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. )
  
    
    
   
  
   
  
    
    

So You Wanna Be An AKC Judge--Must be OLD, A Winner. OLD. Experienced Breeder. OLD. "Kennel Blindness' No Problem. Did I Say OLD?

   Before one even requests a judge's application you must meet THREE criteria:
          (1) Exhibited in conformation for TWELVE or more years in at least one breed
          (2) Bred and raised FIVE or more litters of one breed on your premises
          (3) Bred four or more champions in one breed
   Those who suggest that it is unfair to raise the "kennel blindness issue" might wish to reconsider. Would anyone knowingly show his dogs for a dozen years or so, breed his bitches no less than five times, title at least four of his dogs, and believe that his dogs were NOT among the best? That his efforts were not to improve the breed by adhering as best he could to the Golden Retriever Breed Standard? Would that person not consider his "type" or his "style" of Golden among the best available? And would not his subjective view follow him into the ring-- in any small measure at all?
   With age comes experience. But tenure in a breed is simply time spent-- if the idea of breeding to the ideal is not foremost in one's thinking. Rare indeed is the child protege Junior Handler whose mom and dad bankroll him sufficiently to establish his own breeding kennel at a tender age.
   And even in a highly competitive breed such as the Golden, attaining four championship titles does not seem like much of a stretch-- especially for those folks who have the money to enter God-knows-how-many-shows and can pay a tidy sum to a professional handler.
   You don't have to be born Jewish to understand the horrors of the Holocaust or born black to find slavery and segregation totally offensive. And you most certainly can teach children-- whether or not you have ever been a parent.
   Why is it not possible for younger folks to judge a breed until or unless they have actually bred a dog? Or earned a championship. Perhaps we should leave this notion of "earning one's dues" to the 20th century. Check the calendar. We're in a new one.
   If a Breed Standard is PROPERLY written why can't a non-breeder and/or non-exhibitor apply it to dogs in a conformation ring?  The dog, in the first instance, is being judged against the breed standard, not the other dogs in the ring. Or so the theory goes. Comparisons between and among the dogs entered should be based upon how EACH relates to that breed standard. Not how they compare to each other.
   What else is required for a judge?
     --Six stewarding assignments
     --Six judging assignments at matches and such
     --Attendance  at an AKC Basic Judges' Institute
     --An open-book exam on canine anatomy and judging procedures
     --A pre-application interview with AKC staff
   Once you do this, then you must...
     --Complete the application
     --Participate in another interview with AKC staff
     --Pass another open-book exam on the standard for the breed(s) applied for
     --Be interviewed by and get green light from AKC staff and board of directors
     --Participate in five provisional judging assignments where you are graded by an AKC field
        representative
     --Apply for regular judging status  

      (Did I leave out the Partridge in a Pear Tree or perhaps the kitchen sink?)
      Obviously becoming a judge is not exactly a "walk in the park" (whether or not there's a four-legged critter by your side). It requires real time and real effort. Valerie Foss, editor of The Ultimate Golden Retriever, has some interesting thoughts on judging. The writer points out that the AKC is, "constantly changing their stipulated requirements, seeking to improve the selection of judges with the implied intent of improving the quality of new judges."  She calls it "a learning process that never stops;" and says that, "History judges the judges, so do not be found failing. Not only must you know your Standard by heart, you must know what it means-- learning by discovery in depth."
   She adds that, "To judge is a great responsibility, because judges can change a breed, for it is the dog who wins in the show ring that is used for future breeding programmes."
   

    

