At a time when health issues and temperament concerns have become more pronounced in our dogs, the American breeder of Golden Retrievers has apparently determined that the solution can be found by LIMITING the available gene pool for the breed. At least the decisions being made in recent years have led to that result.
The unintended consequences produced are a by-product of policies and decisions which were supposed to improve the breed, and are fueled by those who insist that they are the RESPONSIBLE breeders and the rest of us are nothing more than a collection of uneducated backyard hobby breeders or belong to that horrid group of "puppy mills" (no names, please).
Would-be puppy buyers are warned against dealing with anyone who is not a responsible breeder, which appear by definition to be those NOT identified by the GRCA. Never mind that some of those on the recommended list offer Goldendoodles for sale. Not to worry; they are few and far between. And the GRCA has gone out of its way to provide articles which condemn such "designer dogs."
The parent organization warns us, as well, NOT to pick a pup based upon coat color. That should be your last and least important concern. While no article appears to even discuss red-coated Goldens at all, the public is discouraged from buying "white" Goldens offered by unscrupulous breeders who lie about their litters. No, they are not white, no they are not rare, and no they are not healthier nor do they possess better temperaments. We know this because an article on the GRCA website says so. So, what is the safest bet: Buy GOLD Goldens, of course.
As for TYPE, the GRCA website appears to believe that silence is the best policy. Where can we find an article that compares and contrasts the American-type as distinguished from the English-type Golden Retriever? I can't seem to find one. And yet a family or individual who desires to buy one can find hundreds of kennels in both the United States and Canada which offer either one type or the other or perhaps even a blending of the two types. We are left totally in the dark as to whether one type is to be preferred to another; whether there are any advantages to purchasing one type rather than another.
How do breeders limit the gene pool?
(1) By selling virtually all their available pups with a non-breeding contract.
(2) By breeding only to the bitches and stud dogs which they own.
(3) By breeding only to show stock-- preferably champion x champion -- failing to consider others of quality but lacking in conformation titles.
(4) By breeding to coat color. This can be done in two ways. Either you breed only gold coats to gold coats OR breed only cream to cream. In either case,
you are limiting your options. Both are restrictive; but the GRCA claims that
in the latter instance, you are breeding an "undesirable" dog to an "un-
desirable bitch." In fact, responsible breeders should not-- by implication--
breed their gold stock to such an "undesirable" color.
(5) By breeding a single stud dog to vast numbers of bitches. One dog of note
was paired with no less than 132 different females. Others may have
perhaps matched or exceeded that number. Was that dog so outstanding
that it was worth limiting the gene pool?
(6) By breeding only for purpose-- field, conformation ring, agility and such.
We are told that we should never forget that the Golden Retriever, first and foremost, is a HUNTING breed. But how many breeders cross their "field"
Golden with a "show" dog?
The GRCA website has articles written by authorities in the breed. Judges
are asked to guess whether a particular dog could accomplish his bred-for
task by watching the dog move about for a few minutes in a ring and by
examining his overall structure. It is even suggested that AT LEAST ONCE
before judging the Golden Retriever breed, the judge should actually watch
a dog IN THE FIELD or at least at a field trial.
Because the Golden is now a multi-purpose dog, we are even told by the
same leading authorities in the breed that it is now permissible to have and
expect to see allowable differences in temperament based upon the task
or purpose for which the dog was bred.
(7) By breeding exclusively to type and proudly advertising that type. There
is a broad range of coat color available among the English-type Goldens in
America (if the color issue concerns you). But why the deliberate
decision to breed only the American type or only the English type?
While at the same time you insist that there is but ONE breed, ONE
Golden Retriever. This goes well beyond the issue of style or aesthetic
preferences. It carries with it an assumption that one type is superior to
another. That one is DIFFERENT from another, at least to the extent that
they can be distinguished-- one from another. So much for the MYTH that
there is but ONE Golden Retriever.
Nor is it possible to assess each type fairly against a Breed Standard
when that breed standard is written to reflect the IDEAL AMERICAN-type
Golden Retriever. At the very least, fairness would dictate that you judge
the English type by using the English Breed Standard. Would you think it
fair if the judges applied the English Breed Standard to dogs exhibited at
an AKC venue? Why should the reverse be acceptable? But that is what we
do in America.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
GOLDEN RETRIEVER NEWS Is OLD News
Now that it's almost Memorial Day I received my copy of the March-April 2014 Golden Retriever News, There it was on page 33-- an article on "Color!" Perhaps something new? No such luck, since the entry was a repeat of an essay which first appeared in 1999-- by my count, that's fifteen years ago. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
To the novice, five of the photos which accompanied the article pictured what appeared to be RED Golden Retrievers. But lest you get your panties tied in a knot, the author assures the reader that the dogs pictured represent an "acceptable deep red gold." Elsewhere she describes acceptable "red " Goldens as "more of the chestnut or red-golden shade." That's a new one on me. Kind of pushing the envelop quite a bit, is it not? Especially when ALL world Golden Retriever standards consider red coats beyond the pale (pun intended).
The author offers a rather novel argument. "One problem with nearly white dogs...is that they have a tendency to readily show dirt. and often look grubby without frequent bathing....and such a dog could carry white markings that could not be detected. Very light dogs often lack the beautiful gloss and sparkle of TRULY GOLDEN coats, simply because they reflect the light differently." This from one who claims that coat color is the last thing a judge should consider.
And I especially like the part about SUPER SMART DUCKS. You see, the overly light dogs are "too conspicuous in the duck blind," and the ever-vigilant ducks-- seeing them hiding there --will fly off unmolested and still very much alive.
However, if you are hunting for this same flock of ducks with Novia Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers, it's an entirely different story. The writer claims that, "some white flash on the NSDTR is characteristic, as part of THEIR FUNCTION is to be visible to the ducks and lure them in with their antics. Bottom line: ducks are attracted by some white but alerted and repelled by too much white. Sort of like applying the Goldilocks concept to duck-hunting dogs. I'm not making this up folks! I'm really not.
The author also proclaims that, "If the dog from a distance can be taken for a 'white' dog, it is too pale. If the first glance sees a dog that could enter the Irish Setter ring, it is too dark." So much for the notion that judges should largely ignore coat color-- or does that not apply to far-sighted judges? For those of you who wear rose-colored glasses and choose to believe that your cream-coated Goldens would get a fair chance in the AKC/GRCA conformation ring under these circumstances, I suggest that you provide gold-colored glasses to all judges who enter that ring, And, would you like to buy a bridge? Or perhaps oceanfront property in Arizona?
