The article in question reads like a public service announcement. We must protect unsuspecting puppy buyers from being bilked out of their loonies by the loony breeder who sells expensive, allegedly rare, white English Cream Golden Retrievers.
To quote the article:
"....To call the current light ones 'English Cream Golden Retrievers' is incorrect terminology, and in fact the majority of these dogs do not even come from England, but are bred right here in North America or are descended from dogs that have been imported from various European countries, Scandinavia, New Zealand and Australia."
What's wrong with this statement?
First, a minor point, but last time I looked, Scandinavia was part of Europe.
More important-- The term "English Cream Golden Retriever" is NOT incorrect if you interpret it as intended. The word "English" refers to English TYPE, NOT country of origin. What it means is that the Goldens are bred to the English STANDARD (or FCI) rather than the Standard of the GRCA or that of the GRCC. Those are the three (four) options. (I have chosen to ignore the United Kennel Club Standard as irrelevant to the discussion) We regularly sell English TYPE or American TYPE Golden Retrievers or mixes of the two types (and I have yet to see an advertiser who claims to market a CANADIAN TYPE). This is true in the States or Canada.
The word "cream" refers to the BIRTH color of the Golden Retriever. Or at least it should. Some breeders mistake born- very- light- gold pups for cream pups. Not so, but the confusion is understandable. And again, this is a reference to the British Standard that clearly states that cream is a stand-alone color separate and apart from gold.
So, if you wish to write an article about English Cream Golden Retrievers, get your facts straight. You are referring to a Golden Retriever which was born cream, bred to the British Standard, regardless of country of origin. They are bred in America. They are bred in Canada. Rumor has it that they may actually be bred in the United Kingdom.
A final point. You (correctly) insist that there is only ONE Golden Retriever. Why then do you have a separate GRCC Breed Standard? Why is there an AKC/GRCA distinct Breed Standard as well? THREE BREED STANDARDS for what you claim is a SINGLE breed? Explanation please.
DON'T MISUNDERSTAND. BREEDERS WHO MAKE EXTRAVAGANT, FALSE AND RIDICULOUS CLAIMS ABOUT THEIR GOLDENS SHOULD BE AND RIGHTFULLY ARE TO BE CONDEMNED. BUT YOU CANNOT FAIRLY ACCUSE ALL WHO BREED CREAM-COATED GOLDEN RETRIEVERS OF THESE METHODS. That is certainly the inference which can be drawn from your article. What about those who breed the British-type cream-coated dogs by preference, and yet make NO such exaggerated statements whatsoever? They deserve better treatment than that. Direct your charges at the OFFENDERS, do not paint ALL who breed cream coats with the same broad brush. To do so marginalizes a lot of good people and a lot of outstanding dogs. One can only imagine what Canadian Goldens would look like today if it had not been for the inclusion and influence of exemplary imports of the English Type in the nation's breeding programs. And the key dogs appear ALL to have been either cream or very pale gold in color. So not only does your article impugn breeders, but-- by association -- those outstanding dogs as well. I suggest a REWRITE is in order.
The President of the GRCC has said that the purpose of the article is to INFORM; in no way was its publication intended to invoke discussion. But to me it begs to be discussed. Are there no Canadian members who share my concerns?
No comments:
Post a Comment