This thread has really made ponder
confirmation regarding field bred dogs. In reading the breed standard and the articles in GRCA news, I have been wondering how closely to apply the standard and it's ideas to a field trial hopeful to evaluate breeding potential.
I don't usually try to be picky about spelling ... but the word is "conformation" as in "conforming to the Standard". You're not alone, Jen, in this ... so I'm not picking on you. Those two words are close in spelling, but not really the same thing.
We talk a lot about how the standard has been misapplied to the show lines and made them too heavy boned, big headed and heavy coated. But we don't talk about how to really analyze the bodies of our field dogs meant for breeding beyond health testing and titles. Obviously, we focus on breeding the winners and title holders, but are titles enough if you want to further the breed toward a standard?
You can trust the Standard, but you must also understand it. It takes some time to do that. Marcia Schlehr told of a respected breeder-judge who went to a Golden event in Scotland at the Lord Tweedmouth estate. Part of the activities included a hike in the surrounding countryside. For that judge, it was an "epiphany" in understanding the kind of dog that could hunt in that terrain. That insight could explain why Campfire looked the way he did in 1912 (keeping in mind that the Golden breed only began around 1865, as I recall).
Barb's suggestion to enter a CCA is an excellent one. You will get an in-depth explanation as to how the Standard is applied to your dog. It is sometimes easier to relate to things when you are relating to your own dog. This will be an "introduction".
The CCA evaluators for the National are an especially fine group. Division I includes one judge (Laura Weinmann) who is also a hunt test judge, and who, herself, has a MH dog who last year became QAA. Ainslee Mills has been the chair of the judges' education committee and very instrumental of bringing the field Goldens into the judges' seminars. I don't know Hach Hachtel, but have heard his name mentioned with respect by people I know. Division II includes Pluis Davern who has also worked dogs in obedience and field & is a licensed conformation judge; along with Marcia Schlehr who wrote that book that you've been seeing excerpted in the GRCA News. Marcia has always been very interested in preserving the purpose of the breed. Laureen Kinney has also bred and run dogs in Canada and the US in hunt tests and field trials, as well as bred CHs. Among these 6 people, it would be hard to find a question about the Standard that they could not answer. These people may not be very familiar to people who are looking at the field trial results, but they are all people who have a sincere respect for the purpose of the breed. I'm sure that the 42 available entries will fill quickly.
I have been hoping to breed my young female once she passes her medical tests and gets a significant field title to prove her worth. But as I look at her, I wonder about her "Golden" confirmation. I personally think she is lovely and balanced and incredibly built as an athlete, but what do I know?
How do I trust the current breed standard and its current application to the typical golden? Is that standard going to make for a field trial winner, which is what I want? How do I judge her tail set, her ears, her length of leg and depth of chest. She is 23 inches tall, but she looks "tall" in comparison to my other show line boy who is the exact same height, because her chest isn't as deep and her build is more sleek.
It is often said that the goal of breeding is to have offspring that are better than either the sire or the dam (regardless of which traits you are referring to). In reality, the outcome is usually one or two that truly fulfill that goal. The majority may be adequate or equal to the parents. Then there could be one or two that make you hate to admit they were born in your kitchen That happens to both field and show breeders. Mother Nature does not discriminate.
I've read interpretations of the standard that say the specimen shouldn't look reedy or setter-like. I kind of see that in my female and in most field bred females. They are built for speed and moving on a dime. How do we balance and judge the qualities called for in the standard with those necessary for winning trials or running in the pheasant field on a long, warm fall day?
When I see the photos and drawings that go along with most discussions of the Golden standard, I see they are much bulkier than the reality of my female dog.
I would like a real discussion and analysis about how to gauge a field line dog's confirmation for purposes of deciding whether to breed that dog. There are some past and currently living highly titled female golden field dogs that I feel are very ugly and not even close to the middle of the chart for what a golden should appear to be. And frankly, I'm a little biased regarding my own female. Maybe others would see her as too setter like.
Where should a person start when trying to analyze their field dog's confirmation beyond field titles and absence of obvious deformities like cow hocks and bowed spine.
You will get a start on getting the answers to those questions by entering a CCA. As a secondary assist, if you know someone who has done a CCA, they may be willing to go over their evaluation sheets with you on their own dog. Developing an "eye" for these things, and learning how to use your hands to feel the conformation of the dog beneathe its skin takes a long while. Even the most knowledgeable people continue to discuss these things and gain insights from their peers that also have a lot of knowledge.
My dog has white toes. What about that? For me, it's something I'm OK with if she's otherwise balanced, capable and long lived. As a field person and not a show person, do I consider the white toes only in as much as it will effect marketability, or should I weigh it heavily as a flaw for all future goldens in the line I continue?
Boy, do I hate to open this can of worms! If your dog has 4 white feet, a blaze on its chest, and it looks more like a Toller than a Golden, that is a question of "type". A Golden should be recognizable as a Golden at first glance ... even if it has a lot of flaws. If a dog has a lot of flaws and also lacks "type", you've got a real problem. Most times it's not that easy to decide
I can't tolerate faulty temperament or lack of desire to retrieve. Period. Stupid should also probably be on that list. I can't deal with a slow learner. It can take some time and experience to find out which things you can "fix" and which things you cannot fix. I think white is fixable. Others may have different opinions.
Coat? My female has a low maintenance flat coat with typical feathering. No way her coat will keep her warm on a long morning winter duck hunt. She will require neoprene and other measures to keep her warm in the 3rd or 5th hour.
That would be a fault that directly addresses purpose. I've noted, however, that many hunters use vests nowadays simply because they see no reason to make their dogs endure more discomfort than necessary. Some of them might do fine even without the vests, but there is no harm in using them either. I can't really argue with that. Hunt tests and field trials both allow the dogs a period of effort, and then they return to a warm crate; possibly even being dried before going into their crates. So, this "fault" in your dog may be as faulty as you think.
If breed standard is to be seriously considered for field breeders, how do we balance these physical traits and factors against raw talent and desire and winning (not that I'm there, lol)?