To the novice, five of the photos which accompanied the article pictured what appeared to be RED Golden Retrievers. But lest you get your panties tied in a knot, the author assures the reader that the dogs pictured represent an "acceptable deep red gold." Elsewhere she describes acceptable "red " Goldens as "more of the chestnut or red-golden shade." That's a new one on me. Kind of pushing the envelop quite a bit, is it not? Especially when ALL world Golden Retriever standards consider red coats beyond the pale (pun intended).
The author offers a rather novel argument. "One problem with nearly white dogs...is that they have a tendency to readily show dirt. and often look grubby without frequent bathing....and such a dog could carry white markings that could not be detected. Very light dogs often lack the beautiful gloss and sparkle of TRULY GOLDEN coats, simply because they reflect the light differently." This from one who claims that coat color is the last thing a judge should consider.
And I especially like the part about SUPER SMART DUCKS. You see, the overly light dogs are "too conspicuous in the duck blind," and the ever-vigilant ducks-- seeing them hiding there --will fly off unmolested and still very much alive.
However, if you are hunting for this same flock of ducks with Novia Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers, it's an entirely different story. The writer claims that, "some white flash on the NSDTR is characteristic, as part of THEIR FUNCTION is to be visible to the ducks and lure them in with their antics. Bottom line: ducks are attracted by some white but alerted and repelled by too much white. Sort of like applying the Goldilocks concept to duck-hunting dogs. I'm not making this up folks! I'm really not.
The author also proclaims that, "If the dog from a distance can be taken for a 'white' dog, it is too pale. If the first glance sees a dog that could enter the Irish Setter ring, it is too dark." So much for the notion that judges should largely ignore coat color-- or does that not apply to far-sighted judges? For those of you who wear rose-colored glasses and choose to believe that your cream-coated Goldens would get a fair chance in the AKC/GRCA conformation ring under these circumstances, I suggest that you provide gold-colored glasses to all judges who enter that ring, And, would you like to buy a bridge? Or perhaps oceanfront property in Arizona?
Friday, May 16, 2014
Beyond the Standard--Beyond Reason?
The expected genetics of the Golden Retriever do not allow for any hair color other than the "extension yellow" series, which can produce color ranging from a very pale cream that appears almost white, to the deepest red. There will not be any black or liver pigment in the hair....Examples of the whole range from deepest red to palest cream, as well as truly golden, may be found throughout the Golden's history. A wide part of this range of color is acceptable for show purposes, but dogs appearing either extremely dark or pale are less desirable in this country. Whatever the depth of color, it should always have a brilliance that is definitely golden (yellow or yellow- orange). In sunlight, the topcoat should reflect a glint as the metal gold does.
The allowable lighter shadings may vary a great deal. All are acceptable as long as the predominant body color is truly golden....( Marcia Schlehr, page 142, The New Golden Retriever )
The quote cited above represents not only the thoughts of the author-- who is GRCA Historian, chairperson of the GRCA Standard Committee and member of the GRCA Judges' Education Committee --but the opinions find expression in the American Breed Standard issued by the GRCA and sanctioned by the AKC governing body.
Permit me to consider these opinions.
The author admits that both cream and red are natural birth colors which appear in the breed, and have done so throughout history.
But the author claims that deepest red and palest cream are not TRULY golden.
She states further that for SHOW purposes certain birth colors are NOT acceptable. While this may be true universally for the color RED, it is most certainly NOT true for the color cream. Only in the AKC/GRCA conformation ring is the latter deemed unacceptable. Everywhere throughout Great Britain, Continental Europe, Canada and Australia/New Zealand cream-coated Goldens are shown without penalty.
To say that red and cream Goldens are LESS DESIRABLE in this country ignores the fact that the internet is replete with kennels who specialize in and advertise these colors for sale. And the pups are sold in untold numbers. Can anyone deny that?
The author states that a Golden Retriever must reflect a GLINT as the METAL GOLD does. But the jewelry made of yellow gold OR ROSE gold OR WHITE gold all possess this glint. Do they not? And the last time I looked the typical Golden Retriever was not made of metal.
Finally, the writer provides a definition of the color GOLD. It may be EITHER YELLOW or perhaps YELLOW-ORANGE. That, according to her, is what makes a dog TRULY GOLDEN. Perhaps, in order to clarify things once and for all we should rename our breed the YELLOW-ORANGE RETRIEVER.
The author offers as fact an opinion, an interpretation, a personal preference and then declares this to be the correct and only acceptable definition of what TRULY GOLDEN is.
Never are we told WHY we should accept her definition of golden. Never does she explain WHY the other colors (red/cream) are free to participate in all other venues-- just not the conformation ring. Nor does she offer any reason WHY the Breed Standard should be written for a specific form of competition but not all others enjoyed by those who own and fancy our breed. Especially when the author writes of the NEW Golden Retriever-- a dog now bred to perform multiple tasks well beyond the sport of hunting.
The allowable lighter shadings may vary a great deal. All are acceptable as long as the predominant body color is truly golden....( Marcia Schlehr, page 142, The New Golden Retriever )
The quote cited above represents not only the thoughts of the author-- who is GRCA Historian, chairperson of the GRCA Standard Committee and member of the GRCA Judges' Education Committee --but the opinions find expression in the American Breed Standard issued by the GRCA and sanctioned by the AKC governing body.
Permit me to consider these opinions.
The author admits that both cream and red are natural birth colors which appear in the breed, and have done so throughout history.
But the author claims that deepest red and palest cream are not TRULY golden.
She states further that for SHOW purposes certain birth colors are NOT acceptable. While this may be true universally for the color RED, it is most certainly NOT true for the color cream. Only in the AKC/GRCA conformation ring is the latter deemed unacceptable. Everywhere throughout Great Britain, Continental Europe, Canada and Australia/New Zealand cream-coated Goldens are shown without penalty.
To say that red and cream Goldens are LESS DESIRABLE in this country ignores the fact that the internet is replete with kennels who specialize in and advertise these colors for sale. And the pups are sold in untold numbers. Can anyone deny that?
The author states that a Golden Retriever must reflect a GLINT as the METAL GOLD does. But the jewelry made of yellow gold OR ROSE gold OR WHITE gold all possess this glint. Do they not? And the last time I looked the typical Golden Retriever was not made of metal.
Finally, the writer provides a definition of the color GOLD. It may be EITHER YELLOW or perhaps YELLOW-ORANGE. That, according to her, is what makes a dog TRULY GOLDEN. Perhaps, in order to clarify things once and for all we should rename our breed the YELLOW-ORANGE RETRIEVER.
