Happy Holidays To All EGRITS Followers...and the Occasional Visitor

SUMMER SHOW for the Goldens You love

These are some samples, suggestions, whatever. See anything you like? If there's enough interest, designs can be printed on Tee shirts for your enjoyment. You'll also be a walking advertisement for the upcoming show. A great way to celebrate the introduction of SUMMER 2015. Bring along your Goldens to have them assessed by an expert in the breed. Meet folks who love Golden Retrievers as much as you do.

It's Never Too Early To Plan Ahead-- See You In June 2015

   It's never too soon to make plans. This looks to be a great opportunity to join with Golden Retriever fanciers/breeders/owners-- whether you favor the American Type or English Type. All coat colors are welcome to participate and will be judged without bias.
   We look forward to a large number of entries. It is not unreasonable to think the total could reach one hundred or more. Spread the word. And be sure to mention the event to your Canadian friends north of the border.
   Sue Brown has a long and illustrious connection to the breed and her "Teddy"  (Shardanell Talk O' The Town at Ipcress) was the top producing stud dog on three occasions in Great Britain. A stellar achievement in the breed.
    While at the show venue, it is hoped that she will conduct an educational seminar on the Golden Retriever as well.
   So mark those calendars; and think warm-weather thoughts.

And Then There Was ONE

   Once upon a time (not so long ago, actually) Sarah and Tom Rutland journeyed to Tomich, Scotland and discovered Dileas-- a pale-coated Golden Retriever --walking along a quiet road. Apparently, he is the sole survivor of that breed in the quaint town most identified with the origin of our wonderful breed. Lord Tweedmouth is long gone. The great manor house a mere shell of its former glory. Yes, there is a bronze statue to be found at road's edge; but that is a monument to a breed and its beginnings.
   The article entitled The Day We Met Dileas can be found on the GRCA website. It's fun reading.
   What surprises me most about this entry is that it represents perhaps the ONLY reference to Golden Retrievers in Scotland, Great Britain, the world as a whole-- other than the United States. Even if Dileas (pronounced JEE-less) is the only Golden in town, I think the GRCA might be willing to admit that there are at least one or two living beyond the confines of the United States in the 21st century.
   The GRCA version of breed history reads something like this. Goldens originated in Scotland; a few ventured across The Pond to Canada and then filtered down to the United States. There the essential breed history began. 
   It is as if the English or European Golden Retrievers went the way of the dinosaurs.
   True, there are some references to be found in the archives. But, can you identify even a single POSITIVE article on the website or in the magazine that deals with European or Australian representatives of our breed as they exist today?  After all, our signature publication is called the Golden Retriever NEWS--NOT the AMERICAN Golden Retriever NEWS. Does any part of the readership have even a passing interest in what is happening in the Golden Retriever world beyond our shores? Do GRCA members who own/breed/fancy the English Type Golden have no interest in the subject at all? There are hundreds of Americans breeding to the British Standard today; thousands of Americans own English-Type Golden Retrievers.
   But references to them-- if they exist at all --are confined to attacks on breeders who charge great amounts of money for misnamed "WHITE" Golden Retrievers, and the unfounded health claims made about them. Would-be puppy buyers are told that coat color should be the LAST thing one should consider in purchasing a Golden Retriever. This fits with the mistaken belief that ALL non-American Golden Retrievers are very pale or cream in color. But WHY shouldn't color preference matter? In dogs of more than a single color, the markings matter don't they? And when the so-called BLONDE Golden Retrievers were all the rage, didn't breeders promise buyers that their pups would be pale-coated adults? Been there, done that-- on the receiving end.
   My wish would be that Tom and Sarah return to Merrie Olde England and stumble upon a dog show in progress-- maybe the Crufts Show. Perhaps they could tell us about the great number of Goldens to be found there, and the broad spectrum of coat color to be found in the breed.
  

A GOLDEN is a GOLDEN is a GOLDEN is a...

   Here we are at the GRCA National Specialty 2014 with Reserve Winners Bitch-- Sunkyst's VW.
   Winning bitch was a cream coat bred in the show's home state of North Carolina, the product of two English Type Goldens.
   Selections were made by the judge according to the AKC Golden Retriever Breed Standard. A standard which NEVER references the word "cream" despite the best and unceasing efforts made by GRCA leaders to convince the world otherwise. In articles found on the GRCA website you can find multiple references to cream as "undesirable" and assertions that the standard clearly says so. Judges are "educated" to accept this "fact." The show catalog includes the Golden Retriever breed standard, perhaps to remind us (and the judges?) that, "Predominant body color which is extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable...."
   But all the blurbs found on the GRCA website-- advice or instructions to judges, comments on proper coat color, dismissive comments regarding the "vanilla retriever"  --none of which is included in the breed standard itself --alter that standard or its meaning. These articles state that pale gold is included in the acceptable color spectrum for coat color. But cream is not. Apparently cream is too "extreme" and too "pale" to suit their personal taste.
   There are THREE FICTIONS repeatedly asserted by the GRCA in their publications and public pronouncements.
     (1) All Golden Retrievers are born some SHADE of GOLD.
     (2) The British Standard considers cream to be merely a SHADE of gold, not a stand-alone coat color.
     (3)The AKC Breed Standard identifies cream as UNDESIRABLE.
   The American judge apparently was not swayed by these assertions when she chose her winning bitch. Nor was the British judge who followed up Sophie's win by proclaiming her Best of Winners. Neither judge was required to do so. When does pale gold become extremely pale? Too pale? And compared to what? The other Goldens in the ring, perhaps?
   When I asked the Board members (at the Annual Meeting) if the fact that Best of Winners possessed a born-cream coat  had caused them to reconsider their objections to cream, ALL sat in stone silence. They all-- each and every one -- should be applauded for their openness and candor. It's always instructive and informative to hear what our Club leaders think. Perhaps they could not hear the question over the shouting of the Club president(?)  Perhaps their silence was due to their desire to get the party started-- the Halloween event which immediately followed. The audience seemed to have little interest in the question either. The alleged "quorum" deserves kudos as well.
   The bottom line: the judges followed the breed standard. Other judges will as well.
   Jeffrey Pepper believes that, "....(B)reed standards are not written for novices, but rather for those intimately familiar with the breed being described....Because we are dealing with living things, breed standards must always allow room for interpretation...."  He, as virtually every spokesperson for our breed associated with the GRCA, has said that coat color should be a minor if not the last consideration in the conformation ring. On November 30, 2014 in North Carolina two well-respected judges did exactly that. What more can you ask? We should expect no less from professionals.

How NOT to Amend the Golden Retriever Breed Standard--Are You Listening, GRCA?

