they were both based solely on what people wrote on surveys.


Just for the record... my post was DRIPPING with sarcasm. We need a sarcasm smilie.


----------



## marshab1 (Aug 28, 2006)

We have an ignore button for a reason...some of the people involved in this thread need to start using it.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

I think we are done here. People use the term English for good reasons and bad. When they are discussing English Cream or Creme (greeders) When they are dogs imported from the UK. Or dogs with English pedigree in the background. 

I have to say that I know that Pointgold is a very responsible breeder and did not hide anything in the past. So lets all move past that. Everyone knows what the guidelines are by the GRCA and what should be done by responsible breeders. Pointgold is doing that and more. She is a great breeder and if I ever were to get a dog I would love to get one of her puppies. 

This could have been a good discussion about the differences of english or american dogs but it has turned into anything but so I am closing this thread. If you would like to start another thread about the differences in the two dogs and keep it on track about that, I am sure the people wanting to learn would appreciate it. But these arguments stop now. You have an ignore button, use it.


----------