Light CREAM Is YELLOW, EXCEPT When It's NOT

   As I investigate the goings on of the AKC and various breed clubs and breeders it is difficult to make sense of it all.
   For example, consider the Flat-Coated Retriever. The AKC Breed Standard declares that Yellow, cream or any color other than black or liver is a disqualification. BUT, you can register a yellow Flat-Coated Retriever by checking the YELLOW box on the AKC registration form. These YFCRs can participate in all AKC-sanctioned activities EXCEPT those taking place in the conformation ring. I spoke with a Club official who said that yellow is a birth color, so why not recognize it as such?  He added that it is no easy task to get judges to appreciate the liver coats in the show ring, even today. So coat color is still a consideration, like it or not. Fair or not.
   However, if you own a born-cream Golden Retriever, the AKC insists that it be registered with them as a LIGHT GOLD Golden Retriever. Why? Apparently because the AKC has turned over the right to identify acceptable coat color to the parent breed club. In our case, the GRCA. In doing so, the GRCA seems to be defining a CREAM Golden Retriever as a GOLD Golden Retriever. It's just a LIGHTER SHADE of gold.
   There do not appear to be many yellow flat-coats running about the American landscape at present. But if you know your Golden Retriever breed history, then you will recall that the earliest yellow/golden retrievers were often considered to be in the same group with the black flat-coats of the time. And the first yellow pup (destined to be the start of the Golden Retriever breed) was from an otherwise black "retriever" litter.
   Sadly, at least one present-day breeder thinks it might be a good idea to breed yellow flat-coats to long-haired weimaraners. Just what the world needs.
   Then, consider the Labrador Retriever. If you go to the website of the parent club--LRC --you are met with a headline which shouts, "BUYER BEWARE! TRUE LABRADOR RETRIEVERS ARE BLACK, YELLOW, AND CHOCOLATE ONLY!" (By the way, to muddy the waters a bit more, there is ALSO a National Labrador Retriever Club which is NOT the parent club for the breed in the United States. They reject the AKC Breed Standard and instead have adopted the FCI Breed Standard subscribed to by roughly 80 nations around the world.)
   There's that word "true" again; as in "to be TRULY a Golden Retriever, a Golden MUST BE TRULY gold in color." But, I digress.
   According to the AKC Breed Standard for the Labs, "Yellows may range in color from fox red to light cream." Things related to coat color in Labrador Retrievers are more complex than in Goldens because you are working with BOTH MASTER GENES for COLOR-- BLACK AND RED. Genetic studies have been done which "prove" that there is no gene that can account for a SILVER Labrador Retriever, or slate or blue variants. The silver-gray or mouse-gray can ONLY be introduced if you introduce a Weimaraner to a Lab. In other words, you CANNOT have a PUREBRED silver Labrador Retriever.
   To the Lab fancier, CREAM-- even LIGHT cream --is a part of the acceptable range for YELLOW Labs. The "extension YELLOW series in Golden Retrievers--while it includes the COLOR CREAM as well as red, apparently --is the subject of arbitrary selection by the GRCA leadership.  They have determined that CREAM is simply not GOLD ENOUGH for their personal taste,. Their delicate aesthetic sensibilities.
  
  

ALLEGORICAL and DYSTOPIAN NOVEL MEETS GRCA REALITY

   The Napoleanic impulses (Napoleon, you may recall, was the chief protagonist in the novel) of the Golden Retriever Club of America's JUDGES' EDUCATION COMMITTEE are such that the cream-coated Golden Retriever is treated as a scapegoat in much the same manner as the "Snowball" character in George Orwell's Animal Farm, A Fairy Tale (original title).
   First, they declare what I call the "GOLDILOCKS spectrum of acceptable coat color." Determined NOT by God, NOT by Mother Nature, NOT even by the toss of a coin; but it is declared by a committee of five. Can't get more democratic than that, can we?
   Then they and the larger Club attack unscrupulous breeders who market white, exotic and rare Golden Retrievers at  obscenely high prices-- as if the dogs were the problem RATHER than the breeders engaged in those activities. And of course nobody names names.
   Are we having fun yet? Who was the nefarious breeder who sold OPRAH her trio of "whites?" What other celebrities have been duped in similar fashion? Rumor has it that Drew Barrymore may be on that list of unfortunate, ill-informed folks. My guess, if this is true, is that she nonetheless loves her Golden of "undesirable" coat color a great deal. And I'll bet her Golden--  though only a PALE example of what a "TRULY" golden Golden Retriever should look like --loves her back in equal measure if not more.
   Funny thing. While the GRCA may shun a "horse of a different color," the dogs they own do not discriminate. Gold coats, red coat,s cream coats get along just fine, thank you. Sadly there are owners who treat their dogs like they treat their children. It's fine if your child has a black or Jewish or even Muslim playmate-- even possibly one who has two "mothers", as long as they don't marry one or choose to follow a lifestyle you find offensive-- once they develop sex organs that function. 
   To there credit there are some leasders in the Golden Retriever community who see the benefits which may accrue by combining American and English type Golden Retrievers. Or dogs of different birth colors. Some say so; others actually DO so. That is the true meaning of ONE BREED, ONE Golden Retriever.