   GRCA BYLAWS-- Article IX AMENDMENTS
     Section 1    Amendments to ...the Standard for the breed may be proposed , at any time, by any member of the Board of Directors or by written petition addressed to the Secretary signed by ten percent of the members in good standing eligible to vote on the question...(Blah, blah, blah, etcetera)
   It goes on to say that the Board may create a special committee to prepare the amendment for a vote. It also says that the Board can either accept OR reject the committee's recommendations as they see fit. But in either case, the proposal can move forward and be put to a vote of the Club membership.
   The process is further explained. The amendment, once approved by vote of the membership, must receive approval of the AKC This appears to be merely a formality, since the American Kennel Club has ceded nearly all decision-making authority to parent breed clubs.
   Please notice: THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF ANY RIGHT OF A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE GRCA TO REWRITE, CLARIFY, OR EXPAND THE BREED STANDARD IN ANY WAY.
   However, the GRCA claims that RIGHT for the Judges' Education Sub-committee of FIVE members.This provides an END RUN around the specific steps required by the BYLAWS.
   At one point, the committee in question declared that the ACCEPTABLE  color parameters for the breed INCLUDED the COLOR CREAM. This document was drawn up by the committee. It was THEN APPROVED by the Board of Directors. Once done, it was sent to the AKC. This last step is NOT REQUIRED under the GRCA Bylaws or by the AKC since it is NOT an AMENDMENT or official change to the breed standard. An AKC official told me that they only approved changes in the standard itself-- not any other document a breed club circulates in public. But is this merely a CLARIFICATION?  So says the Board of Directors. But it is extra-legal; simply the opinion of a sub-committee.
   When I questioned the document which had been issued by this sub-committee I was told by the Board of Directors that an ERROR had been made. The BLAME for it (including cream as an acceptable color) was placed squarely upon the sub-committee chair. She is a Canadian who MISTAKENLY included cream in the document because it is regarded as acceptable under the Canadian breed standard (she chairs the Standards Committee/ Judges' Education Committee of the Canadian Golden Retriever Club). In effect, Ainslie Mills was "thrown under the bus" by her fellow Club leadership. She was ENTIRELY to blame for the error. No one else was responsible in any way.
   Within weeks, the document itself was altered and the word CREAM expunged. It was then REISSUED to judges by the GRCA-- or so I have been told. No one, however, would tell me how long the original document had been in place. Why did committee members put cream in the document to begin with?  Did members such as Marcia Schlehr and Barbara Pepper agree to include it? Their objection to cream-coated Goldens is well documented. No objections on their part? Or did they even participate in the writing of said document? They were responsible for it. That was their job. As members of that committee could they simply absent themselves?  And what of the Board of Directors? Did they READ the document BEFORE approving it for publication and use in judging venues? Did NOT EVEN ONE Board member OBJECT to declaring cream acceptable? When it was USED at judicial seminars did anyone object or even make reference to it? Did THOSE WHO conducted the seminars see a problem? Did any JUDGE question the inclusion of cream in the acceptable color range?
   The LARGER ISSUE, of course, is whether this sub-committee OR ANY committee or sub-committee can PROPERLY declare what the breed standard SAYS OR MEANS. The Board of Directors told me (in an e-mail) that IT CAN. And apparently it can change it's mind and declare something else to be true. How do they defend this? They don't. They simply remain silent and refuse to explain themselves-- to me or anyone else. At the Annual Meeting of the National Specialty in North Carolina I asked the Board to explain and justify their actions. I was shouted down by the Club president while the entire Board sat in silence. That is the state of the current GRCA leadership. Our breed deserves far better. So do the Club members.
   CONFORMATION IS CONFIRMATION. The success of a cream-coated bitch bred to the British Standard is proof of that. "Sophie" took Winners Bitch under an American judge, and then Best of Winners under a British judge at this year's National Specialty. Winning in the CONFORMATION ring that day CONFIRMED her outstanding quality. If either judge felt compelled to penalize her due to "unacceptable" coat color (if the breed standard was  in fact augmented by the judges' education document and was of equal status to the standard itself in its color parameters) then she must have been deemed TRULY outstanding to overcome her pale presence. More likely, NEITHER judge considered the sub-committee document SERIOUSLY, IF AT ALL. Had either even seen it before entering the ring? Sophie was judged against the breed standard, NOT by some "clarifying" document. The latter, most likely was IRRELEVANT to both assessors in the show ring.
   So three cheers for Ventess Sophia of Goldensglen, her owner Angel Martin, and breeder Jane Stevens. Though your win may not have moved mountains on Thursday, it most certainly shook the ground under the arena. Will it "move" the GRCA to adjust its thinking about coat color-- to comply with the acceptance of born-cream Goldens everywhere else in the world? Most likely not under the present Club leadership. For now, they will not be moved. But the breed will move on, with or without the current powers that be. And that is what matters most.
  
  
  
  

Thanks For Your Participation--NOT

   I want to thank all who attended Joanne Cava's "English Tea" at the GRCA National Specialty for taking a few minutes to fill out the questionnaire pictured above. I was told she expected 25 or so to attend the session. Sorry I was unable to make it. None the less your interest and cooperation was appreciated.
   Oh, sorry. Joanne informed me that NO ONE in attendance had any interest in answering any of the questions. So I received a ZERO response. I'd love to hear from ANYONE who attended the event. Why did you refuse to fill out the survey? Were the questions too controversial? Too difficult? Of no interest to you? Please feel free to e-mail me at curtisaurgwyn@hotmail.com. What exactly was your problem?

An Annual Meeting Fitting For Halloween--This is Leadership?

   Too bad no one bothered to videotape the Annual Meeting. The boorish behavior of the Club president as he shouted down a member-in-good standing (that would be me) for daring to ask questions of the Board, to ask that group to explain its votes and/or actions, surely captured the mood and spirit of Halloween. At one point, our leader asked if I would like him to poll the Board members. When I stated that that was my wish, he simply assumed the role of a Governor Chris Christie caricature and shouted me down. Not a single Board member rose to defend my right to speak. All sat  in silent assent and apparent approval of the Club leader. The assembled crowd-- no doubt anxious to get the Halloween party started-- voiced their disapproval at the questioner.
    For purposes of decorum, propriety or whatever, a Board member had earlier arisen to announce that there was a quorum present; so official business or what passes for that could take place. She based her decision on nothing other than perhaps a head count of those in the room-- many there to attend the party which was to follow. She did not even bother to ask for a show of hands to see how many of those in attendance were actually Club members. Some had wandered over from the dog show hearing about the party to follow; others were there to help decorate the room. The parliamentarian who had been brought to the event said "hi" and then reverted to the status of a mute button-- no doubt her costume for the day.
   It seems obvious that the Board feels no obligation whatever to ANSWER questions posed to them. Or even to HAVE questions addressed to them. Except for self-congratulation, what is the purpose of an Annual Meeting? The treasury is full, entries at the show exceeded expectations, the website is doing a fine job-- according to our leader. What more do we need to know? Let's get the party started.

