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.
No comments:
Post a Comment