The author offers as fact an opinion, an interpretation, a personal preference and then declares this to be the correct and only acceptable definition of what TRULY GOLDEN is.
Never are we told WHY we should accept her definition of golden. Never does she explain WHY the other colors (red/cream) are free to participate in all other venues-- just not the conformation ring. Nor does she offer any reason WHY the Breed Standard should be written for a specific form of competition but not all others enjoyed by those who own and fancy our breed. Especially when the author writes of the NEW Golden Retriever-- a dog now bred to perform multiple tasks well beyond the sport of hunting.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
The Lady (or Gent) Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
When discussing the English type Golden Retriever, why not cite William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, Scene II to add a little class.
If you advertise that you are offering the English or British type Golden Retriever, and the breeding stock that you have chosen are nearly all cream or light gold in color, cannot it be said correctly that you are breeding for color? After all, you could have chosen to import dogs with moderate to dark coat color. They are certainly available in large numbers. But you opted instead for the lighter- colored dogs. Was your decision coincidental? An unintended consequence? Was color the last thing on your mind when you made your selections?
The breeder who makes such decisions is linking the so-called British type to the color rightly or wrongly called "English cream." If it turns out that the Goldens he/she produces have a lower incidence of hip dysplasia or cancer, if the resulting Goldens have a more desirable temperament than others in the breed, can we summarily dismiss coat color as a possible factor in these results? After all the desired results (to the extent that they exist) cannot be due to the introduction of dark-coated English-type Goldens into one's line. They weren't used. (Though I believe that the hoped for results would be the same.) Why insist that color had absolutely nothing to do with it? There is always the possibility that there might be some sort of genetic linkage (the blue merle color gene and its relationship to health issues in some breeds comes to mind).
Coat color is an intrinsic element in the makeup of a Golden Retriever. Personal preferences will always COLOR our choices; and COLOR will always to some degree determine those choices.
Like it or not, there has been a preponderance of cream and light gold dogs among the stud dogs of note which have been imported by Canadian breeders. Can anyone question the quality of dogs such as Mjaerumhogda's Kyon Flying Surprise, Dewmist Davenport, Majik Mr Darcy, Giltedge Traveller, Dream Max Jorgen Brink, Zampanzar Jungle Joy, Linirgor Must Be Love, Remington Rupert Bear, Raynox Heart of Gold?
Other imports of high quality may have had somewhat darker hues. Cheek To Cheek Steve MacQueen, Trewater Secret Romance, Fantango Johnny Walker, Sundowner de Ria Vela come most immediately to mind. But it is no secret that the cream coats have left their mark on the Canadian Golden Retriever.
And there is no reason to downplay the role of cream-coated dogs in the breed history north of the 49th parallel. Yet it appears to be happening.
One renowned Canadian breeder says that, "we don't breed for color," and goes on to say that, "more laid back than American retrievers, our English Golden Retrievers are larger boned and have bigger, blockier heads." Is this to suggest that temperament is tied to type?
Another advertises the fact that they are the "home of British- type Golden Retrievers." The breeder says, "colour of a Golden's coat does not dictate whether he might be English or American in style. English -style Goldens range in colour from cream to dark gold! As a breeder and judge of Golden Retrievers: colour is the LAST thing I would consider. LET US IGNORE THE COLOUR of the coat and appreciate the innate temperament and the conformation." This website, like others, features mostly cream- coated dogs.
A third breeder admits that while the kennel," has been known for our cream English- type Golden Retrievers,...rest assured that COLOUR IS INSIGNIFICANT to us and ALWAYS SECONDARY to the temperament, hunting desire and high trainability, health and longevity of our puppies."
The breeding program is based upon "the very best of British, Scandanavian and North American English-type blood lines." And once again, the breeding stock appears to have been largely cream or light gold in color. All three--top Canadian breeders; all heavily committed to the British type-- usually but not always cream or light gold in color.
If you advertise that you are offering the English or British type Golden Retriever, and the breeding stock that you have chosen are nearly all cream or light gold in color, cannot it be said correctly that you are breeding for color? After all, you could have chosen to import dogs with moderate to dark coat color. They are certainly available in large numbers. But you opted instead for the lighter- colored dogs. Was your decision coincidental? An unintended consequence? Was color the last thing on your mind when you made your selections?
The breeder who makes such decisions is linking the so-called British type to the color rightly or wrongly called "English cream." If it turns out that the Goldens he/she produces have a lower incidence of hip dysplasia or cancer, if the resulting Goldens have a more desirable temperament than others in the breed, can we summarily dismiss coat color as a possible factor in these results? After all the desired results (to the extent that they exist) cannot be due to the introduction of dark-coated English-type Goldens into one's line. They weren't used. (Though I believe that the hoped for results would be the same.) Why insist that color had absolutely nothing to do with it? There is always the possibility that there might be some sort of genetic linkage (the blue merle color gene and its relationship to health issues in some breeds comes to mind).
Coat color is an intrinsic element in the makeup of a Golden Retriever. Personal preferences will always COLOR our choices; and COLOR will always to some degree determine those choices.
Like it or not, there has been a preponderance of cream and light gold dogs among the stud dogs of note which have been imported by Canadian breeders. Can anyone question the quality of dogs such as Mjaerumhogda's Kyon Flying Surprise, Dewmist Davenport, Majik Mr Darcy, Giltedge Traveller, Dream Max Jorgen Brink, Zampanzar Jungle Joy, Linirgor Must Be Love, Remington Rupert Bear, Raynox Heart of Gold?
Other imports of high quality may have had somewhat darker hues. Cheek To Cheek Steve MacQueen, Trewater Secret Romance, Fantango Johnny Walker, Sundowner de Ria Vela come most immediately to mind. But it is no secret that the cream coats have left their mark on the Canadian Golden Retriever.
And there is no reason to downplay the role of cream-coated dogs in the breed history north of the 49th parallel. Yet it appears to be happening.
One renowned Canadian breeder says that, "we don't breed for color," and goes on to say that, "more laid back than American retrievers, our English Golden Retrievers are larger boned and have bigger, blockier heads." Is this to suggest that temperament is tied to type?
Another advertises the fact that they are the "home of British- type Golden Retrievers." The breeder says, "colour of a Golden's coat does not dictate whether he might be English or American in style. English -style Goldens range in colour from cream to dark gold! As a breeder and judge of Golden Retrievers: colour is the LAST thing I would consider. LET US IGNORE THE COLOUR of the coat and appreciate the innate temperament and the conformation." This website, like others, features mostly cream- coated dogs.
A third breeder admits that while the kennel," has been known for our cream English- type Golden Retrievers,...rest assured that COLOUR IS INSIGNIFICANT to us and ALWAYS SECONDARY to the temperament, hunting desire and high trainability, health and longevity of our puppies."
