THE GOLDEN RETRIEVER CLUB OF AMERICA BYLAWS
Article I Name and Objectives
Section 2
To...advance and promote the perfection of (the qualities reflected in the breed standard)....
To do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by advocating responsible ownership and breeding of Golden Retrievers....
Before there was a cancer concern there was a serious hip problem in our breed. It remains an issue, although the Big C tends to get all the headlines in the present- day Golden Retriever world.
How did the parent club RESPOND? Was it a REASONABLE response to the crisis?
Folks love to go with winners. Without naming names, a TOTAL of FOUR Golden Retriever studs have been bred AT LEAST 384 TIMES. By the numbers: 144 litters, 97 litters, 81 litters, and 62 litters. At least that is true if you believe the information found on the k9data.com website.
What is most significant, however, is not the sheer number of litters which may have resulted in 2500 to 3000 pups, but in EACH case the sire had only an OFA FAIR rating. A number of the matings paired these outstanding dogs to bitches which had scored no better than FAIR themselves.
Did this concentration of breeding enlarge the Golden Retriever gene pool in any way? What affect did using borderline studs have upon the incidence of hip problems in our breed? Were there any words of CAUTION or CONCERN issued by the GRCA? Or was it not their job to speak out? Clearly there were negative consequences(?) Has our parent Club posted an article anywhere suggesting how a potential breeder should deal with the question? Or any other health issues for that matter? There are Goldens with OFA Good and OFA Excellent hip ratings. These dogs would certainly seem preferable for use, though obviously not the only consideration.
The GRCA has at least two articles on its website condemning the use of Golden Retrievers to produce "designer mutts"-- cross breeds. They refer to Goldendoodles by name; but so-called "Comfort Goldens" deserve equal criticism. But aside from the articles, WHAT ELSE has our breed club done? Have sanctions of any sort been placed on a single GRCA member who has bred these animals? Have they been suspended or expelled from the GRCA? And whose role is that anyway? The GRCA Board, the Membership Committee?
Similarly the GRCA has posted an article attacking unscrupulous breeders who falsely advertise rare, white Goldens for which they charge astronomical prices in some cases. Trained puppies with various levels of advanced "degrees" are offered for sale in the five- figure range-- $12,000 to $15,000 perhaps. And there are countless idiots out there willing to pay those prices. Aside from WARNING unsuspecting buyers of this, WHAT ELSE has the GRCA DONE? What else CAN it do?
And I would add, SHOULD the GRCA play any role at all in pricing pups? Do we instead let the free market and law of Supply and Demand determine matters of economics?
There is no question but that good advertising techniques can "juice up" demand for a product. How many of us fought the temptation to own our own "Pet Rock" or paid to send a "Cabbage Patch" doll on "vacation?"
The entertainment industry-- sometimes unfairly --has taken a hit for promoting breeds not fully suitable for everyone. As kids we may have wanted our very own "Rin Tin Tin" or perhaps a "Lassie" or a "Beethoven" or even ONE of 101 Dalmations. Or perhaps a dog like the one that was thrown down a laundry chute. Or that cute puppy in the dog food commercial.
The GRCA ladies got their collective undies tied in a knot and complained about Oprah at the National meeting in Atlanta a few years back. Miss Winfrey, an icon to many for her great personal success ,was criticized roundly for featuring her three "white" Golden Retrievers on her television show and in her popular magazine.
I might add that when a leading member of our organization publishes a book on our beloved breed AND includes about a dozen or so photographs of cream-coated Golden Retrievers, he himself is in a sense advertising this coat color and lending to it a measure of credence and acceptability. True, the written commentary makes it clear that he rejects the color personally. But the photos most certainly may impress the reader. My family purchased such Goldens as a DIRECT result of seeing them in such a publication; which caused us to go on line to learn more about these unusual and impressive dogs.
No one seemed upset by "Liberty" lying at the feet of President Gerald Ford in the Oval Office. Nor did I hear a negative "peep" about the exploits of "Air Jordan." Of course they were GOLD Golden Retrievers.
Does the GRCA live in a bubble? Is it "Under The Dome" as if it were living in that popular fictional tv town? Are American -Type Golden Retrievers the center of the Universe, perhaps the only LEGITIMATE Goldens in that world?
For all the coverage that the GOLDEN RETRIEVER NEWS gives to the English Type Golden Retriever, perhaps it should be RENAMED the AMERICAN TYPE GOLDEN RETRIEVER NEWS.
The English Type Goldens have arrived in ever increasing numbers from overseas origins. They have been bred in large number. Sometimes to like type, while often being crossbred to American type and Canadian lines as well.
When the history of the breed is featured in the Golden Retriever News, there seems to be no effort made to cover the more RECENT breed history in either Europe or Down Under. But it is being made every day none the less. It may not be the job of the GRCA to cover Golden-related news beyond our borders. Yet there are health issues in common regardless of geography. That's just one example.
The GRCA can do its best to marginalize the English Type Golden-- regardless of coat color. But it WILL LOSE that battle. More sensible heads may understand and undertake an outreach program of some sort. That would be good for all concerned. Most important, the Golden Retriever itself.
Which leads us back to ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS. Does the GRCA have ANY?
Punishment accrues to those who violate the GRCA Code of Ethics. But in what FORM?
Does the Club presume to have any power-- beyond the bully pulpit --to control prices, shut down "puppy mills," curtail the questionable activities of "backyard breeders," and such? And does this presumption of power bring with it any legal justification? Legal authority?
It seems logical that there should be a reasonable REGULATORY ROLE for a national breed club. And don't ask the AKC for help. For they have ceded nearly all decision-making authority to the individual breed clubs chosen by them. The AKC does NOT write the breed standard. It merely approves it. Why keep calling it an AKC Breed Standard when our Club has created it, and has the sole authority to revise or replace it? Does anyone believe that this all-breed organization would react in any legal way to anything the GRCA did with reference to the standard?
The GRCA may LAMENT certain practices conducted by owners/breeders/exhibitors who are EITHER Club members or not. Talking to the current 4,000 or so members in good standing is pretty much like preaching to the choir. But what about the many thousands who are not affiliated with us in ANY way? How do you reach THEM? Rearrange the letters in LAMENT and you get MENTAL. "Talk Is Cheap." Posting something on a web page is at best a mental activity unless backed with some means of implementation. This is especially true when the messages are so often negative in tone.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment