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?"
No comments:
Post a Comment