RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

First Golden Retriever Bench Champion

24K views 105 replies 31 participants last post by  Cooper 
#1 ·
I found this photo on Facebook. For those who have stated that today's field Goldens more resemble the original "ideal", this photo is enlightening


http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=2873
This dog looks like he could physically handle today's field testing. Notice the length of leg and rear pasterns. Solid topline, nice neck-to-back transition. Moderate substance. Nice feet. No exaggeration in any feature. I do notice that the depth of chest does not reach down to the elbows, as is stated in our Standard today.
 
See less See more
1
#44 ·
The other thing that is being done is to have the Judges Education Seminar include at least one field trial dog for the new and upcoming judges to go over. This way they will realize that the field dogs demonstrate a form which follows function although maybe without some of the trappings, ie., heavy, long coats, etc. The first time I worked with the JEC on this, the field Golden I suggested was Push---before he became a Canadian Dual Champion. It really helped open some eyes. I also suggested a "wet dog" contest, judging Goldens dry then looking at them all again when soaking wet. This suggestion was not met with overwhelming favor.

For those of you who are strictly Lab people, Fred Kampo has used his Labs at some of the LRC Judges' seminars and Lyn Yelton has as well. At the recent National Amateur, ten of the competitors, including the sire and son who both carry the NAFC title, were gone over by three Lab Judges for a conformation certificate, and all ten passed. What was interesting with Fred's Lab at the seminar was that all the novice judges thought he was oversize---until his dog was measured and was right in standard. It shows how the eye can deceive and only see what you are used to seeing.

For you Chessie owners, at one conformation show a Chessie came in second in the class and the judge later told the owner that the reason for that was because his muzzle was such that he wouldn't be able to hold a large duck or goose and the winner would. The owner then told the judge that his Chessie was a Field Champion. Since the vast majority of conformation judges of retrievers no longer hunt, or anything close to hunting, again, this is an opportunity for potential judges to actually see what retrievers that are fulfilling the original purpose of the breeds look like.

Sure we aren't going to change the way the world runs, but the reasoning behind the breed standards is to have a healthy, athletic, structurally sound dog and this is one way to educate more persons as to what that actually entails.

Re Barb's photo of the early Miss America contestants---I suspect that the majority of those in the early swimsuits could be just as competitive in today's swimsuits---and with no artificial enhancements!

Glenda
 
#45 ·
Re Barb's photo of the early Miss America contestants---I suspect that the majority of those in the early swimsuits could be just as competitive in today's swimsuits
This is probably a good comparison ... change the hairdo & the clothing, and the form beneathe is not so very different? But in our dogs, at least in some cases, it's more than the "accessories" that have changed.
 
#47 ·
There is a difference between correct conformation that meets the standard and winning in the conformation ring. Goldens that show may or may not have correct conformation just as field dogs may or may not have correct conformation. However, there is certainly a difference in the style of the dogs and their ability to perform the tasks the standard says they are bred to do. IMHO, a hunting dog that cannot hunt is not a correct representative of the breed.
 
#48 · (Edited)
All the Standards leave some room for "interpretation" ... and that's where we get into trouble :) There is a broad range of appearance that can meet the Standard (for conformation), but there is some whimsy in what "interpretation" may become the trend in conformation. The conformation of a working dog is constrained (in a good way) by purpose to stay within certain parameters of the possible range of interpretation of appearance. When purpose doesn't get factored into the assessment the range of interpretation can be much broader, and may tend to overly focus on one feature (like head or coat or "otter tail", etc.) and fail to consider the total package.

Then we do get into the aspect of breed "type" that Amy refers to. The very simplest definition of type is that appearance that assures you that the dog you are looking at is a Golden (or a Lab, or a Chessie, etc.) Years ago, I knew a dog who competed in obedience that looked very much like a Chessie. It was not a pedigree that was familiar to me (I think it may have been a BYB). When you saw the dog, you really had to study him to decide whether he was a Golden or a Chessie. Mostly the confusion was due to his medium-gold coat that was very curly; and his body type resembled some good-looking Chessie field dogs with the more level topline. His facial expression was that of a Golden.

