FT Goldens then and now =Barty?

Fantastic commentary, Gerry! Thanks for sharing your insights. Never knew of the spaniel theory. My pup has the white freckled feet. Can't imagine the white freckled faces you mentioned! Haven't noticed any white feet or patches on the photos of UK Goldens I've seen in recent years. I see quite a few of their photos on facebook etc as an observer of several UK Golden field clubs.

What got me thinking me of importing UK seed was the pedigrees of the UK FTCH studs of today. You can see many shared ancestors to those in Barty's and Stilrovin dog's pedigrees. Some of the Irish and Scottish field line types also look very similar to some of our field lines. At least the females do. FT CH Gorton's Red Ruby Rascal "Heidi" as an example.

So the history of similar successful ancestory along with the potential perceived benefit of outcross genes, seemed attractive to me. However, the UK dogs generally have a large COI number. Many are in the 25% to 35% range. Is it beneficial to breed a closely line bred bitch to an even closer line bred male even though they are of different lines? I don't know. Haven't taken the genetics classes yet.

But I digress. Great post Gerry. Thanks for that!

Jennifer

Paging back in my own pup's pedigree tonight, I also see that Carma Futhey had an English bred female born in 1970 FC AFC Kate of Rocky-Vue FDHF http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=18740

Quote:

---

So the history of similar successful ancestory along with the potential perceived benefit of outcross genes, seemed attractive to me. However, the UK dogs generally have a large COI number. Many are in the 25% to 35% range. Is it beneficial to breed a closely line bred bitch to an even closer line bred male even though they are of different lines? I don't know. Haven't taken the genetics classes yet.

---

Since those common ancestors are far back in the pedigree, if you bred an import to a "typical" No American bitch, the COI would drop dramatically. However, that very low COI will also mean that the results could be highly unpredictable in many respects. This might mean that hips, elbows, etc. might be "off the wall" ... either good, if you get lucky; or not so good if you don't have the stars align for you.

Imagine the highly inbred dog as a jar of marbles of red, green, and yellow. If you have an inbred bitch whose marbles are blue, purple and orange, when you combine the two you get a much broader range of color in the mixture of the two. Now if the girl happens to be red, green and orange, you might get a better "click", since the offspring will have overlap of genes that might be for the good traits you want. Or they might overlap on the genes for things you do NOT want.

I bred to a UK import some years ago. The bitch was somewhat linebred around 10%; the sire 16-19%. The COI for the litter was .02%/.16% ... possibly could have gotten about that low by breeding to a Lab :-) All hip xrays came back "mild"; elbows all normal. So that was a dead end for me, since I had nothing to go forward with.

If you do a "radical" outcross you may not get the results you seek in the first generation, but you could bring out the traits you want by continuing to "mix 'n match" for more generations. Thus, you begin to establish your own unique "line".

Simple, huh? NOT! Good in theory, but dog breeding has a way of making you humble :-)

This is the principle that drives people to linebreeding ... that by getting genetic uniformity the results will be more predictable for the traits you wish to preserve. In theory, one has to also be prepared to discard those individuals who end up getting a "double dose" of the bad genes that are also available. OTOH, dogs like Cotton (COI .93%/1.63%) prove that outcrosses CAN be successful as well. And Cotton was pretty amazing ... I didn't know him, but Jackie's article in the GRCA News told the story of how incredibly good he was at the game.

As an "aside", k9data indicates that the breeding that produced Cotton was done 5 times. The first breeding produced his very capable sister, FC-AFC Mandy, T Markin' Masterpiece *** & Sharon Long's OTCH Topbrass Ric O Shay Barty. The 2nd breeding produced Cotton and some others of lesser achievements. Thus, the first two breedings seemed to produce the best of that gene combo.

We often ask the question of whether the "old" dogs could compete today. Someone mentioned earlier that they might be able to. And maybe they could ... after all, the dogs we have today came from the good genes those dogs gave us. The training techniques of today have advanced so much, if those dogs had the basics of intelligence, marking ability, and courage we sought then, with the benefit of training advances that have been made, they might actually be quite capable in challenging today's tests.

Excellent post Gerry!!!

Wonderful post, Gerry! Am hurrying to get ready for work, so can't write anything intelligent at the moment. But thanks and I'll re-visit and re-read in a couple of hours!!

Jennifer

Glad you started the thread, Jen. Excellent information from those who have posted.

Gerry, from a trainers view point,I noticed 2 very distinct types in the goldens of early 70`s here.One was very soft and couldn`t handle the pressure of methods back then.The other was a very aggressive (tuff,not fear) that did very well understanding pressure but would let you know also!!!!Only get a couple through here lately and am seeing the best of both worlds.
I personally think yesterdays Goldens would do very well in todays world!!!!Just rambling on,Jim

jd6400

You're not on Team Golden, are you?

No I`m not ,got a nuff problems with the peakes.....Haaaa, Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jd6400

Gerry, from a trainers view point,I noticed 2 very distinct types in the goldens of early 70`s here.One was very soft and couldn`t handle the pressure of methods back then.The other was a very aggressive (tuff,not fear) that did very well understanding pressure but would let you know also!!!!Only get a couple through here lately and am seeing the best of both worlds.
I personally think yesterdays Goldens would do very well in todays world!!!!Just rambling on,Jim

---

I think that both of those types still exist today, but owners may have learned through early experience that the aggressive Golden can be a great liability in various ways, so are less likely to invest in such a dog today. Could be wrong, but it sounds like common sense to me. I think that breeders also became better at evaluating what works best overall, and made progressive changes in their breeding choices.

I think, too, that today's training methods, not the least of which, of course, is the intelligent use of the e-collar, makes a difference as well. I've had a couple of "sensitive" dogs and often found that physical correction was less harmful to their attitude than angry, verbal correction. Even today there are dogs who find that kind of "personal" correction more impactful than the "impersonal" collar correction, once they have the background of good teaching with the use of the e-collar. Because of the background training with the e-collar, the personal correction doesn't need to be as forceful as was more common before the near-universal use of the e-collar. It seems that when one can combine the e-collar with occasional "personal" corrections the dogs with some "conscience" can tread the line between toughness, without aggression or shutting down (softness). All in all, the advances in training techniques have given the dogs a better life, I think. FYI, I am a LOUSY trainer, but sometimes better as an observer :-)

Jim, it would be interesting to me to hear the opinions of experienced trainers to hear what differences you all see in the training/learning attitudes of the different breeds. I've often been told: a good dog is a good dog. Can agree with that.

However, does the psyche of each breed differ, so that it may take a different approach, here and there within the overall process, to bring out the best of that dog. Have also been told that the differences between individual dogs don't really align with the breed of dog; are more related to the individual dog, regardless of breed. For example, that there can be sensitive Labs (even Chessies?), and tough Goldens. Some (Lab breeder) have said that Labs have been specifically bred to take straight lines, while Goldens less so. So a Golden must use more "learning" to develop that skill in order to excel in field trials. So, maybe some of the differences are related to breeding? But maybe that is more within lines of dogs within a breed, rather than different breeds of dogs? What differences might exist in the ability of dogs to "not hold a grudge" for significant corrections? I'm already anticipating that these are subjective questions for which there could be different opinions based on different dog experiences.