The breeding program is based upon "the very best of British, Scandanavian and North American English-type blood lines." And once again, the breeding stock appears to have been largely cream or light gold in color. All three--top Canadian breeders; all heavily committed to the British type-- usually but not always cream or light gold in color.
In Search of the CANADIAN TYPE Golden Retriever
The nation of origin of the Golden Retriever (Great Britain) has its own Breed Standard. It is to be found in the international FCI ideal as well. The Americans have created their own Breed Standard (AKC/GRCA). And, not to be outdone, the Canadians have developed their own Breed Standard which differs somewhat from the others.
Thus puppy shoppers have three options, three TYPES from which to choose. Within each of these types, styles may vary depending upon breeders' interpretations of their national standard. Or so I have been told. This troubles me somewhat, since we are told to ALWAYS breed to the standard. How much room is there for individual interpretation? Should there be ANY in a well-written standard? But I digress.
Breeders identify their Golden lines as EITHER English type OR American type. This is true whether they are located north OR south of the 49th parallel. But I have yet to find a breeder anywhere who advertises his pups as CANADIAN type. Am I missing something?
I asked a leading member of the GRCC to elaborate, and he said, "the (Canadian) Breed Standard incorporates positive features from all sources (American. British and FCI)." Okay. But how exactly does one recognize the "Canadian type?" What distinguishes it from the American or English types? (For that matter, if an American breeder chooses to use only British type Goldens in his program, how should these dogs be considered--English type but Made In America?)
That old bugaboo of terminology once again rears its head. Some use the term color and a shade of color interchangeably; others refer to type as well as style as if they meant the same thing. Opinions vary. But opinions are not facts.
To confuse matters further, the GRCC provides an Illustrated version of its unique Breed Standard. The problem with this is that all the artwork contained in this document is the work of an individual who is an unabashed advocate and devotee of the American type Golden Retriever. If the Breed Standard of the Golden Retriever Club of Canada truly represents an amalgam of features found in various breed standards, how is this fact incorporated into the Illustrated Breed Standard of the GRCC?
I'm just askin'.
Thus puppy shoppers have three options, three TYPES from which to choose. Within each of these types, styles may vary depending upon breeders' interpretations of their national standard. Or so I have been told. This troubles me somewhat, since we are told to ALWAYS breed to the standard. How much room is there for individual interpretation? Should there be ANY in a well-written standard? But I digress.
Breeders identify their Golden lines as EITHER English type OR American type. This is true whether they are located north OR south of the 49th parallel. But I have yet to find a breeder anywhere who advertises his pups as CANADIAN type. Am I missing something?
I asked a leading member of the GRCC to elaborate, and he said, "the (Canadian) Breed Standard incorporates positive features from all sources (American. British and FCI)." Okay. But how exactly does one recognize the "Canadian type?" What distinguishes it from the American or English types? (For that matter, if an American breeder chooses to use only British type Goldens in his program, how should these dogs be considered--English type but Made In America?)
That old bugaboo of terminology once again rears its head. Some use the term color and a shade of color interchangeably; others refer to type as well as style as if they meant the same thing. Opinions vary. But opinions are not facts.
To confuse matters further, the GRCC provides an Illustrated version of its unique Breed Standard. The problem with this is that all the artwork contained in this document is the work of an individual who is an unabashed advocate and devotee of the American type Golden Retriever. If the Breed Standard of the Golden Retriever Club of Canada truly represents an amalgam of features found in various breed standards, how is this fact incorporated into the Illustrated Breed Standard of the GRCC?
I'm just askin'.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
PART I; As I See It...
And, someone please explain to me how we expand the gene pool for the breed if we insist that puppies which we offer for sale may only be purchased on non-breeding terms.
This Is How I See It
Do you find much if anything in the essay that "reinforces and highlights" the Breed Standard? Instead it seems to be aimed at debunking unscrupulous breeders and the false claims they make to sell pups to the unsuspecting buyer. Show me why I am wrong.
And while you're at it, why not IDENTIFY the culprits. Surely not ALL breeders who market cream-coated Goldens deserve criticism.
Do you see a RED dog? I don't see a red dog. Do you see a CREAM dog? I don't see a cream dog. All I see is GOLD dogs.
Don't bother me with facts. I see what I choose to see.
If you ask a Brit to identify notable red Golden Retrievers in their country-- whether past or present --they respond that they do not exist, because the Breed Standard rejects them. So you cannot register a born-red Golden by using its birth color. You can register a cream as cream, however.
In Canada, you have three color choices when registering your Golden pup with the CKC-- light gold or golden or dark gold. While our friends to the north recognize and do not penalize cream-coated Goldens in the show ring, cream dogs are considered to be born-gold pups-- even though they are not. In guidelines published by the GRCC they make it clear that cream is a legitimate, stand alone color. Why, then, can they not be registered as their true color?
In the United States, you have been given only two options by the GRCA and sanctioned by the AKC. You may either register your Golden as light gold or gold. And the leadership of both organizations make it clear that cream Goldens fall into the "undesirable" category.
If you ask a Brit to identify notable red Golden Retrievers in their country-- whether past or present --they respond that they do not exist, because the Breed Standard rejects them. So you cannot register a born-red Golden by using its birth color. You can register a cream as cream, however.
In Canada, you have three color choices when registering your Golden pup with the CKC-- light gold or golden or dark gold. While our friends to the north recognize and do not penalize cream-coated Goldens in the show ring, cream dogs are considered to be born-gold pups-- even though they are not. In guidelines published by the GRCC they make it clear that cream is a legitimate, stand alone color. Why, then, can they not be registered as their true color?
In the United States, you have been given only two options by the GRCA and sanctioned by the AKC. You may either register your Golden as light gold or gold. And the leadership of both organizations make it clear that cream Goldens fall into the "undesirable" category.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Oh NO, Not Color Again....
Here's a QUIZ for you--Which of the following statements is TRUE?
(1) ALL Golden Retrievers are born SOME SHADE of gold, because the breed possesses a GOLD master gene for color. Thus red and/or cream are simply SHADES of gold.
(2) ALL Golden Retrievers possess the RED master gene for color; the red or gold or cream coats are the result of other genetic influences interacting with this red gene PRIOR to birth. And each of these THREE are distinct birth COLORS, NOT merely SHADES of color.
This is the central issue of coat color in the Golden Retriever breed. If you believe (1) is correct, how do you then justify the belief that cream coats or red coats are "undesirable" and that they should be penalized in the conformation ring? After all they are each an expression of this gold master gene. All possess the same DNA, the same genetic makeup.