The perennial debate in conformation circles is how to place appropriate weight on "type" v. structure/purpose. Glenda's work in getting demo dogs for judges' seminars from among the field competitors allows judges to see a different interpretation (people are now calling that "style") of type that is STILL acceptable within the parameters of defining a dog as a Golden (or Lab, etc.). The goal is to inform conformation judges that there may be a dog in their ring tomorrow that may not look like all the others ... but that "different" dog may be just as "correct" as the other dogs in the ring (and might even have some structural attributes and musculature that is superior to the other dogs).

Getting the judges to actually see the dogs working can give them a much better perspective on how "type" should conform to purpose. Then you will get the argument that field trials are too extreme to be compared to the breed's hunting purpose. True, field trials are the penultimate demonstration of the skills needed for hunting. It's hard for me to believe that the professional level skills of the field trial dog could not make a good hunting dog. It's sort of like saying that Peyton Manning is too extreme in his skills to play college football :) Not to mention that some field trial dogs get to vacation ... being hunting dawgs :)
 
#50 ·
I really don't think that we will ever see another Dual CH though.
The sport of Field trials has become more and more difficult.
I think that the best we can hope for is CH Master Hunter or CH ***.
I'm not being a poop just a realist.
Sue
 
#51 ·
I agree, Sue. We do have a GCH/MH now and some CH that have MH titles that should be running some Quals. Some of it is just the vast amount of time/energy/money and the right dog to even think about doing both. Goldens used to be able to go from the field, maybe with or without a bath, into the show ring, and then be taken hunting during the week. Each venue is very demanding and the field trials are getting more and more difficult as the dogs are responding to the constantly improving training, more knowledgeable handlers, etc. Training grounds and access to water are disappearing for many of us and, yet, who wants to spend the weekend at a conformation show when you can be running a trial! But, the more field people know about what constitutes good conformation, the more likely we are to produce sound, athletic, hard running field dogs. Glenda
 
#52 ·
I'd also have to agree with you, Sue and Glenda. The closest we are likely to come is CH *** ... however, with the present difficulty of field trials, such a dog is probably very much like the quality of some titled dogs of years gone by. However, from what I've heard about Quar (the last Dual CH), his field ability was so amazing, with today's training he could probably do it now as well. We do have one CH ** right now. and he still has time to get that ***.

Also agree with Glenda that even if another Dual CH is not to be, there is still a lot of virtue in making both "specialists" more aware of the other's perceptions. As John mentioned, there is a varied spectrum among field trial dogs. Those among them who represent correctness to the Standard deserve to be acknowledged as correct, even though they are "different" from what is most often the trend in conformation at any given point in time.

I think it is worth noting that those field dogs who still resemble Campfire may have, indeed, preserved the vision present at the origin of the breed. It's not so bad to have dogs like that in the breed to act as a "reminder" of what came before.
 
#53 ·
Just want to say thank you to everyone who has made this such an interesting thread to read, as well as the picture that speaks volumes about how the current "field Goldens" have evolved very little from the original Champions. It's simply fact.

This is off on a tangent, but I love to read some of the older dog stories-Albert Payson Terhune, Nop's Trial's, etc. They illustrated the inherent qualities of herding dogs with a bit of a romanticized bent, but with an absolute passion and respect for what these dogs were bred to do. The Border Collie folks fought tooth and nail to keep the breed from being AKC recognized out of a very realistic fear that not only would they become popular and placed in homes that didn't understand their need to work and be mentally stimulated, but also that breeding for markings and change in coat, head type, etc. would trump breeding for intelligence and working ability. It's exactly what happened to the Golden Retriever. I don't need to rehash examples of dogs who are simply not birdy, driven and intelligent. It's all been said before.