  

THE NAME GAME RECONSIDERED--GRIGS & SLUTS

   The phrase, Color is essential in defining the breed as the "Golden" got me to thinking. Where do some of these breed names come from anyway; and is ANY one of them truly necessary to identify or characterize the breed properly?
   The AKC Standard for the GREYHOUND includes no less than 31 distinct color possibilities. Not one on the list is actually GREY or GRAY. If you check your etymology dictionary (doesn't everybody have one of those?), it turns out that the word greyhound is from the Old English. The word is GRIGHUND-- grig (bitch) plus hund (dog). So I guess when you put a grig in a room with a hund you get a bunch of little greyhounds-- if you're lucky.
   Now consider the origins of the Chesapeake Bay Retriever. It involves a rather dingy red DOG and a black SLUT. At least that's how it was described in 1845 about an event which occurred off the coast of Maryland in 1807. It seems that an English brig headed home from Newfoundland was caught in a sudden storm and ended up on the sea bottom. But before it sank the crew (described as intoxicated) and two Newfoundland- type puppies were rescued as well. Sailor was the male and Canton was the female. But the young dog and the slut never got together "so to speak" even though they had unrelated bloodlines. If you haven't guessed, the word SLUT was commonly used for a bitch at that time. Anyway, one pup ended up on one side of the Chesapeake Bay while the other spent its lifetime on the opposite shore. They were bred to local dogs and together, over time, gave rise to what we now call the Chesapeake Bay Retriever. So, here is an example of a breed created by accident-- or rather AN accident, a shipwreck.
   What about the dog we call the Australian Shepherd? If you guessed it was a breed which originated Down Under, you would be dead wrong. Apparently what was to become the breed had its beginnings in  the Pyrenees Mountains between Spain and France. The breed was further developed on ranches in the western United States. Why call it the Australian Shepherd? Did it resemble a koala or kangaroo? Perhaps a wallaby or a dingo? Nope. The Australian monicker was added because the breed was refined in the West by folks from the Pyrenees who had emigrated to Australia before settling down in the United States. The dogs went through a litany of names, including Pastor Dog, Blue Heeler, Bob-Tail,  and Spanish Shepherd.
   What of the French Bulldog? Actually he developed from a toy variety of English bulldogs of one sort or another. The first organization in the world devoted to the breed was located in America of all places. And the arrival of the dogs had a good bit to do with whether the dog should have "bat" ears or "rose" ears. Go figure.
   What does this have to do with the Golden Retriever? Well, early on, the breed was called the "yellow" retriever and kind of lumped together with the flat-coated retrievers of the time. They were sometimes identified as Tweedmouth retrievers because they were developed by a Scottish lord of that name and his descendants and acquaintances who followed. Some American observers called them English retrievers. For a good many years the belief held by many was that the Golden actually developed out of a troupe of white or near-white (some say biscuit or cream in color) Russian circus dogs. This romantic theory lingered far longer than expected; even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Factual evidence. Mrs. Charlesworth went to her grave believing this to be true.
   I would remind folks that the Australian Shepherd was for a time called the BLUE Heeler, even though coat color in the breed ranges all over the map.
   My point: A name is a name. There is far more to the Golden Retriever breed than the shade or color of a coat.  Jeffrey Pepper, a breed expert, has commented,
           "....I believe that if I see a dog's head in profile in a car two vehicles away from mine, I should be able to quickly identify what breed he is without knowing his color."
   As the author said earlier in the same paragraph, "The head is the index to the breed." And a good judge can distinguish among the six retriever types, if the head is proper for the breed.
   I wonder what the result would be if we were to blindfold judges and ask them to rate Goldens on the basis of structure; then, allow the judging process to continue. Just a thought. 

   .
   