If you believe (2) to be correct, and you hold to the opinion that a TRUE Golden Retriever MUST be truly GOLD in color, then it may be easier for you to separate the "undesirable" pups from the truly gold-- without having to check their ear color or having to wait a sufficient amount of time until their adult color develops fully. It takes the guesswork out of judging younger dogs in the conformation ring as well.
Problem is that you may have born- light- GOLD pups in the same litter as true cream pups. Even the well-trained eye may not be able to separate one from the other. The best way to deal with that possibility is to breed ONLY GOLD studs and bitches which are at least three or more generations of PURE GOLD background.
The same might be said in order to avoid producing red Golden Retrievers. ONLY breed GOLD to GOLD without exception.
Another problem: What to do with the "undesirable" ends of the color spectrum. Should breeders be encouraged not to breed to either red or cream Golden Retrievers? Should the dogs and bitches deemed "undesirable" be spayed and/or neutered in order to be registered by the AKC? Is euthanasia a desirable option?
And what should these NON-Golden Retrievers be called? Should fanciers of these extreme and undesirable coat colors be permitted to create a separate breed? Or perhaps a separate class-- as long as owners promised not to breed such "undesirable" dogs to GOLD-coated Golden Retrievers?
(1) ALL Golden Retrievers are born SOME SHADE of gold, because the breed possesses a GOLD master gene for color. Thus red and/or cream are simply SHADES of gold.
(2) ALL Golden Retrievers possess the RED master gene for color; the red or gold or cream coats are the result of other genetic influences interacting with this red gene PRIOR to birth. And each of these THREE are distinct birth COLORS, NOT merely SHADES of color.
This is the central issue of coat color in the Golden Retriever breed. If you believe (1) is correct, how do you then justify the belief that cream coats or red coats are "undesirable" and that they should be penalized in the conformation ring? After all they are each an expression of this gold master gene. All possess the same DNA, the same genetic makeup.
If you believe (2) to be correct, and you hold to the opinion that a TRUE Golden Retriever MUST be truly GOLD in color, then it may be easier for you to separate the "undesirable" pups from the truly gold-- without having to check their ear color or having to wait a sufficient amount of time until their adult color develops fully. It takes the guesswork out of judging younger dogs in the conformation ring as well.
Problem is that you may have born- light- GOLD pups in the same litter as true cream pups. Even the well-trained eye may not be able to separate one from the other. The best way to deal with that possibility is to breed ONLY GOLD studs and bitches which are at least three or more generations of PURE GOLD background.
The same might be said in order to avoid producing red Golden Retrievers. ONLY breed GOLD to GOLD without exception.
Another problem: What to do with the "undesirable" ends of the color spectrum. Should breeders be encouraged not to breed to either red or cream Golden Retrievers? Should the dogs and bitches deemed "undesirable" be spayed and/or neutered in order to be registered by the AKC? Is euthanasia a desirable option?
And what should these NON-Golden Retrievers be called? Should fanciers of these extreme and undesirable coat colors be permitted to create a separate breed? Or perhaps a separate class-- as long as owners promised not to breed such "undesirable" dogs to GOLD-coated Golden Retrievers?
Sunday, May 11, 2014
NORTHERN NEIGHBORS--Concluded
The GRCC is correct to include cream within the permissible color spectrum for the breed-- however I would prefer to see the word appear in the Breed Standard itself as it appears in the British and FCI versions. The United States stands alone in its refusal to consider cream as desirable or acceptable in the breed. It seems ironic that members of the GRCA leadership who judge our breed throughout the world select cream-coated Goldens for the winners circle; meanwhile, back at home, they view cream as undesirable at American show venues and place such dogs accordingly. That would be at the back of the line.
It is encouraging to see that on both sides of The Pond-- despite the wording found in the breed standards --some born-red Goldens are chosen to take a victory lap around the conformation ring. This selective inattention to the wording of a particular breed standard may be good for the breed. But would it not be more honest to consider ALL colors--gold, cream and red --on an equal basis? ALL are Golden Retrievers. ALL deserve to contribute to the advancement of our beloved breed.
The tenor of the Canadian article upon which this essay is based suggests that breeders who concentrate on offering only cream-coated Goldens for sale are to be viewed with greater if not great skepticism. The author(s) rightly suggest that breeders may falsely advertise their dogs as rare, white and less cancer prone and in possession of superior temperament attributes. This is most definitely true of SOME breeders. And most certainly their prices may seem astronomical to most observers. But you cannot say that this is true of ALL who choose to breed the cream coats. In my opinion the article comes across as a "Buyer Beware" rant-- at least upon first view. Perhaps because I am used to seeing such information displayed on the GRCA website.Was the article added to the GRCC website because of some pressing current situation or rather as a cautionary tale for all potential puppy buyers? Motive matters. Especially in the dog-eat-dog world of dog breeders.
It is encouraging to see that on both sides of The Pond-- despite the wording found in the breed standards --some born-red Goldens are chosen to take a victory lap around the conformation ring. This selective inattention to the wording of a particular breed standard may be good for the breed. But would it not be more honest to consider ALL colors--gold, cream and red --on an equal basis? ALL are Golden Retrievers. ALL deserve to contribute to the advancement of our beloved breed.
The tenor of the Canadian article upon which this essay is based suggests that breeders who concentrate on offering only cream-coated Goldens for sale are to be viewed with greater if not great skepticism. The author(s) rightly suggest that breeders may falsely advertise their dogs as rare, white and less cancer prone and in possession of superior temperament attributes. This is most definitely true of SOME breeders. And most certainly their prices may seem astronomical to most observers. But you cannot say that this is true of ALL who choose to breed the cream coats. In my opinion the article comes across as a "Buyer Beware" rant-- at least upon first view. Perhaps because I am used to seeing such information displayed on the GRCA website.Was the article added to the GRCC website because of some pressing current situation or rather as a cautionary tale for all potential puppy buyers? Motive matters. Especially in the dog-eat-dog world of dog breeders.
NORTHERN NEIGHBORS--Part III
The gene pool for the Golden Retriever-- whether north or south of the 49th parallel --needs to be EXPANDED rather than constricted based upon negative feelings one may have toward one coat color or another. It may well be that the red-coated Goldens possess the best hunting instincts. Yet all breed standards find them unacceptable-- in the show ring. But at the same time the four-legged contestants should somehow display this same hunting instinct if the judge is to be impressed. The dog should LOOK as if he is capable of performing the task for which he was bred-- even if he has never seen a duck or whatever.