I do think it's a wonderful idea that conformation judges will be attending the field trial at the Specialty. I hope they go with an image of the first Dual Champion in mind and I hope they stand on line and get goosebumps when they see that these dogs are doing what they were bred to do and that their conformation and intelligence allows them to do it.

M
 
#54 ·
I hope they go with an image of the first Dual Champion in mind
Maybe the judges' "goodie bag" should include a photo of Noranby Campfire?
 
#56 ·
I think that it is awesome that both the Conformation judges are willing to entertain the idea of standing(sitting)in a field watching the trial and vice versa but...........I don't need validation that my "field dogs live up to the "breed's standards".
When I see the Conformation dogs have gone sooo over board. ex: coat, bone.
And breeding them to that standard without any type of working titles have left them with the ability of never performing in any type of hunting situation without allot of work. They are just an average pet with a lot of good coat and bone.
My opinion : just let it go...................
Sorry I just don't see all your efforts making any difference.
I would love to be proved wrong. :)
Sue
 
#62 ·
My opinion : just let it go...................
Sorry I just don't see all your efforts making any difference.
I would love to be proved wrong. :)
Sue
Sue,

I’ve never let anyone telling me my efforts may not make a difference stop me from working on a worthwhile project. The driving force from the beginning of this project, for me, has been for the betterment of this breed that I love dearly.

This event at the National is a small step. But change never happens without those small steps being made.

The shame, I think, is in not trying.
 
#58 ·
I applaud the efforts of Glenda and company to educate the judges at the specialty and hopefully they will take what they learn to heart. However, the weekend show judge is not a "Golden" person. They judge our breed as part of a laundry list of breeds of which they are not experts. They have more interest in making the people that hire them happy than in determining whether or not the dogs in front of them could perform the tasks for which they were developed. Judges that don't put up dogs that are popular with the show crowd don't get invited back to judge. The unfortunate thing is that the AKC's methods for adding breeds to a judge's list does little to really ensure they are educated about the breed. The other issue is that they can only judge the dogs presented to them. As long as we, as Golden people, continue to breed and present dogs that lack focus on the breed's purpose the problem is perpetuated. Since Americans tend to head toward extremes, I really don't see this changing. When I had Quarter Horses, I also struggled with the wide split in the breed. My cutting horse looked nothing like the halter horses or the race horses. All were selectively bred to win in a particular venue but cross sport competition was not very common.
 
#64 · (Edited)
This is an intelligent and well thought out post, from someone who clearly sees what is going on in the Golden conformation ring.
My boy is very moderate in every way. He's 23-1/2 inches tall and weighs 67 pounds, and doesn't have a big, dripping coat nor clunky bones. Substantial, yes, but not coarse nor clunky. He finished quickly with 3 big major wins.
I showed him only at big shows with lots of entries, where the judges were, in fact, "golden people". Most were breeder judges. When he only needed 1 point to finish, I did show him at several small shows. This same dog who beat 75+ other goldens at a specialty, and got back to back 4 point major wins in one weekend couldn't beat 3 other dogs to get the last point. I just couldn't understand it. Then I was told by a very well known handler to go back to showing him only at big shows because at the smaller shows the judges don't have a clue what a golden should look like, and will just put up the flashiest one there with the most coat. They don't care if he moves like a hippo or is tripping over his coat, as long as he looks flashy running around the ring.
So I entered him in another very large show, and sure enough he won, and finished his CH.
 
#59 ·
Gerry:

I sent photos of a lot of the early Field Champions to Ann Burke with the idea of blowing them up in size and using them as decoration at the dinners, etc. during the National Specialty.

Hope it works out ok as these were old photos, but it is important to emphasize our roots.

Glenda
 
#60 ·
That really is amazing how much our goldens have changed over the years. Personally I have one "breed type" dog and two "field type" bitches. Hands down my girls can out work my boy any day of the week. That heavy bone does not hold up out in the field. Nothing prettier than a golden doing it's work out in a duck blind.
 
