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.)