Once again, we breed to a color-- gold --and set aside a birth color that is integral to the breed itself. The Golden Retriever's hunting skills are legendary. Rather than continue to fight over the first half of its name (is he/she gold enough?) would it not be more constructive and instructive to pay far greater attention to the other half of his name? Are we continuing to produce the hunting dog we desire or merely a facsimile?
The standard should not be written for the purposes of the conformation ring. A Breed Standard should apply to ALL dogs in its purview regardless of the multiple uses to which they are put. Both the GRCA/AKC and GRCC breed standards make specific reference to the show ring. The British standard does not. Nor does that of the international FCI.
Are good genes in short supply? In 2009 an outstanding dog won his National Specialty. The following year, 2010, he repeated that success. In 2011 he was second only to his daughter who took top honors. Then, in 2012 one of his daughters out of a different bitch walked (or ran?) away with the trophy. And, yes, that same young lady was a repeat winner in 2013 following in the pawprints of her proud dad. While we applaud the owners, breeders, handlers for their efforts and success; is there anything troubling about these circumstances? Or is it just that these breeders have found the key to success? If past is prologue, perhaps we already can predict the winner in 2014. Just kidding. ( I think.)
Final point. No Golden Retriever-- and there have been many great ones --has EVER won Best-In-Show at Westminster. No Golden Retriever has EVER won the top prize at the renowned Crufts show in England. Inferior Goldens? Or problematic Breed Standards? Is the pursuit of the ideal Golden Retriever an ongoing process; or are the standards developed by us as humans impossible to attain by our four-legged friends? Standards have remained unchanged for decades or perhaps a generation. But the Golden Retrievers have changed. And not always for the better.Should anything be done about this disconnect?
No, I do not believe that the Golden Retriever Club of Canada has declared war on the cream-coated Golden Retriever. But breeders who select ONLY gold dogs and bitches for their programs are no less guilty of limiting the gene pool than breeders who utilize ONLY cream specimens in their breeding efforts.
Once again, we breed to a color-- gold --and set aside a birth color that is integral to the breed itself. The Golden Retriever's hunting skills are legendary. Rather than continue to fight over the first half of its name (is he/she gold enough?) would it not be more constructive and instructive to pay far greater attention to the other half of his name? Are we continuing to produce the hunting dog we desire or merely a facsimile?
The standard should not be written for the purposes of the conformation ring. A Breed Standard should apply to ALL dogs in its purview regardless of the multiple uses to which they are put. Both the GRCA/AKC and GRCC breed standards make specific reference to the show ring. The British standard does not. Nor does that of the international FCI.
Are good genes in short supply? In 2009 an outstanding dog won his National Specialty. The following year, 2010, he repeated that success. In 2011 he was second only to his daughter who took top honors. Then, in 2012 one of his daughters out of a different bitch walked (or ran?) away with the trophy. And, yes, that same young lady was a repeat winner in 2013 following in the pawprints of her proud dad. While we applaud the owners, breeders, handlers for their efforts and success; is there anything troubling about these circumstances? Or is it just that these breeders have found the key to success? If past is prologue, perhaps we already can predict the winner in 2014. Just kidding. ( I think.)
Final point. No Golden Retriever-- and there have been many great ones --has EVER won Best-In-Show at Westminster. No Golden Retriever has EVER won the top prize at the renowned Crufts show in England. Inferior Goldens? Or problematic Breed Standards? Is the pursuit of the ideal Golden Retriever an ongoing process; or are the standards developed by us as humans impossible to attain by our four-legged friends? Standards have remained unchanged for decades or perhaps a generation. But the Golden Retrievers have changed. And not always for the better.Should anything be done about this disconnect?
No, I do not believe that the Golden Retriever Club of Canada has declared war on the cream-coated Golden Retriever. But breeders who select ONLY gold dogs and bitches for their programs are no less guilty of limiting the gene pool than breeders who utilize ONLY cream specimens in their breeding efforts.
NORTHERN NEIGHBORS--Part II
Here in America a highly-regarded and much-decorated stud dog was bred to no less than 132 bitches. The OFA rated his hips as only fair. But he was a dog of acceptable coat color. Another popular and winning dog was used on at least fifty-five different bitches. The k9data website has no information regarding his hip score. I know of at least one current top dog who has no more than an OFA fair hip rating. Will he be used extensively in breeding programs as well? At a time when hip dysplasia continues to be a problem in our breed might it not be better to breed to a dog with at least good if not excellent hips? Or am I wrong? Should the overall quality of the dog trump the less-than-desirable hip score? Especially with a dog which has amassed a truly impressive number of wins on the show circuit?And his coat color is not problematic.
Cancer among American-bred Goldens is a serious matter. This, according to an on-going study conducted in the United States. A comparable study in Great Britain, though based on a smaller sampling, found a considerably lower incidence of the disease. And obviously cancer is linked to longevity. Knowing this, shouldn't the responsible breeder consider using dogs from these overseas lines in the hope that it might lower the incidence of cancer in the North American lines? If one is "hung up" on the issue of coat color rest assured that there are thousands of gold Goldens around the world that will suit one's needs.
I would suggest that it is important for Canadian breeders to undertake a similar cancer study. Some are heavily into the American type Golden. Others have concentrated to a greater degree on the English or European lines. Would such a study indicate that the latter tendency among breeders might lessen the cancer risk in our breed? Perhaps not. But for the sake of the Golden Retriever itself, wouldn't such an effort prove worthy?
To return to the article, it says that, "It is our position that a breeding program which focuses mainly on colour should be viewed with some skepticism." Does this advice apply only to those who exclusively breed English cream Golden Retrievers? Or does it apply in equal measure to the breeder who only uses gold-coated dogs in his program?
Further, the article states that, "If claims are being made that the light creams are more valuable or healthier than darker coloured Golden Retrievers, then the buyer should be aware that such statements are BLATANTLY INCORRECT."
I agree that there is no such thing as a WHITE Golden Retriever (unless perhaps as a consequence of a mutation linked to albinism). Yet some breeders market them that way. And it doesn't help the situation when judges of the breed write books which describe coat color as dull cream or off white or nearly white . One even refers to them as "vanilla retrievers."
It is likewise true that a cream Golden is not a RARITY, though they remain far less numerous in North America than in the rest of the world. Yet some breeders still market them as unique and exotic.
