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. )