When the LAST Thing Is REALLY the FIRST Thing--Believe What YOU Want To Believe, But Don't Expect ME To Believe It

   There is a steady chorus of claims that coat color is the LAST thing a judge LOOKS at or SHOULD LOOK at when assessing a Golden Retriever in the conformation ring. As you might have guessed, the word LOOK is operative here. Let's examine some statements made by THREE of the most knowledgeable leaders to be found in Golden Retriever circles.
   We are told that color is ALWAYS a minor consideration. Such a view was expressed in May of 1938 by E. F. Rivinus in the AKC GAZETTE.
       ... regarding the tendency on the part of American judges to confuse the Golden Retriever with Irish Setters. The typical English Golden of today is different.
   Notice that the writer uses the phrase ENGLISH Golden. He goes on to say the following:
        Finally, as to color, let me urge judges not to fault a dog too quickly for being light...the standard leaves considerable room for variation as to color, so, in the case of an otherwise good dog, let it be a relatively secondary consideration....
     Of course two years later Rivinus also suggested strongly that we should resolve "there will never be one group of dogs for show and a totally different group for the field."  And much earlier President George Wahington strongly suggested that we avoid forming political parties and not involve ourselves in entangling foreign alliances. Sometimes the best advice falls on deaf ears.
   Bev Brown says there is but a single breed-- the Golden Retriever. To quote the author, "The breed standard adopted by the GRCA and GRCC was essentially the same as the British Standard." And further that, "...both American and British Goldens are Golden Retrievers through and through and descend from the same foundations."  There are differences in type, to be sure; but they pale in comparison to those elements which distinguish the breed. To Brown, cream is merely a SHADE of gold, NOT a separate COLOR. She is convinced that the British Breed Standard agrees with her. She states, "In fact the British Standard specifies cream as an allowable shade." Later she comments,
        ...it behooves breeders to remember that the breed was founded as a gold-colored retriever, hence the name Golden Retriever, and maintaining some golden coloring in the breed's coat color is worthwhile, regardless of where it is in the world.
   I would argue that Brown misreads the British Standard which to nearly everyone else speaks to both gold AND cream as allowable colors, not shades. Valerie Foss has said," ...If we are to breed and judge to the British Standard, all shades of cream and gold should be acceptable." Whether in error or by intention she SWITCHES the terms CREAM and GOLD in her discussion.  And, minor point, the first "Goldens" were actually yellow pups. And I would add that Tweedmouth did not seek to produce red Goldens at all, though he added Irish Setter to the mix.
   I also wonder why it is "worthwhile" to have a gold presence? Because of the name, apparently.
   Brown says that color should be a minor consideration in the show ring.  But also,
        ....Theoretically, if you have two Goldens of equal overall quality in competition, and one is extremely pale or extremely dark the dog that is somewhere within the allowable range of color should receive the higher award. The allowable spectrum is really quite broad, and only dogs described as cream or dark red should be faulted. Also, rather than the undesirable extremes at both ends of the spectrum, there is no preference for one shade of gold over another.
   So, Brown says color is a minor consideration.  But that is only AFTER you disregard certain entries in your mind because they fall outside the acceptable color parameters.  The FIRST thing you do as a judge, therefore, is to dismiss certain dogs from serious consideration SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR COAT COLOR. The LAST thing becomes the FIRST thing in your decision.
   Jeffrey Pepper pretty much echoes the sentiments of Brown. Regardless of coat color, even if cream or overly red in hue, ALL are Golden Retrievers. He goes on to say,
        More importantly, color should probably be the last thing considered when evaluating a Golden Retriever. There are so many other facets of the dog that are much more important than color. Unless the color falls outside the accepted parameters, choosing a dog based simply on color is almost always a mistake. Those who judge the breed should pay particular attention to this statement. I have judged Goldens all over the world for more than twenty-five years, and in all of that time and with all of those dogs, there has never been a time when the winning dog was chosen based on color. I have never been in a position of judging two dogs that were so equal in quality that there was nothing but the color left as the deciding factor.
   So, once again, color of coat is the LAST consideration but only AFTER Pepper FIRST decides which entries will NOT MAKE his final cut due SOLELY to coat color which falls outside of HIS allowable spectrum.
   As he says, ....Dogs that appear totally white or very light cream with no hint of gold in the coat...fall outside the parameters of acceptable color.