But it may not be "blatantly incorrect" to suggest that temperament or health concerns relate at least in some way to coat color. This is not to say that they are genetically linked but rather that the gene pool or particular line which includes both cream and gold coats may produce healthier and more even-tempered dogs. Does anyone argue that some gold Golden lines in North America are not more prone to cancer or hip dysplasia? Or that the temperaments found in certain breeding programs are less than desirable? The jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
Too many American Goldens appear to have been bred in "clown cars" expressly for the show ring. You want a dog which can not only win the Breed competition, but also one which goes on to garner the Group and Best-In-Show titles. The standard be damned. He must be "up" at all times, act the gregarious clown to impress the ringside crowds and the judges (who should know better). And the winning dogs are nearly always from a breeding program that only uses gold stud dogs and gold brood bitches. How can you claim that color is not an issue under these circumstances? And to add to the problem, at least one author claims that because the Golden is now asked to perform multiple tasks beyond hunting, we should expect and accept a RANGE of temperament in the breed. Do you agree?
Anecdotally, over many years my extended family has owned and loved nearly a dozen different Goldens-- all American bred, all from a variety of lines, all gold in color and all near-certifiable "nut cases." And while in the Seattle area I helped one breeder separate her male American-bred dog from her prized British import. It took nearly an hour struggling to get the former to release his death grip on the latter. And this had happened before. The breeder owned a number of imports, not one of which (male or female) could be allowed to run free with her American-bred dog. But he was the family's first Golden and they could not bear to part with him.
I presently have seven cream-coated Goldens who share my home. Never has there been any problem of aggression among them. My friends who own similar imports say the same about their dogs-- not because they are cream in color but due to the fact that they are not the product of American lineage.
And the aforementioned cancer studies suggest that the English type or style may have a longer lifespan-- regardless of coat color .Since most imports are cream in color rather than gold some might suggest that there is a link between that color and cancer, when in fact we are speaking about different breeding lines-- which include both colors --which are less prone to develop the disease.
Can we, should we, use limited experience or anecdotal evidence to paint with a broad (color) brush? Of course not. But do not such examples contribute to the discussion? I would argue in the affirmative.
When I visit a website which makes exorbitant claims I quickly move on. Far from one kennel claims to possess the best imported lines EVER found in North America. Do some folks-- including Hollywood notables with money to burn --buy this nonsense and the dogs that go with it? Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who famously said, "There's a sucker born every minute?"
Cancer among American-bred Goldens is a serious matter. This, according to an on-going study conducted in the United States. A comparable study in Great Britain, though based on a smaller sampling, found a considerably lower incidence of the disease. And obviously cancer is linked to longevity. Knowing this, shouldn't the responsible breeder consider using dogs from these overseas lines in the hope that it might lower the incidence of cancer in the North American lines? If one is "hung up" on the issue of coat color rest assured that there are thousands of gold Goldens around the world that will suit one's needs.
I would suggest that it is important for Canadian breeders to undertake a similar cancer study. Some are heavily into the American type Golden. Others have concentrated to a greater degree on the English or European lines. Would such a study indicate that the latter tendency among breeders might lessen the cancer risk in our breed? Perhaps not. But for the sake of the Golden Retriever itself, wouldn't such an effort prove worthy?
To return to the article, it says that, "It is our position that a breeding program which focuses mainly on colour should be viewed with some skepticism." Does this advice apply only to those who exclusively breed English cream Golden Retrievers? Or does it apply in equal measure to the breeder who only uses gold-coated dogs in his program?
Further, the article states that, "If claims are being made that the light creams are more valuable or healthier than darker coloured Golden Retrievers, then the buyer should be aware that such statements are BLATANTLY INCORRECT."
I agree that there is no such thing as a WHITE Golden Retriever (unless perhaps as a consequence of a mutation linked to albinism). Yet some breeders market them that way. And it doesn't help the situation when judges of the breed write books which describe coat color as dull cream or off white or nearly white . One even refers to them as "vanilla retrievers."
It is likewise true that a cream Golden is not a RARITY, though they remain far less numerous in North America than in the rest of the world. Yet some breeders still market them as unique and exotic.
But it may not be "blatantly incorrect" to suggest that temperament or health concerns relate at least in some way to coat color. This is not to say that they are genetically linked but rather that the gene pool or particular line which includes both cream and gold coats may produce healthier and more even-tempered dogs. Does anyone argue that some gold Golden lines in North America are not more prone to cancer or hip dysplasia? Or that the temperaments found in certain breeding programs are less than desirable? The jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
Too many American Goldens appear to have been bred in "clown cars" expressly for the show ring. You want a dog which can not only win the Breed competition, but also one which goes on to garner the Group and Best-In-Show titles. The standard be damned. He must be "up" at all times, act the gregarious clown to impress the ringside crowds and the judges (who should know better). And the winning dogs are nearly always from a breeding program that only uses gold stud dogs and gold brood bitches. How can you claim that color is not an issue under these circumstances? And to add to the problem, at least one author claims that because the Golden is now asked to perform multiple tasks beyond hunting, we should expect and accept a RANGE of temperament in the breed. Do you agree?
Anecdotally, over many years my extended family has owned and loved nearly a dozen different Goldens-- all American bred, all from a variety of lines, all gold in color and all near-certifiable "nut cases." And while in the Seattle area I helped one breeder separate her male American-bred dog from her prized British import. It took nearly an hour struggling to get the former to release his death grip on the latter. And this had happened before. The breeder owned a number of imports, not one of which (male or female) could be allowed to run free with her American-bred dog. But he was the family's first Golden and they could not bear to part with him.
I presently have seven cream-coated Goldens who share my home. Never has there been any problem of aggression among them. My friends who own similar imports say the same about their dogs-- not because they are cream in color but due to the fact that they are not the product of American lineage.
And the aforementioned cancer studies suggest that the English type or style may have a longer lifespan-- regardless of coat color .Since most imports are cream in color rather than gold some might suggest that there is a link between that color and cancer, when in fact we are speaking about different breeding lines-- which include both colors --which are less prone to develop the disease.
Can we, should we, use limited experience or anecdotal evidence to paint with a broad (color) brush? Of course not. But do not such examples contribute to the discussion? I would argue in the affirmative.
When I visit a website which makes exorbitant claims I quickly move on. Far from one kennel claims to possess the best imported lines EVER found in North America. Do some folks-- including Hollywood notables with money to burn --buy this nonsense and the dogs that go with it? Wasn't it P.T. Barnum who famously said, "There's a sucker born every minute?"
Saturday, May 10, 2014
HAVE OUR NORTHERN NEIGHBORS DECLARED WAR ON CREAM?
The Golden Retriever Club of Canada has recently added an article entitled, "English Cream Golden Retrievers" to its website.Apparently the presentation is a group effort on the part of leading members of the Club; at least I have been told that no one individual is responsible for the information presented.