#61 ·
Good discussion and kudos to those that are at least taking 'baby steps' (and Glenda - you do SO much for the Goldens!). As I have Chessies my perspective is a bit different - keep taking those baby steps! While I don't watch real closely, it does seem to me that there are more moderate Goldens being put up in the ring. I actually saw a group photo of several of the Goldens that won at last Specialty - while you can only tell so much from one photo I thought several looked quite moderate. From my own experience, there ARE conformation judges that DO appreciate a sporting breed in working condition. But those judges MUST be given something to choose from! I think the key is to join forces and get several NICE moderate / field type Goldens in the ring together, under the right judges. Yes it takes some coordination and it won't always be effective. But it is a place to start. I actually think the Goldens can see another Dual someday...
 
#66 ·
I went to look up the conformation judges, and one of them is Kitty Cathey. Some of you if you are old enough :) will remember the Pekay prefix (Kitty and Pat Klausman were partners in that prefix; and there was an article on their breeding program not too long ago in the GRCA News) which produced conformation, obedience, and ... a few dogs who also ran field trials. I found one on k9data that had **. This was the one, I think, that got them interested in running some field trials:
http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=4919 You can still see a working package in Sherman, who came from basically show lines and a "dab" of Dual CH Ronaker's Novato Cain. I had thought that Sherman had gotten **, but that doesn't seem to be the case on k9data.

I think it is unfair to say that ALL conformation dogs are incapable of having the innate skills needed to succeed in field trials; just as it is unfair to say that all field Goldens are ugly. As John mentioned, there are variations.

Just this spring Marge Trowbridge's young boy Trowsnest Second Wind II won a Qual; and he was about 3-1/2 at the time. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=393704 The only link you find to field lines in this pedigree is Bainin of Caernac***, an English import who shares some lineage with Barty, and who may be best known for producing the dam of Tangelo's Side Kick.

I have to agree with Ann that while a particular project may look overwhelming, that is not a reason for giving up your convictions.

Also, GRCA is not only doing this. The judges' seminar at the National is well attended, and field dogs are presented to these larger numbers of judges (and/or aspiring judges) to demonstrate the correctness that can still be found in the field Goldens. If nothing else, it can show these judges what hard, working condition is for the dog who works hard on a regular basis. It can also show correct coat, both in texture and quantity for a working dog.

Note that we are 100 years! away from Campfire. We didn't get to where we are overnight. If we are to correct the course, it will also NOT happen quickly. It could take another 100 years. We can hope that some hearts will be won over, both among judges and breeders, and also hope that there really is an afterlife, so those of us typing here will get to know about it if it happens :)

We (Lab and Golden people) are not alone in this situation. Every breed that has moved toward the top 10 of AKC breed popularity has suffered. Toy Poodles, Cockers, Irish Setters, German Shepherds, Shelties, Dobes. Border Collies & Aussies are the latest victims. The list goes on. There are always some breeders who hang onto a breed's origins to preserve the "essence" of the breed. For that everyone should be thankful because it leaves the door open to recapturing those qualities that may have otherwise been lost entirely.
 
#97 ·
I think it is unfair to say that ALL conformation dogs are incapable of having the innate skills needed to succeed in field trials; just as it is unfair to say that all field Goldens are ugly. As John mentioned, there are variations.

Just this spring Marge Trowbridge's young boy Trowsnest Second Wind II won a Qual; and he was about 3-1/2 at the time. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=393704 The only link you find to field lines in this pedigree is Bainin of Caernac***, an English import who shares some lineage with Barty, and who may be best known for producing the dam of Tangelo's Side Kick.
Just to give credit where credit is due: This dog was trained by Lois Monroe, who has done a great job with many of Marge's dogs. Speaks volumes that he was trained well enough to go out and win his very first Q.

