You Did Not Build That

                               You Did Not Build That

   The Golden Retriever was NOT "invented" in America. It is NOT a creation of the United States. Rather, it was a glorious gift from the British Isles-- more specifically Scotland. The breed is ours to promote and protect. To love, admire, and enjoy. First and foremost he is a hunting dog, though multi-talented in many fields.
   The AKC has granted near-sole authority to the GRCA to protect our cherished breed; as such it has created a breed Standard which represents the ideal for the Golden Retriever. This document generally reflects that of the nation of origin; differences between the two and those used throughout the world are minor-- for the most part. But they do affect  the breed as it has developed over the years on either side of The Pond.
   True, there are differences in type-- often subtle though real --between the American-breds and those found overseas. Distinctions can be found regionally within a single nation. And we can not dismiss the growing divergence between the field Golden Retrievers and those bred for the conformation ring-- regardless of where they are being bred.
   But do our dogs live in a "restricted neighborhood?" Is the American breed Standard one which may declare an entire sub-set of Goldens "undesirable," based upon a Golden Retriever's birth color? This is the case at present. Individuals or GRCA committees of five or perhaps six members are deciding whether a born-Golden Retriever falls within the acceptable color spectrum-- a range that to them dismisses the born-cream dogs as something other than true or truly Golden Retrievers. And, they are doing so by ignoring the rules and By-laws of the GRCA itself. Personal tastes and opinions (NOT FACTS) are used to declare to all America what a Golden Retriever should look like. The Standard makes no mention of the color cream--whether good or bad; nor does it refer to red, yellow, yellow orange, pale gold, tan, off-white, reddish or coppery gold. These terms are provided for your edification by the miniscule percentage of the GRCA membership alluded to previously. You can find them in articles featured on the Club website. They appear in Committee documents intended to educate judges in the ring and the general public as a whole. But each is little more than opinion. True, the Standard says that Golden Retrievers who are born or mature to a color which is "extremely pale or extremely dark" require a penalty if they appear in the show ring. Such personal biases, however, are all extra-constitutional. Nowhere can they be found in the Golden Retriever Club of America Breed Standard. They are exercises in a Fill-In-The Blank game; they are entries upon an Etch-A-Sketch pad, subject to change at any time by a fraction of the Club membership. The whim of this tiny group of GRCA leaders.
   It has been said, as negative criticism, that the Supreme Court is what this highest court says it is. But, like it or not, our Constitution grants our courts the right to interpret our founding document. No such power has been given to the GRCA's committees or individuals to interpret the meaning of any clause in the GRCA/AKC Breed Standard of our beloved Goldens. If anyone wishes to change that Standard, proper procedures must be followed, without exception. Would anyone like to remind the GRCA Board of Directors of this FACT? So far, the silence has been deafening.
  
  
  
  

GRCA LEADERS ARE MAGICIANS!

                               THE MAGICIANS WHO CONTROL THE GRCA

   In my last blog I referenced the fact that a document created by the Judges' Education Committee for the edification of would-be evaluators of Golden Retrievers in the conformation ring contained a paragraph which clearly stated that the approved color spectrum for the breed included a "range from CREAM to a coppery gold...."  Thus, your cream-coated Golden was not "undesirable"  under the national breed Standard-- or so it would seem. Cream was not to be included in the definition of "extremely light" members of our beloved breed.
   A week or two has passed since I pointed this out to a member of the Board of Directors of the GRCA. The paragraph has been REWRITTEN, as if by MAGIC. Did the Committee which prepared and approved the document as previously worded RECONVENE? Did they amend this document as a group? Or, perhaps, did a single member of that committee or someone else in a leadership position at the GRCA simply rewrite the paragraph to suit his/her opinion and bias against the cream-coated Goldens? The answer is important, for it suggests the way things are properly-- or improperly --done by individuals who exercise control of the national club. The document was an official statement to  inform judges of the color parameters. One assumes that the paragraph in question-- as did the entire document --received careful attention by those who created it. Why the sudden change? Was it something I said(?)
   Most specifically, the paragraph at issue HAD SAID the color ranged FROM CREAM TO A COPPERY GOLD. The same paragraph NOW READS that the color of a Golden may range FROM PALE GOLD TO A DEEP COPPERY GOLD. The word "cream" has been exorcised (the dictionary defines it as, "to drive an evil spirit out or away by ritual prayers, etc...."). Apparently, COPPERY GOLD has survived-- and the paragraph NOW permits a DEEP and not just coppery gold. Sort of pushing the red boundary I would think. In any case, CREAM has been expunged.
   Anyone familiar with breeding and showing Golden Retrievers knows that there are three birth colors--cream, gold, and red. A born-cream pup is NOT simply pale gold. It is, as it were, a "horse of a different color." How long will those of us who own and admire the cream-coated Golden Retrievers have to contend with a GRCA which refuses to accept what the rest of the world has for so long accepted-- that a cream Golden Retriever is a legitimate representative of the breed?
   It would be interesting to see if ANY OTHER part of this document has been tampered with, or re-thought or rewritten. But that's not my job. Perhaps the Judges' Education Committee would care to tell us.
   In any case, America remains the only nation to insist that to be TRULY a Golden Retriever, a dog must be truly gold.  Congratulations to the "ladies who lunch" for steadfastly keeping their collective heads in the sand. Just remember that while you have the power to do something it is not the same as doing the right thing for the breed.
  ( Two new developments:
     I received notice from the GRCA that the full Board will consider my letter to the Judges' Education Committee.
     I received a letter from the GRCA Judges' Education Committee itself. They claim to have the authority to determine the color parameters for the breed since the club gives them the right to "enhance" the understanding of the judges and the public in general. But enhancing knowledge is NOT the same as enhancing the Standard by adding their personal opinions and biases. Nowhere in the GRCA By-laws does it give a committee of five such power. If the wording of the Standard is imprecise or requires further explanation then change the Standard THROUGH PROCEDURES CLEARLY SPELLED OUT in the By-laws.)