While there is much with which I am in agreement, there are also assertions made in the absence of facts. In particular, this: "....It is NEVER the colour of a Golden Retriever that determines its temperament and working-ability or its health and potential longevity...."
And, quoting from a previous section, "Some breeders favor different STYLES of Golden Retrievers and some may even have a PERSONAL PREFERENCE for a lighter or a darker golden, but good breeders NEVER focus exclusively on a specific colour, SINCE THIS WOULD UNNECESSARILY NARROW THE GENE-POOL and may cause genetic predispositions towards hereditary health issues to become magnified over time. Furthermore, the various STYLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH COLOUR, but rather BREEDERS' AESTHETIC PREFERENCES and THEIR INTERPRETATION of the breed-standard...."
STYLES of Golden Retrievers are reflected in certain genetic lines. And if the dogs selected in breeding programs do not have cream coats (or red coats, for that matter) in their pedigree, then it follows that color was a factor in developing a particular STYLE. The above -mentioned "good breeder" who never focuses exclusively on a specific color actually does so-- by breeding exclusively to the "Goldilocks" Golden Retriever (not too much gold, not too little gold, but just the right amount of gold-- but ALWAYS some shade of GOLD). If your personal preference causes you to eliminate cream- and/or red- coated dogs from your program then you ARE breeding to color.You eliminate the other birth colors from consideration and thus are intentionally LIMITING the available gene pool.
Leading personalities in America's Golden Retriever circle claim-- unabashedly --that a TRUE Golden Retriever MUST be GOLD in color. Based upon their PERSONAL PREFERENCES they have declared the ACCEPTABLE range of coat color in the breed-- loping off the birth colors which exist at both ends of the color spectrum. This is based not upon science, not upon any factual information that has been put forward, but rather upon nothing more than matters of PERSONAL TASTE. Yet it is written in stone in the AKC/GRCA Breed Standard.
In The States, "lustrous gold" eliminates virtually all cream-coated Golden Retrievers from any serious consideration in the conformation ring; while under Canadian rules-- referencing the same "lustrous gold" --cream is viewed as acceptable without penalty. Same phrase, different interpretation. And lest there be any confusion on the matter I offer the following. The GRCA Judges' Information Committee issued an AKC- sanctioned document that specifically INCLUDED cream as an acceptable color. When I questioned the GRCA leadership about this, in short order the document was altered. The word cream was expunged, and the amended document now identifies pale gold as the lightest color within the approved color range. Cream is NOT acceptable. In fact, the GRCA informed me that the word cream was mistakenly included in the original document by the committee chairperson. It was done in error.
While I can not say with certainty how many or what percentage of Goldens imported from Great Britain and continental Europe and Australia/New Zealand have been cream in color ( the GRCA refuses to allow an owner to register a dog by that color-- you must check the light gold box on the AKC registration form) it appears that a great majority of them have been cream rather than a shade of gold. This despite the fact that Goldens from around the world include the full range of birth colors.
In Canada a cream import was bred to more than 100 different bitches. He looked like an outstanding dog (sadly, no longer with us), had excellent-rated hips and good overall structure. In short, a valuable and worthy stud dog. But did the breeders who were determined to use him NOT consider his coat color at all? Was there no question of personal taste involved? Had he been a gold-coated Golden would he have been sought in equal measure due to his superior genetic makeup or overall appearance?
While there is much with which I am in agreement, there are also assertions made in the absence of facts. In particular, this: "....It is NEVER the colour of a Golden Retriever that determines its temperament and working-ability or its health and potential longevity...."
And, quoting from a previous section, "Some breeders favor different STYLES of Golden Retrievers and some may even have a PERSONAL PREFERENCE for a lighter or a darker golden, but good breeders NEVER focus exclusively on a specific colour, SINCE THIS WOULD UNNECESSARILY NARROW THE GENE-POOL and may cause genetic predispositions towards hereditary health issues to become magnified over time. Furthermore, the various STYLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH COLOUR, but rather BREEDERS' AESTHETIC PREFERENCES and THEIR INTERPRETATION of the breed-standard...."
STYLES of Golden Retrievers are reflected in certain genetic lines. And if the dogs selected in breeding programs do not have cream coats (or red coats, for that matter) in their pedigree, then it follows that color was a factor in developing a particular STYLE. The above -mentioned "good breeder" who never focuses exclusively on a specific color actually does so-- by breeding exclusively to the "Goldilocks" Golden Retriever (not too much gold, not too little gold, but just the right amount of gold-- but ALWAYS some shade of GOLD). If your personal preference causes you to eliminate cream- and/or red- coated dogs from your program then you ARE breeding to color.You eliminate the other birth colors from consideration and thus are intentionally LIMITING the available gene pool.
Leading personalities in America's Golden Retriever circle claim-- unabashedly --that a TRUE Golden Retriever MUST be GOLD in color. Based upon their PERSONAL PREFERENCES they have declared the ACCEPTABLE range of coat color in the breed-- loping off the birth colors which exist at both ends of the color spectrum. This is based not upon science, not upon any factual information that has been put forward, but rather upon nothing more than matters of PERSONAL TASTE. Yet it is written in stone in the AKC/GRCA Breed Standard.
In The States, "lustrous gold" eliminates virtually all cream-coated Golden Retrievers from any serious consideration in the conformation ring; while under Canadian rules-- referencing the same "lustrous gold" --cream is viewed as acceptable without penalty. Same phrase, different interpretation. And lest there be any confusion on the matter I offer the following. The GRCA Judges' Information Committee issued an AKC- sanctioned document that specifically INCLUDED cream as an acceptable color. When I questioned the GRCA leadership about this, in short order the document was altered. The word cream was expunged, and the amended document now identifies pale gold as the lightest color within the approved color range. Cream is NOT acceptable. In fact, the GRCA informed me that the word cream was mistakenly included in the original document by the committee chairperson. It was done in error.
While I can not say with certainty how many or what percentage of Goldens imported from Great Britain and continental Europe and Australia/New Zealand have been cream in color ( the GRCA refuses to allow an owner to register a dog by that color-- you must check the light gold box on the AKC registration form) it appears that a great majority of them have been cream rather than a shade of gold. This despite the fact that Goldens from around the world include the full range of birth colors.
In Canada a cream import was bred to more than 100 different bitches. He looked like an outstanding dog (sadly, no longer with us), had excellent-rated hips and good overall structure. In short, a valuable and worthy stud dog. But did the breeders who were determined to use him NOT consider his coat color at all? Was there no question of personal taste involved? Had he been a gold-coated Golden would he have been sought in equal measure due to his superior genetic makeup or overall appearance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)