M
 
#67 ·
Hi Kelly:

Thanks for taking part in the discussion. In the GRNews where the article was done on The Tail" there were also articles on the 1992 Master National re the Golden Finalists; a Golden who was a Finalist in the Canadian Master National; Interviews and photos of all the Goldens that were Finalists in the 2012 Master National including a list of those that qualified for it; an article by Bill and Becky Eckett on Developing Marking; and a short article by Bill Hillmann. Not all that many years ago, you would not have seen this amount of support for field articles. In some of the older GRNews, for quite a few years running, you rarely saw articles on anything other than conformation Goldens----so, we actually have come a long way, baby!!!!

This is what I feel Ann and others such as John mean, you have to start somewhere and we are making strides. Again, it will never be a perfect world, but if you don't make an effort to change it, you will never know what you might have accomplished. There have been some very prominent Golden judges who have had nothing but praise for seeing the field dogs featured---the photos of them working, leaping into water, athletically jumping over obstacles, the sparkle in their eyes from the joy they get from doing their job. Again, these were Golden judges who breed and compete in conformation with their own Goldens, not ones who have Goldens listed as one of the breeds they happen to judge as Barb described.

I feel the discussions we are having here are really important, and everyone's contribution is worth reading and thinking seriously about. I know a conformation judge can't judge some of the intrinsic qualities a Golden might need for the field, but they can judge whether or not that Golden is physically built so it could stand up to a long day's hunt or wouldn't swamp a duck boat when sitting in it. But, then again, in all our retrievers, even in those that are bred specifically for field work, you have pups who never show that desire or indicate the hoped for potential anticipated when the breeding took place.

I want to thank everyone who has participated so far, and to Gerry for her insight and well thought out comments and for getting the ball rolling. I hope all of you will continue to contribute your thoughts and suggestions.

For the Champion Goldens that don't want to get in the water at a hunt test, maybe some tactful helpful advice re training may be beneficial---my Golden that I wanted a WC on was 4 years old and never had seen birds or water. Her sire was in the SDHF and her dam was a Champion. The first day I showed up with her at a training group, I was told later that bets were taken that I would never return or even last the day. And some of the members of that group were definitely not very supportive of Goldens. She turned out to be the birdest dog going, got a SH title (she had an OTCH and TD) but I couldn't get her MH as she would break since she was so eager for the birds and I didn't know what I was doing. She produced my first AFC/MH and was the grandmother of my FC/AFC/MH Golden. There were none of the DVDs, chat rooms, etc. or even many good books on field training (I am old!!!). A few kind souls offered some encouragement and advice, and I have never forgotten the ones who believed in her.

Maybe if this keeps going, we can take some of the comments and mesh them together in an article----it might be fun!

Glenda
 
#68 · (Edited)
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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)?
 
#80 ·
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)?
That last question is the toughest! Each individual will arrive at their own unique decision. You may change your mind as you go along as well :) Your own personal decision will likely be influenced by becoming familiar with the Standard and watching the work of the best working dogs.

When I go to a Natl Spec, I go to watch the field trial. Since there are few Goldens in field trials (often less than 5 in an entire all-breed trial), the Natl Spec is the best place to see field trial Goldens. And you get to see dogs from all over the country, not just one area. I can find many local dog shows to see conformation Goldens. There are also plenty of obedience and agility events where Goldens are well represented. The Natl Spec, however, is the only place to see a large number of Goldens in a field trial.

Jen, you are wise to start asking these questions now. I was not nearly as bright and perceptive when I first started in Goldens!

Never hesitate to ask questions. If you get a brutally honest answer that appears to be a put-down, don't necessarily believe that's what it is. Think about the answer, and learn from it. Don't let your hurt feelings get in the way of the learning. Be a fly on the wall when you hear knowledgeable people discuss topics you'd like to know more about.
 