In Honor of Veterans Day 2014

Absolutely love this photo of Ruth Thompson and her boy, Chaleur Valentino, as they are declared winners of the Veteran Class way Down Under.
   And, lest we forget, Cortney Corral's delightful Goodtime's Johnny Bee Good was first awarded Best Veteran before occupying center stage as Best In Show.
   Let's hear it for these two special vets as we honor all veterans who have served with honor.

GRCA National Specialty-- Old Dogs'n New Tricks

   History was made at the 2014 GRCA National Specialty when a cream-coated, bred-in-America, English Type (bred to the British Standard) Golden Retriever won a five-point major as Winners Bitch and Best of Winners. A great win for breeder Jane Stevens. 
   Overall winner-- Best In Show and Best Veteran --was a nearly ten-year old dog, Goodtimes Johnny Bee Good of Redhill kennel in Tennessee (pictured above Sophie). He showed the "youngsters" how it's done-- despite a snow delay. Yep, you heard me right. How's that for a Halloween "trick?"
   Winners Dog was Sandpiper Rush Hill's Die Hard, and Magnolia Captivate Not Tonight Honey was awarded the title of Best Opposite Sex. Select Dog was Gemini's House of The Rising Sun and Select Bitch honors went to Shadowland's Paws For Applause at Tristar.
   All and all a colorful and interesting group of winners at a show which included 1305 entries.

English Type GO-TO GOLDENS...Circa 2014

   What strikes me as interesting is that the breeders of the English-Type Golden Retriever here in America do NOT appear to have a "Go-To" Golden stud dog. This is not necessarily a bad thing, considering the great number of breeders in the States who have lined up to breed Goldens you could count on one hand. Elsewhere on this blog site I have pointed this out-- without naming names. Certainly this does nothing to expand the gene pool for our breed.
   There are some possible reasons for this.
   First, rarely indeed is the English- Type Golden awarded an AKC championship in America. Most imports possess a coat color which judges are encouraged and instructed to penalize under guidelines developed by the GRCA. And breeders love to use title holders in their programs. This is understandable in the general sense, since a titled dog has been deemed worthy of the breed by his evaluators in the conformation ring.
   Second, there is a tendency on the part of many hobby breeders to purchase their own bitches and their own stud dogs. Most, if not all, pups are then sold with limited registrations; thus of course adding nothing to the gene pool overall. While a breeder may retain one or two with full registration for himself, other pups that might be of merit are denied the opportunity to influence the breed's development.
   Many English Types never show up on the national scene. Most are NOT entered in AKC-sanctioned events at all. And the IABCA and United Kennel Club shows are largely local in nature, with limited entries.
   For many American breeders of the English Type the answer lies north of the 49th parallel. That would be Canada, of course. A significant and growing number of American fanciers have traveled there and earned titles for their Golden Retrievers.
   While the Canadian and American Breed Standards both speak of lustrous gold of varying shades, the Maple Leaf venues have no trouble providing equal treatment for the cream-coated Goldens. Hardly the case in America. It is NOT the standards which differ but rather the instructions-to-judges documents that are at odds.
   It should be added that there is a long history of "go-to" Goldens north of the border. True, especially, of imports brought into Canada from Europe and Australia.
   Perhaps most noteworthy was Dewmist Davenport from Sweden, sire of at least 109 litters in his lifetime. Another prolific producer was the Norwegian, Mjaerumhogda's Kyon Flying Surprise credited with no less than 57 litters. Giltedge Traveller (Australia) gave us thirty or so litters as did Cheek To Cheek Steve MacQueen (France). Twenty or more litters were the result of breeding to Majik Mr Darcy (Finland), Stanroph Secret Weapon (Great Britain), and Guldakra's Ivan Lendl (Sweden). Quite a considerable concentration of genes for a Golden community far less in number than that found in the United States. While color was usually a key element in their selection-- most were born-cream Golden Retrievers --not all were of this lighter hue. What they had in common was strong pedigrees replete with outstanding producers behind them.
   If there is truly a Canadian- Type Golden Retriever , it is the result of blending many American-Type Goldens with this rather more limited number of overseas imports. But perhaps this is being a bit unfair to our northern neighbors. True, many American lines were used in Canada, but truth be told, the Golden Retriever arrived in that nation BEFORE the first Golden ever set foot on United State's soil.

  

WORDS OF WISDOM...OR Just Words?

The following quotes are worthy of revisiting.
     "Those of us who drew up the standard of points in the early days realised that the foundation colour of the original Guisachan strain was cream and knew the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of completely eradicating this colour. I thought then, as I do now, that a mistake was made in forbidding the cream colour, but my views were in the minority." --Mrs. Charlesworth
     
      "One of the most appealing qualities of the Golden Retriever is the wide range in colour of coat. If we are to breed and judge to the Breed Standard, all shades of cream and gold should be acceptable and no judge should accept a judging appointment unless they can be completely unbiased when judging colour."  --Valerie Foss

     "...let us resolve that there will never be one group of dogs for show and a totally different group for the field."  --E.F. Rivinus 

     "To judge is a great responsibility, because judges can change a breed, for it is the dog that wins in the show ring that is used for future breeding programmes."  --Valerie Foss

   Why have I selected these four quotations?
   First, Charlesworth makes it clear that CREAM was the foundation color for the breed. She was there. She should know. No need to apologize, "Charlie."
   Second, Foss states judges should be bound by the color range found in the breed standard, even if judges may have personal and subjective opinions and preferences. The key here is what is ACTUALLY IN the standard itself.  The reference is to the British show scene and British Standard.  BUT, please note, the breeder/judge/author speaks of all SHADES OF CREAM AND GOLD. Is there any way to interpret this phrase-- or rewrite this phrase --in such a way that cream is simply a shade of gold? No way.
   Third, the concern voiced by Rivinus in 1940 has been summarily dismissed by the GRCA ever since. The American Type show dog could well be mistaken for another breed when compared with the American-bred field Golden Retriever. I would argue that this is because the Breed Standard is NOT written for ALL Golden Retrievers but rather for those destined for the show ring.
   Fourth, as Foss points out, breeders breed to winners. If a dog (or dogs) look or style or whatever wins over the judges who rate him, he will be rewarded with a lifetime of stud service. Regardless of coat color, the overall gene pool will be restricted by those who flock to the winning dog-- regardless of whether a bitch has a complimentary pedigree or relates well structurally to that would-be sire.
   If coat-color bias in the conformation ring prevents cream-coated Goldens from winning championship titles, they will be largely eliminated from the gene pool. How can this be good for the future of the breed here in America? 
   Trouble is, the AKC/GRCA Breed Standard is what Club Committees say it is, NOT what it actually says. The word CREAM never appears ANYWHERE in our standard. The GRCA Judges' Education Committee has assumed and presumed to tell us what the proper color range is. Nor is the color RED mentioned in the standard. We are left with interpretations of "extremely pale" and "extremely dark." And these phrases are defined NOT by the breed standard BUT by a GRCA Committee of five who CLAIM to know what these terms mean. And the GRCA Board of Directors assert the Committee's RIGHT to do so.  Conclusion: the Golden Retriever Breed Standard is what a five-member committee says it is. Their OPINIONS are then sent to judges to educate them on proper coat color. Assuming, that is, that the judges pay attention to that document.
   And if commentators are to be believed, each ten-year period seems to have produced a wide variety in what the "current" Golden Retriever should look like.  If you can identify winning dogs by decade, what does this say about breed consistency? To Foss' point, what role have the judges played in this-- by "playing" with the breed standard? Or is lack of precise language in the standard to blame?