One can't help but wonder what sort of ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT Pepper made when he judged everywhere else in the world except the USA (and Mexico--big whoop). In all other nations CREAM is an ACCEPTABLE COLOR and non-issue in the conformation ring.
   Like Brown, Pepper seems to question the proper interpretation of the British Breed Standard.
        People often ask which standard's color requirement is more historically accurate. That is hard to know. ....it is probably correct to think that the cream color is a bit lighter than that of the original dogs. Some earlier authorities on the breed believe that the change made to the English Breed Standard in the mid-1930s was done to allow for the light shadings often seen  on the feathering of Goldens and was not intended to permit a predominant body coat color of cream. Many others would disagree.
   Pepper said that as cream-coats came to dominate in the United Kingdom, winners were used as sires,  resulting in many Golden Retrievers with cream-colored coats. But he quickly reverts to SHADES of gold rather than distinct colors when he points out that the key elements in judging must always be those required by the breed standard. To this reader it sounds like he is not convinced that the British Standard calls for TWO separate COLORS. And, the author adds,
        ....I feel that the predominant color should carry at least some hint of a golden hue, not a biscuit or cream color.
   And Pepper agrees with Brown in the following regard.
        Basically a coat that is so light that it appears to be cream-colored (what I tend to call  a "vanilla retriever") or so dark that it approaches an Irish Setter red should be faulted. After all, the breed is called Golden Retriever....
   Finally, the thoughts and expressions of Marcia Schlehr, GRCA Historian, GRCA Breed Standard chair, and member of the GRCA Judges' Education Committee. 
        Color is essential in defining the breed as the "Golden." The Standard includes as acceptable a range from pale gold through deep reddish gold as the predominant body color.
   Dogs whose color is predominantly cream or off-white, or a dark red approaching the color of the Irish Setter, are not truly "golden" and should be judged accordingly. 
   Actually, the Standard identifies NO particular color at all beyond "Rich, lustrous gold". The parameters described by Schlehr were determined by Schlehr and the GRCA Judges' Education Committee. There is an additional phrase in the standard which states, "....Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable...."  The same Committee has taken upon itself to declare what "extremely pale" or "extremely dark" means. So, for all intents and purposes, this five-member committee has created the color range which we must accept; even though their choices are found NOWHERE in the Breed Standard itself.
   The author appears to have a fondness for the darker gold shades; while cream is described as dull and having an absence of glint, chestnut is included in her range of acceptable coat colors for a Golden. While she maintains that a dark red approaching the color of the Irish Setter is wrong for our breed, I guess if that dark red IS the color of an Irish Retriever, that's okay. The AKC Breed Standard lists TWO acceptable colors for the Irish Setter-- mahogany and...you guessed it, CHESTNUT. And, for the record, the appropriate color under the standard of The Kennel Club for an Irish Setter is ONLY chestnut. And believe it or not, the FCI Irish Setter Breed Standard names only one color as well-- chestnut. .
   Schlehr also chimes in concerning HER OPINION of the meaning of the British Standard. She says,
        ....But my impression is that the 'cream' as used then referred mostly to the admissibility of the pale shadings on gold-colored dogs, and not to the nearly white dogs we now think of as 'cream' colored.
   Her opinion does not include any documentation of any kind. Neither do the statements made by Brown and Pepper. Opinions and viewpoints morph into beliefs and are then accepted as facts(?)  That's no way to write the history of the breed.
   And in each case the author claims that color has little to do with the quality of a Golden Retriever. But they each say this ONLY AFTER they remove certain colors from consideration.
   To repeat Schlehr, COLOR IS ESSENTIAL IN DEFINING THE BREED. If you agree with that conclusion, all other considerations must take a back seat--conformation, movement, hunting instinct, and temperament. It's pretty much like parroting the old lady in the automobile commercial: It sure doesn't LOOK like a Buick! I refuse to accept the idea that COLOR defines our breed. 
   Pepper proclaims that,
        ...breed 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. Standards purposely use description such as ...'varying shades' ....
   The finally quote that I will cite from Pepper's book is a MISTAKE, but I can't resist closing with it.
        STANDARDS SHOULD BE CHANGED ON A WHIM OR TO MEET THE LOOK OF CURRENT DOGS.   
   I've left off the quotation marks, since I assume that Pepper has since corrected the slip. So we begin and end with LOOK. In this case, look what I found. 
      
       Sources:
   What Exactly Is An English Golden Retriever?--article by Bev Brown
   The New Golden Retriever-- book by Marcia Schlehr
   The Golden Retriever-- book by Jeffrey G. Pepper