#69 · (Edited)
Jennifer you need to find a CCA event and take her. There will be 3 "judges" there, generally people who really and truly know the Golden standard and often heavily represent the "field world".
They will evaluate her, hands on, and give you honest feedback of which you will get a written copy. It's fascinating. They will evaluate every inch of her, from head to tail.
There's some info. on GRCA's website, including a copy of the evaluation sheet.
I did a CCA on Tito even though he was already a CH, because you get such intense feedback on every part of the dog and it helps me to intelligently discuss him as a breeding potential. For example, he's got a "good" front assembly. But it's not stellar, and I wouldn't consider breeding him to a bitch where they are looking to improve the front assembly. However, he's got an awesome rear assembly and a lovely head, so if that's what someone is looking to improve in their lines, we can at least talk.
That's stuff you don't get, in writing, in the breed ring.
One of the CCA evaluators told me, "he has a wonderful, broad back end". I told her so does his owner, but she wasn't impressed ;) .
 
#70 ·
Gerry,
"Sherman" the dog listed as "Pekay" was born in 1982?
Pat used to run Hunt Tests as well. But now you'll find nothing but all show.
Yes baby steps. But by the time you make that one baby step technology with training will have passed you by yet again and you'll offer nothing to the breed as far as hunting ability through either Hunt Tests (as they are changing/getting more difficult) or Trials. Then we are back to WC :( which don't show me crap about the abilities of a hunting dog.)
Loading the breed ring with all field dogs that would be fun to watch a judge struggle with that. I'd love that. Too bad that couldn't happen every weekend somewhere. Wouldn't that be fun to read about? :)
Carry on.............................
Sue
 
#73 ·
Gerry,
"Sherman" the dog listed as "Pekay" was born in 1982?
Pat used to run Hunt Tests as well. But now you'll find nothing but all show.
Yes baby steps. But by the time you make that one baby step technology with training will have passed you by yet again and you'll offer nothing to the breed as far as hunting ability through either Hunt Tests (as they are changing/getting more difficult) or Trials. Then we are back to WC :( which don't show me crap about the abilities of a hunting dog.)
Loading the breed ring with all field dogs that would be fun to watch a judge struggle with that. I'd love that. Too bad that couldn't happen every weekend somewhere. Wouldn't that be fun to read about? :)

Only REAL HUNTING will show you "crap" about the dog's ability as a hunting dog. FT's and HT's are GAMES that get farther from hunting by the minute, it seems.

I wish the few breeders of Goldens that are striving to produce an honest to god Dual Champion all the best. It's a worthy endeavor.-Paul
 
#81 ·
Only REAL HUNTING will show you "crap" about the dog's ability as a hunting dog. FT's and HT's are GAMES that get farther from hunting by the minute, it seems.

I wish the few breeders of Goldens that are striving to produce an honest to god Dual Champion all the best. It's a worthy endeavor.-Paul
But, Paul, what about the hunt test and field trial dogs who ALSO hunt, and do a doggone good job of it ... I'm sure John Robinson is still lurking here. I'd just ask, "Does Michael Phelps swim too well to swim in your pool?" :)

So, the "games" are only a way of making a larger number of people aware of the dogs who have the basic traits to perform as a hunting dog.
 
#72 ·
Dunno if it's too late to get in, but Norcal GRC is having their CCA at the end of this month, I think. Go to the GRCA website and look for upcoming CCA events.

Good idea Barb, thanks for the tip. Would love that.

And congratulations on your wonderfully broad rear assembly:D. ha ha ha !
 
#74 ·
Does the AKC still hold their Sporting Dog Judges Institute?

I participated in a field demonstration with one of our chessies back the late '90's. This was part of a two or three day event about all breeds in the sproting group and their breed standard. We have every breed except the Weim in the field doing what they are supposed to do. All dogs were CH's with field titles. After our bitch did watermarks one of the teachers, Anne Rogers Clark, had a number of the judges go over her and see how a correct coat kept her skin dry.

Maybe something like this put on by the GRCA at the national specialty or other event would increase judge understanding of the working requirements of the breed.

Tom
 
#75 · (Edited)
Hi Jennifer..unless you are thinking of the breed ring in the future and or just unable to tolerate any white...I would forget about the white toes on your lovely girl.