ALL English Type Goldens Are CREAM--WWRROONNGG!!

   Here we have two examples of GOLD Golden Retrievers of the so-called English Type (bred to the British Breed Standard). Both reside in Canada; both are outstanding examples of the breed.
   Thornywait Paparazzi (Tesoro De Ria Vela For Thornywait x Putjade Partypingla  at Thornywait) is still a youngster though Canadian titled; Sundowner De Ria Vela (Ritzilyn Rick O'Shay x Dolce Candy De Ria Vela) had already won a Spanish championship title before his arrival.
   Both possess the "blocky" headpiece of Goldens bred to the British Standard.
   It's nice to see "colorful" additions to a European- type gene pool in North America which is more typically cream or light gold in hue.

Not So Hip RE : Hip Scores

   At a time when the number-one health concern among Golden Retrievers was hip dysplasia, this highly esteemed champion dog was bred repeatedly; in some cases to bitches whose hips were no better than his. The question : Even though F is a "passing grade," was it wise to use this dog in so many breeding programs?  His name is not important in order to make my point. But how many of his progeny were added to the gene pool-- and did anyone care?
   As you can see from this diagram, the dog's paternal grandsire had only Fair hips, despite the fact that his parents were E- and G-rated.
   Given the opportunity, would YOU have bred your bitch to such a stud? The breeder in question would most certainly be considered to be a "responsible" breeder by GRCA standards; neither a backyard breeder or puppy mill. Do you have a problem with that?
  

Good GOLDENS ...from Start to Finnish

   A good many years ago Canada was introduced to Golden Retriever MAGIC by way of Finnish import, Majik Mr Darcy. He was responsible for adding noteworthy dogs to the gene pool both north and south of the border.
   Now North American Golden Retriever fanciers are being introduced to imports by Majik Finders Keepers, and his sons-- Majik Truth Or Dare and Majik Zero To Hero. The latter two out of Majik Vissi D'arte. You can find out more by pulling up the dogs on that invaluable website-- k9data.com. If you like what you see, check 'em out.

THIS IS ONLY A TEST...

Here Come the judge, HERE COME THE JUDGE...In Search of FAIRNESS

   In speaking with leading members of the Golden Retriever "circle" in America-- INCLUDING JUDGES  --it is clear that there are some who honestly believe that coat color should be the LAST consideration. They correctly believe that the breed is NOT DEFINED by coat color but conformation, movement and temperament.
   When I have complained about cream-coated  Goldens being treated UNFAIRLY in the conformation ring the usual response sounds like this. First, the judge is merely following the Standard which states clearly that CREAM  is "undesirable." You can read our standard until "the cows come home;" you will NEVER see the word CREAM in that document. You do see the phrase, "extremely pale." But like everything else, judges are free to use their own discretion and understanding of such phrases. Jeffrey Pepper has said that Breed Standards are not written for "novices." Certainly an AKC judge does not fall into that category.
   Cream Goldens are deemed worthy of penalty (since they are UNworthy) by majority vote of the GRCA committees. Neither document issued by the Standards Committee OR the Judges' Education Committee requires approval by the AKC itself. Nor can these documents be regarded as mere "extensions" of our breed standard. They are quite simply efforts made by committee members to "legitimize" their personal preferences and biases.
   Valerie Foss has said," ....If we are to breed and judge to the British Standard, all shades of cream and gold should be acceptable and no judge should accept a judging appointment unless they can be completely unbiased when judging colour."  She, of course, is commenting on the British show scene. But she is speaking to the point that some judges still show color bias so many years after the British Standard had adopted cream as a proper coat color. Old habits die hard.  Foss also comments:
          "The early breeders preferred mid-golden to dark golden coats and, although there were some pale to cream Golden Retrievers, they were not acceptable, nor indeed even recognised. Apart from one or two isolated cases IT TOOK NEARLY TWENTY-FIVE YEARS before really pale dogs were regularly winning top honors in the show ring. Even then they were being penalised by some judges."
   Elsewhere the author says," The British and American Standards both allow a RANGE of golden, and one shade of the range is no better than the other.  Judges who write in critiques "correct colour" are showing they do not understand plain English....You should never judge on colour as long as it is within the RANGE, that is all you  have to worry about."
   Of course the RANGE is the sticking point. Americans who defend the practice of penalizing the cream coats contend that we should be content with the broad range of color that the AKC Standard does permit. But WHY should we; especially when no other nation restricts coat color as we do.
    I disagree with Foss that the American breed standard is clear or concise on coat color. It does leave room for judicial interpretation, however. In general Foss believes the AKC/GRCA document to be superior to the British Standard because it provides far more in the way of specificity in all areas. In her view, the British judges are provided with less guidance and that this leads to uncertainty in the breed. Resulting in confusion as to the ideal Golden Retriever.
   But the author seems a bit conflicted herself. On one hand she states that," ....The British and American Breed Standards vary SLIGHTLY, particularly with regard to colour." But prior to this she suggests," ....Whether the Americans have altered the Standard to suit their dogs or have bred their dogs to their Standard I do not know, but the American Golden is a VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF DOG to its British counterpart." Foss believes that the two standards are really quite similar, though the American version is more fleshed out. But if this is true then WHY do the two types diverge significantly? It appears that the British Standard does not provide a judge with sufficient information to put up a consistent type.  The American judge, for his part? Not following the standard? Ignoring the details?  Or are the breeders/exhibitors presenting dogs which stray from the proper guidelines found in the standard? Perhaps a measure of both(?)
   To Foss," American show dogs have gone through several trends in types of style. In the 1950s, it was the tall, Setter-like, dark-coated type, often with a narrow and tapering head. By the 1970s, a heavy-set dog with extreme substance and abundance of coat, was popular, sometimes reminding one of the Newfoundland. Now it is the very 'pretty,' glamourous dog spectacularly groomed and handled, often winning at a very young age but too often later coarsening, or else remaining a perennial puppy who never really matures." If taken at her word, these obvious shifts in type have been quite severe in nature. And the picture she paints of the current type-- 'pretty' dogs --tells us little about structure, movement and such. Is the present-day Golden-- no longer Setter-like or Newfoundland-ish --at least more like the ideal  described in the standard? She doesn't say.
   In summary, our Breed Standard does provide an opening of sorts for treating cream coats fairly in the conformation ring. It does NOT specifically reference CREAM nor insist that it be penalized. There is an area of judicial discretion permissible under our American Standard. In fact, this is another argument for maintaining the status quo. Some judges HAVE AWARDED championship points to pale gold and even cream-coated Golden Retrievers. This sort of "color blindness" deserves to be applauded and encouraged. With this in mind, I have a suggestion to offer. Contact owners of pale Goldens who have attained a measure of success in the AKC show ring. IDENTIFY the JUDGES. Encourage owners/handlers to SEEK THEM OUT and exhibit under them. In the short term, the LIST may not be long. But its a beginning. So, LET's MAKE A LIST, and check it twice-- or more if necessary.

THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT

   If this doesn't make you smile, nothing will.  Had to post this when I saw it.

SERIOUS HOBBY BREEDER-- RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS OR BREEDERS RESPONSIBLE FOR?

   The GRCA website has a post about Choosing A Reputable Breeder, under the heading of "ACQUIRING A GOLDEN RETRIEVER."  Dismissing the PET SHOP or DEALER, as well as the so-called BACKYARD BREEDER, the Club considers the SERIOUS HOBBY BREEDER to be the "very best choice."
     "....The serious and dedicated hobby breeder regards his/her dogs as even more than a hobby, although the true fancier does not expect to make a profit. When someone is involved in dogs for the enjoyment of each individual animal, for participating in many aspects of  'dogsport'  and for producing the finest animals possible, the results are SUPERIOR. The best breeders acknowledge responsibility for each and every puppy produced, and stand behind every dog they have bred."
   Truly a paragon. But apparently their numbers are in limited supply. In her popular book on the Golden Retriever, Marcia Schlehr states, "It has been said that fewer than ten percent (of Goldens) are produced by conscientious breeders." 
   The GRCA article lists eleven different requirements of a RESPONSIBLE serious hobby breeder. I will not bother to list them here, but you can easily find all if you log in to the grca.org website.
   Allow me to suggest that breeders who are considered to be among this select group may be directly responsible for limiting rather than expanding the gene pool for our breed-- at a time when hip concerns and the incidence of cancer represent serious health concerns.
   A Dr. Becker interviewed United Kennel Club President Wayne Cavanaugh for an article entitled, "A Tragic Example of Narrowing the Gene Pool : Golden Retrievers." Cavanaugh suggests that just two very popular Golden Retriever stud dogs are responsible for possibly half a million descendants.  He claims further that both died young of cancer. While he admits that there is no unequivocal evidence that cancer is an inherited trait, we do know the rate of cancer in the Golden Retriever population is astronomical. 
   Goldens are a tragic example of one DNA pool being ruined. Dr. Greg Ogilvie calls them the 'golden tumor dog.'  You'll never get a better temperament in a dog, but statistically, they're all going to die of cancer. It's just overwhelming. And we've created the disaster in less than 60 years."
   Just as there appear to be many reasons why a dog of any breed might develop hip dysplasia, it is also true that there are numerous types of cancer in the dog world-- not just in our breed. And causality has not been identified with any certainty. Leaders of the breed in North America have expressed doubt about comparative studies regarding some health issues. The President of the GRCC told me that he was not convinced of the accuracy of comparable cancer studies conducted in Great Britain and the United States. While he did not elaborate or give details, there are Golden fanciers who share his opinion.
   However,while the hyperbole offered up by Cavanaugh and/or Ogilvie may give one pause,  Cavanaugh's concerns about limiting the gene pool have merit.
   In my research,  FOUR popular champion stud dogs have been bred nearly 400 times (I've counted at least 384 among them. Each dog was rated only FAIR by the OFA. While this is a passing score. it is hardly something to write home about.  And some of the bitches used in those pairings were rated only FAIR as well. Is this an example of good breeding philosophy? Are such breeders looking out for the best interests of our Goldens?
    TWO other very popular champion studs were used in no less than 206 matings. It should be mentioned that they had better hip scores than the four referenced above.
   But, in terms of sheer numbers, we are talking about a half dozen (6) males credited with producing nearly 600 litters with their mates. Average litter size being what it is, that adds up to nearly 5,000 puppies.
   Does this sound like RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS and breeding practices to you?
   It is said that a nation goes to war with the army IT HAS, NOT the one which it would LIKE OR HOPE to have.
   Applying this LOGIC and REASON to the Golden Retriever "Nation," is not too large a step to take, especially if we TRULY care about our breed AND a SOLUTION is not "pie in the sky" or simply wishful thinking .TWO POSSIBILITIES are immediately evident. If you insist on breeding a bitch ONLY to a CHAMPION STUD DOG, there have been and continue to be a large number of AKC-titled Golden males from which to choose. Far more than six, that's for sure.
   Everyone who wants a Collie doesn't need to have a dog just like "Lassie" (who was called a good "girl" though portrayed by MALE Collies-- leave it to Hollywood to come up with that idea); a German Shepherd just like "Rin Tin Tin" (who I recall actually walked on all four feet, rare in the "show" Shepherd these days); a St. Bernard who is the spitting image of  "Beethoven" (or is that "drooling image"-- I had one, so I can say that with authority and affection). Or even the need to have that certain good-as-gold "rush" that comes with a "Charlie" clone (for the record, I loved that guy).
   So, FIRST SOLUTION : Breed to OTHER AKC champion stud dogs. Other, that is,  than the Dog of the Month or Golden of the Year.  Dog breeding is SEXIST. The bitch gets only FOUR chances to produce a  "great" puppy or two per litter. The number of chances for a male is seemingly ENDLESS. Thus the phrase "Lucky Dog(?)"
   The SECOND SOLUTION requires a bit of thinking OUTSIDE the BOX (or boxES provided by the AKC when you register a Golden). You have THREE and only three choices--dark golden, golden, or light golden. These three were selected for our breed NOT by the AKC BUT rather the GRCA. You CANNOT register a born-RED Golden by using its BIRTH COLOR; NOR can you register a BORN-CREAM Golden by checking a CREAM box. There are none available to select. The GRCA  believes, and many members echo the sentiment--  almost as a matter of RELIGION --that ALL Golden Retrievers are BORN GOLD, of one SHADE or another. Further, that a "true" Golden Retriever MUST be "truly" GOLD in color. Of course, if you believe that there is ONLY ONE birth color, then ALL Golden Retrievers are by definition  born gold and thus ALL ARE TRULY gold Golden Retrievers-- unless the result of some unlikely genetic mutation. The problem is that some in the breed are just not GOLD ENOUGH to suit personal tastes and opinions held by the "congregation" of  "true" believers.
   The BREED STANDARD makes NO REFERENCE to EITHER the COLOR RED or the COLOR CREAM. BUT in their collective "wisdom" the Breed Standard Committee and the Judges' Education Committee of the GRCA have issued documents which specifically refer to these two colors and declares them to be UNDESIRABLE in our breed.
   As a consequence of these actions-- what I choose to call "government by committee" -- cream-coated Golden Retrievers and born-red Golden Retrievers do not win championships in the AKC conformation ring. These NON-champions are NOT used in breeding programs. The gene pool is thus limited for our breed. 
   The SOLUTION is obvious. Eliminate the negative wording as it applies to CREAM-COATED Goldens in those committee(s)-produced documents. The entire world EXCEPT for us has done so many years ago. There remains a UNIVERSAL blind spot when it comes to RED-COATED Golden Retrievers. Outside the United States, neither red nor mahogany is acceptable, and breed standards clearly state so. The AKC/GRCA Breed Standard is vague in this regard.  It speaks to coat color which is excessively dark. Too dark for aesthetic tastes; too much of that GOOD thing which we call gold color.
   The GRCA Committees have decided that this is a reference to Irish Setter red or mahogany. And Committee spokespersons and members have pushed the envelope to the point where even chestnut is allowable within the Standard. Funnily enough, the AKC Breed Standard for the Irish Setter allows EITHER mahogany or chestnut; while the breed standard for Irish Setters in the United Kingdom or the FCI mentions ONLY CHESTNUT as the breed color. How ya like dem apples? ( a fruit which bye the bye can be red most certainly, but also green or yellow or even GOLDEN Delicious. Of course, give a kid a coloring book with a picture labeled "apple" and which Crayola crayon will he/she automatically reach for? Color can be so confusing. Sadly, even for adults)  How have we arrived at a point where the GRCA leadership accepts Irish- Setter chestnut as a proper coat color for the Golden Retriever? It's an odd place to find ourselves.
   If you cannot get the appropriate two committees to budge on coat color, the second so-called SOLUTION might be to import ENGLISH-TYPE Goldens from overseas which possess a birth color of GOLD rather than cream. The term ENGLISH has been much maligned by our Canadian friends to the north who misdefine "English" as PLACE OF ORIGIN rather than the BRITISH STANDARD (and FCI ideal)  to which Goldens are bred.  More expensive than using English types already in America, most certainly, but this SOLUTION would not represent "religious heresy" for the "true believers" in the Golden Retriever community. I suppose we might call this SOLUTION TWO "B."
   Or as Willy the Bard once said, "To be or not to be...."In fact THE QUESTION for US ( as in United States of America) is, "How serious are we in facing problems within our breed(?)"

(I feel I must comment on the phrase : THE TRUE FANCIER DOES NOT EXPECT TO MAKE A PROFIT. Who was the BRIGHT LIGHT who wrote this? Let's see... STUD FEE X 590 BREEDINGS = NO PROFIT???????? Who are you kidding? ADD in PUPPY SALES. WHO KNEW? I never realized that Golden Retriever kennel owners were engaged in non-profit activities That they were so SELFLESS in their love for our breed.)
 
    
   

The LINK-ON DUG-LESS DEBATES...What Do You Say To An Empty CHAIR?

   It is difficult to debate if no one will take the bait. Step up to the plate. I challenged anyone or everyone in the GRCA to have a go-round on the issue of coat color in Golden Retrievers. I was told that no one in the Club had any interest or willingness to do so (at least those among the leadership who had been contacted by the President).  My hope was that such a discussion would take place during this year's General Meeting of the GRCA.  The request was made months ago; and yet I was told that there was no room on the schedule, even though everything was still listed as pending at that time. I felt it would have given the membership a better understanding as to why the Standard says what it does, and how Club leaders have chosen to interpret or elaborate upon the phrases found in that document. The two in question, of course are rich, lustrous golden of various shades and the question of penalizing certain coat colors. Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Light pups are given a pass if the judge THINKS they may darken with maturity. But since ALL Goldens appear to darken with maturity, what is the judge to do with the  dark pup whose coat is already at the limit of acceptability? Seems that pup gets a pass as well-- though he most likely will be a "red" dog in later life. The Standard says nothing at all about him-- though red or mahogany Goldens are universally found wanting, regardless of which national or international standard is applied. I guess the motto here is, "show EARLY, show often."  BEFORE an adult coat makes him "undesirable."  And as an adult-- despite an overly dark coat --he would be an AKC champion. Would breeders avoid using such a dog?  In Breed competition and Group and beyond would he be ignored by the judges?
   So, I now present a DEBATE WITH AN EMPTY CHAIR a la Clint Eastwood's infamous and rather disastrous attempt at political comedy. In this case "chair" can be considered in two ways-- an unoccupied seat or a chair(person).
   There is no doubt that my opponent in such a debate-- if one (or more) had stepped forward --would have had a wealth of experience and knowledge of the breed and its history over time. Far far more than I possess. I was willing to accept that challenge. So I have done my "homework"  as best I could, discovering along the way the various arguments put forth by my would-be antagonists in such a discussion. You may consider some to be rather strange, silly perhaps, bordering on laughable. What you will NOT see are FACTS and SUPPORTING evidence. Many of these arguments can be found in either publications or public statements made by leading Club members.
   This discussion about pups and judging relates to a THIRD color-related phrase in the Breed Standard, actually. Some latitude should be given to the light puppy whose coloring shows promise of darkening with maturity. Can't you just hear the pup begging," Pick me, pick me, judge. I PROMISE I will darken with age!" One of the skills required in a judge: clairvoyance?!?! An ability to predict the future color of a dog. I'm all ears! (pun intended)
   So now let us debate the "FACTS" or perhaps the arguments presented as such. What I prefer to call FACTOIDS.
   (1) One respected author claims that a CREAM coat is more undesirable because it more readily shows the dirt and thus requires more frequent bathing. Surely a responsible handler would gussie up and preen such an off-white dog before entering the ring with him. So what's the problem? Cost of white powder?  More expensive water bills? (Personally I'd place a ban on hair dryers-- that would save a few bucks.)
   (2) The excessively light color of a CREAM coat FRIGHTENS off water fowl.  How many current show Goldens hunt on a regular basis, if ever? Regardless of color. Perhaps the excessively light skin of the typical hunter has the same affect on ducks and geese who gotta scurry (whether the hunter finds himself in a surrey with the fringe on top or just your every day duck blind). Does the typical show Golden even know what a gun is? Is retrieving a lost art?
   What I particularly love about this argument is that it is offered up by the same person who says the following about Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers. It is important that such a dog have white markings-- chest, tail tip, feet, perhaps a blaze on his head --IN ORDER TO ATTRACT WATER FOWL. HUH??? This is another instance of what I call the "Goldilocks FACTOR." Not too much white, not too little white, but just the right white. Or are we to believe that we are dealing with the likes of speaking, thinking Donald and Daffy Ducks?
   (3) Often, at a distance, a judge may fail to identify a Golden as a Golden because of its CREAM coat. Last time I checked, both the dogs and the judge occupied the SAME show ring at the same time. If the judge has that much trouble identifying a pale-coated dog as a Golden, my suggestion would be CAN WE HAVE ANOTHER JUDGE OVER HERE, please? Or, does anyone have a PAIR OF GLASSES he could LEND to the judge?
   (4) The CREAM-coated Golden presents a problem for SPECTATORS as well. Many folks, unfamiliar with the breed, may mistake a cream entry for ANOTHER breed. In our Golden's early history, the same argument was used against dogs viewed as excessively RED, often being confused with Irish Setters. Somehow we were able to deal with that concern. Mostly by declaring them totally unacceptable. Perhaps the GRCA could create some sort of Education Committee to inform the uninformed? What's that you say? Already have one? Does it have anything at all POSITIVE to say about cream- coated Goldens? Or is that too much to ask?
   (5) If we permit a CREAM Golden to enter the conformation ring WITHOUT penalty, then we MUST allow the BLACK Golden to enter the ring as well. This was a view expressed by a Club leader of great prominence (well deserved, I would add) at the National Specialty meeting open to all members outside of Atlanta, Georgia. When challenged the speaker said that it was highly unlikely for a pedigreed black Golden to exist. Other than some sort of mutation it would most likely be a crossbreed of some sort. You think?
   (6) The British, Canadian, and FCI Breed Standards do NOT consider CREAM to be a separate COLOR in the breed but rather a light SHADE of GOLD or perhaps cream SHADING on an otherwise gold coat. Such viewpoints have been voiced by leading officials in our breed Club, and can be found in their writings-- books, articles and such. But, aside from their personal opinions, they offer not one scintilla of evidence to PROVE their assumptions are correct. Wishing or believing does not make it so.
   (7) The general consensus of the GRCA is that CREAM is "undesirable" in our breed. Whether you consider the majority of our membership to be a "Silent Majority" or not, the fact remains that they assume that they voted for a breed standard that requires CREAM Goldens to pay a penalty when they enter the show ring. Even though it does NOT say so at all.
      (a) The GRCA presently numbers about 4,000 members or slightly above. The AKC has chosen them to be the PARENT CLUB for the breed. As such it is the chief spokesman for and guardian of our breed. While this may be true, there are thousands upon thousands more Golden owners than those found in the Club. And there are no doubt thousands more owners of CREAM Goldens than the number of Golden owners (regardless of color) currently holding Club membership. In each case, the entire number of folks in the GRCA constitutes a MINORITY viz-a-viz the Golden owners across America.
   The AKC/GRCA Breed Standard is written for the show ring, rather than for the breed as a whole. What about all OTHER Golden Retrievers? Who is to be their voice?
       (b) Second point, NOWHERE in the BREED STANDARD does the word CREAM (or RED, for that matter) APPEAR.  Cream dogs and red dogs are declared "undesirable" (yes, THAT word IS FOUND in the Standard) by a COMMITTEE OR TWO in the Club. The GRCA Breed Standard Committee seems to have four current members; while the GRCA Judges' Education Committee consists of five members. These people have decided that this coat color or that coat color is ACCEPTABLE. This is a color which the Standard says (implies? infers?) is outside the range of proper color. Excessively light OR excessively dark are terms which are defined by this tiny fraction of the total membership. The GRCA claims that the committees have the right to make such judgments. In my view, if you wish to have the Breed Standard say something (about anything at all) then PUT IT IN THE STANDARD. Have it approved by the total membership. Have it sanctioned by the AKC.
   Size, proportion and substance-- matters of height and weight are EXPLICIT in the Standard. It has not been left to a committee to determine these components of our breed. Why should committees have power to define other aspects of our Standard?
   (8) If CREAM Goldens are permitted to compete in the conformation ring without penalty, then more will most likely win championship titles. More will then be used in breeding programs. Breeders will be more likely to breed a cream coat to a cream coat. This will reduce the gene pool for GOLD Golden Retrievers.
    In case you haven't noticed, the current gene pool is constricted because breeders flock to dogs who have earned CH titles. Four dogs with OFA Fair ratings have been bred nearly 400 times, sometimes to bitches who also have been rated only OFA Fair themselves. The result: thousands of pups. Are you okay with that? After all, they were gold Goldens.
   Cream Goldens, almost without exception, don't win CH titles in the AKC show ring. Thus they are rarely used in breeding programs. Does that not shrink the gene pool?
   And there will always be breeders who choose to breed cream to cream; just as there are Golden breeders who will always breed gold to gold. That is not about to change any time soon. Though it would help if breeders chose to import Goldens with gold coats. The world is full of outstanding examples. Most likely though, these English type gold Goldens would be bred to other cream-coated English type Goldens.
   And despite authors' claims to the contrary I have YET to see a cream-coated Golden produced by the American- type lines. There have been some born light gold; and some which have remained quite light in color. But they are NOT cream dogs. Show me even one which does not contain at least one or more foreign kennels in its five-generation pedigree.
   (9) It has been suggested that breeding CREAM to CREAM dilutes not ONLY coat color but skin pigment and nose leather and such. If allowed to run rampant, what would become of the GOLD Golden Retriever? Would the end result be albinism in the breed? 
   First, this has not happened anywhere else in the world.  Folks tell me that dog shows in Sweden feature many Goldens that appear white or nearly so. None of them suggest that pigmentation or eye color has been affected in any way. Shows elsewhere in Europe or Australia or Canada display a broad array of coat color from light cream to near-red hues.The GOLD-coated Golden Retriever hardly faces extinction or second-class status because of the fair treatment afforded cream-coated Goldens throughout the world. Why should the outcome be any different in the United States? Especially with aging judges entrenched in their belief that a Golden must be gold.
   And it should be added that an albino animal, regardless of breed or even species, is not linked to coat color of any hue. If so, true WHITE-coated dogs would exhibit far more albinism than other breeds. They do not.
    (10) If CREAM Golden Retrievers are afforded FULL acceptance in Golden Retriever circles, it will only allow the FAD to burgeon further. Many BLAME this so-called FAD on the OPRAH EFFECT. How dare MS Winfrey parade her WHITE Golden trio across OUR television screens. Then she featured them in her magazine-- even on the cover, of all things.
   To make matters worse, there was that event at the Purina Farms fairgrounds in Missouri this summer. An IABCA event, it was initially advertised as an English Cream Golden Specialty. The internet went crazy. The publicity flyer was amended, and the event went off without a hitch. And, despite it being re-publicized as an ALL Golden Retriever event, it appears that most entries were cream rather than gold in color (this is not unusual since most IABCA events attract such dogs). The judge chose a cream pup and a cream dog as BOB Puppy and BOB Adult. Not surprising, perhaps, since he was from the Thevenet Kennel in Spain and coat color in a non-issue on the Continent.
    I have been told that this ill-advised  publicity document (not the work of the IABCA itself) inspired the GRCC to create and post a document of their own on their web page declaring-- among other things --that there is NO SUCH THING as an ENGLISH CREAM Golden Retriever. To arrive at this conclusion they misdefined the term itself. No doubt the concern of the Canadian committee which issued the essay on color was solely connected to their sympathy for unsuspecting puppy buyers; certainly not out of any concern for competition among breeders wishing to collect mucho dollars or loonies.
   If cream-coated Goldens are no more than a fad, what's the worry? You'd have to be DAFT to take this FAD seriously. True there are unscrupulous breeders who hype their dogs as WHITE, exotic and rare. Expect to pay a pretty penny for the often absurd health and temperament "guarantees" included in their advertising. That is, IF YOU ARE DUMB enough to do so. 
   But these breeders are to blame, NOT the cream-coated Goldens. How you treat the dog should not be a consequence of what you think of these people. And no one on either side of the 49th parallel  seems willing to take any ACTION to deal with these exaggerated claims. Beyond some screed on a website, always careful NOT to NAME NAMES of the offending breeders or kennels.
   So, there you have it: TEN TOP REASONS why CREAM GOLDEN RETRIEVERS should be treated as less than equal to their GOLD siblings. They are, after all, ALL GOLDEN RETRIEVERS. Or so we are told by absolutely everyone. But it seems I have forgotten something. What could that possibly be?
   THE NUMBER ONE REASON why we must treat CREAM Goldens as UNDESIRABLE is  (drum roll please) because they VIOLATE THE BREED NAME itself. 
    We call it the GOLDEN Retriever for a reason. Self-evident. He MUST be a GOLD dog. Just as he MUST be able to retrieve game for his owner. Thus--RETRIEVER. Well, perhaps the latter is less important. But clearly he must be GOLD even if he bungles the task for which he was bred. It's not the dog's fault if he CAN'T HUNT. Blame that on his owner and those who make the rules and develop the Breed Standard. Okay. Then should we blame a dog for his COAT COLOR? Or his breeder? Or anyone?
   WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, TO BE "TRULY" A GOLDEN RETRIEVER, A DOG MUST BE "TRULY" GOLD IN COLOR.
   Very early on, he was called the YELLOW Retriever or even the Tweedmouth Retriever (of course, not a color reference). There are articles dating from the mid-1930s or so where the Golden was referred to as an ENGLISH Retriever here in America (again, NOT a color reference).
   We are told that ALL Golden Retrievers are born on some sort of  EXTENSION YELLOW SERIES. Therefore ALL Golden Retrievers are born some SHADE OF GOLD. This last sentence requires that you believe that YELLOW IS GOLD and gold is yellow. To me, that requires a leap of faith. Not surprising since many Golden fanciers treat gold color as if it were a religion.  What if you don't accept this premise or assumption as valid?  Is CREAM really a SHADE of GOLD?  Is RED a SHADE of GOLD as well?  If you buy a Solid Gold Cadillac is it okay if it arrives bedecked in a CREAM paint job? That bright RED Corvette convertible you always wanted (call it mid-life crisis). It arrives at the dealership  and there it sits-- gold in color. Are you a Happy Camper? Would you be more content if it were CREAM or orange or chestnut?
   Leaders in the GRCA repeat the mantra over and over, RELIGIOUSLY. We are told that COAT COLOR DEFINES the breed as a Golden Retriever. Forget matters of temperament, structure, movement(?) These same folks claim that when judging the breed, COAT COLOR is always the LAST consideration-- if it is considered at all. But, to a man (and woman) coat color is of no concern to a judge ONLY AFTER HE/SHE DECIDES WHICH COLORS ARE ACCEPTABLE in HIS/HER OPINION.  So, FIRST we LIMIT the allowable color range we are willing to consider at all and THEN, and ONLY THEN do we say that the coat color DOESN'T matter at all. Verbal gymnastics worthy of an Olympic Gold Medal. 
   To summarize, CREAM is GOLD; it simply isn't GOLD ENOUGH. Other nations have Breed Standards which don't really admit that CREAM is a stand-alone COLOR in our breed. Those folks don't know how to interpret their OWN breed standard. So, at best, CREAM is no more than a possible shade of gold which lacks the shine and glint of a proper-coated Golden. We must educate the people throughout the world as to the true meaning of CREAM when that word is used in their own breed standards. Or is it not our problem?  
   We have a GRCA Committee chair who says that CREAM is not part of the acceptable color range for our breed. This same person heads a similar committee north of the border. As a member of the parent Club for Golden Retrievers throughout Canada, this person chairs the top committee dealing with the breed standard and judges' education. This Committee affirms that CREAM is an ACCEPTABLE coat color for the breed, regardless of color intensity. Perhaps this individual was outvoted by  fellow committee members in the United States. The Committee has but five members. Perhaps it was a 4- to- 1 vote to exclude and penalize cream? We simply do not know. I suspect we never will. In any case, the unnamed individual believes that CREAM is BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE, depending upon the accident of geography(?)
   Way back when the breed was being established, Mrs. Charlesworth was blamed for keeping cream coats from the original Breed Standard in the United Kingdom. She admitted in her book, that she had been outvoted by her fellow committee members. Cream was added as a separate color shortly afterward-- 1936. That was two years before we even had a GRCA established in this country. And she pointed out that the very first "Golden" was actually a yellow pup from an otherwise black litter of retriever-type dogs. If pressed on the matter, I am certain that she would be far more likely to place that pup at the cream end of the color spectrum rather than the opposite red extreme. And regardless of how Americans may wish to rewrite or misinterpret the British Breed Standard, the committee in charge added the word CREAM to GOLD as a legitimate and distinct COLOR. They didn't use the term YELLOW or PALE GOLD or YELLOW ORANGE. And if they believed that CREAM was only a reference to ONE SHADE of GOLD or to CREAM SHADING on an otherwise GOLD dog, there would have been NO REASON AT ALL to CHANGE the Breed Standard in 1936. The original phrase any shade of gold would have covered all the bases. And in declaring RED or MAHOGANY unacceptable, that end of the color spectrum was addressed without ambivalence of any sort. Why would the Brits have said that all Goldens are gold and  then feel it necessary to revise their breed standard to add that the gold shade known as cream is also gold? They didn't list any other "shades of gold." That just doesn't make any sense at all. And the Brits are all about being sensible-- to a fault. 
   I rest my case. 
   ( For the record, the GRCA Judges' Education Committee issued a document in 2012, supposedly sanctioned by the AKC (though an AKC official told me that they only review breed standards). In it, the acceptable color spectrum INCLUDED CREAM. When I questioned the GRCA leadership-- hoping they had decided to join the rest of the world in this regard --I was told that the document contained an ERROR. Within days, the word CREAM was removed and replaced with PALE GOLD and the overall spectrum was tilted even further in the direction of red. )