Hip(OFA/PennHip), elbows, eyes and heart are important information to have just for her well-being, your knowledge...

Orthopedic specialist that you go to for her hip/elbows would show you her xrays before sending in..talk to you about what he or she sees, good or bad. Eyes and heart health of course..

Temperment ... you know what you have. If there are any concerns about a boy that you really like, ask questions about his daily life, his WHOLE life..kennel dog, lived in the house, socialization or not...the training focus for him as a pup, did he change owner/trainers/handlers as it went..did the wish list of accomplishments change..say Derby points ...or was the big picture the AA Stakes and trained with that in mind. ...a boy that has Hunt Test accomplishment (exellent pedigree..longeivity/clearances) but does he have more to offer if that owner had wanted to ..either HT or FT.

Longeivity in the pedigree, if short life span dogs without given cause of death, ask questions and try to find out the reason. Could be accidental or a cause that is not passed on.

Then, there are some issues that you can avoid being carried on to puppies by a boy that is clear of them or visa-versa. Some issues may not be worth discounting a particular boy, if the combination of the two would more than likely produce outstanding puppies. (not talking of failed hips, heart, eyes etc..of course)

A knowledgeable person can advise of weaknesses that are inherited, passed on..and how to avoid that..or things that are not of concern..unless a pet peeve.

Such as the white factor..some don't care, some hate it..can and has been a heated topic..but white does not cause temperament issues, issues with being sound, movement, ability to do well in the field etc..that has been published by the medical community anyway.

If a person does not want white or doesn't care..then that is their choice to make! Golden Retriever's shade of golden color as well..it's a personal choice..and some feel depth of that color blends the dog into the hunting environment..like camo..so prefer it...others could care less.

When looking at the combination of pedigrees for your hope of wonderful puppies...do you get a really great feeling about that combination.. :)

Also..coat can change as a dog matures, thickness and length.

Barb's idea of CCA feedback is a good idea and might give you more confidence in what you have!

Best,

Judy
 
#77 ·
Thanks for your post, Judy! In February/March I will start getting all of her health testing and x-rays done to evaluate her soundness. After that I think I will take Barb's advice and get a CCA evaluation done, hopefully by people with field dog experience.

My concern was that if she is evaluated against the standard by judges more in tuned to a more moderate or show line dog, that I would get mis-information about how my girl stacks up. But I guess structure is structure. It's either good or not. Performance will tell the rest of the story.

Sorry to all for my rambling post last night. I was tired and should have edited.
 
#78 ·
Hi Tom:

I don't know if the AKC still has their sporting dog event for judges, but quite a few years ago they held one in the Morgan Hill area of California.
It was held on a ranch where some of us were training and Bill Totten (pro) was working with his dogs as well. For those of us who saw the retrievers being used as demo dogs in the event, it was a travesty. They wouldn't go in the water or rocks were thrown to get them to go out and get a bird, etc. The AKC had chosen the wrong person to chair and manage the retriever section. Ironically, some of the judges lingered around afterwards, came and saw us training Goldens and Labs (sorry no Chessies in the group that day) and were overwhelmed at what they could do---many of these were young Derby dogs. They asked why they weren't shown these retrievers working rather than the ones they saw.

There were many outstanding examples of field retrievers readily available in that area: Goldens, Labs, and Chessies yet the AKC showed examples of field work with ones who were extraordinarily inept and/or poorly trained. I don't know what they used with the other sporting breeds, but if this was an example, then no wonder many of those judging conformation don't have a clue as to what a working retriever should be expected to accomplish if it were asked to do the job for which it was originally developed. This is why it is important to get the conformation judges to view hunting tests and field trials---better yet, is some of you that hunt ask them to join you for a day!

I am not concerned with a Dual Champion, what I would like to see is the increasing gap between conformation and field dogs narrow and the divide lessen. It would be nice to get back to one breed which contains variations of a theme. This includes the Labs as well. The Chessie people are doing the best job of maintaining their breed as it was orginally intended to be.

Glenda
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top